If you think "What's the rumpus?" is good, realistic dialog, the I don't know why I should bother wasting my time talking to you.
I think "Miller's Crossing" is unadulterated crap, you think it's the greatest film ever - clearly there is no common ground here.
I think it's good, yes, realistic? When watching a film what is realistic? Realistic for a gangster film starring an Irish gangster, yes, 100%, it's delightful. The fantastic think about the film is that the Coen Brothers put their own unique spin on a genre that has many famous films in it already, it's unique but has a fantastic feel.
Next you'll be telling me the dialog in
Pulp Fiction is poor and unrealistic. And I really don't understand how someone could find it 'unadulterated crap' to the extent you do, even if you didn't enjoy it, surely you can enjoy the craftsmanship and skill behind it, it's a beautiful film in more ways than one and I don't know how you at least don't like at least one of the many fantastic elements that make up the wonderful picture.
And no, I don't think it's the greatest film ever, but I think it's one of them. Jim Emerson, arguably one of the best critics on the net ranks it his 12th best of all time, I'll paste in some more from his review that basically sums up everything great about the film.
When I wrote the review below in 1990 (which I've reworked a bit here), I said that the Coen brothers' third feature, Miller's Crossing, might be the first great film of the new decade. Eight years later, I don't think it even has any competition as the greatest film of the 90s so far. Movies this rich and complex (in theme, story, visuals, performances), that reveal their insights into the human heart with such exquisite nuance and timing -- well, they just don't come along all that often. First off, the picture is so gorgeous you want to climb into it -- but it's not superfluous beauty; it sets a tone, a mood, that haunts you long before you quite know why. The Coens always create a world with each new film, but for this one they practically came up with a new language, too -- a kind of deliciously snappy hardboiled gangster slang (worthy of Billy Wilder) that you instantly understand and want to adopt, even though it's never existed outside of this movie. One more thing: Every scene in Miller's Crossing is essential so that all the pieces may fall into place in the last shot. But although you might think that the film's crucial moment is the one in the ads -- and the one you see here, the climactic execution at the crossing in the woods -- there's actually a very brief earlier scene (the only appearance of Steve Buscemi as a weasley fellow named Mink, excerpted at right) that off-handedly sets up the entire picture. It seems like a throwaway, a chance encounter as Tom is on his way to meet someone else, but so much information is packed into this brief exchange that the mind boggles in retrospect. In depth of feeling, plotting, character, and texture, Miller's Crossing is the Coens' masterpiece, a movie people will still be watching and loving and studying decades from now.
The common ground is what everyone else thinks about the film, and the majority would agree with me or at least appreciate part of the film. And my statement about it being one of the greatest is hardly that silly, two of the highest posting members here also happen to hold it in high regard, Honeykid has is in his top 100 and Mark gives it four stars which would place it around his top 300 (and he's seen almost every film worth seeing), Donniedarko and Linespalsy also give it four stars and they're strict when it comes to rating films from what I have seen.
I am okay when people criticise films, but to attack it and completely disregard everything good about the film and label it 'unadulterated crap' and the 'worst picture ever made' deserves a response like this one. You've just basically criticised it from all angles, direction, acting, plot, dialogue, without substance.
Reply to Topic
You are perceptually incompetent. 
