Ebert gave it the high hat.

This film is utterly incredible. Just finished watching it and it's definitely one I thoroughly recommend. I can't believe I went so long without watching it. Gabriel Byrne gives a performance for the ages in my opinion. This film does not get talked about with the same level of adoration as other gangster movies. Even though this film is so much more than that.

Ebert is complaining that it isn't clear at the beginning. It isn't, but it's all clear at the end. You just have to give the story time to tell itself. It may have been too early in their career for Ebert to trust the Coens to tell a story.

Whatever. Never listened to critics. This Film is Awesome. I’ve seen it at least 6 times.

Ebert missed on this review. Miller's Crossing is a gem. This was not film making by committee like so much of today's drivel. M.C. was about as close to an art house movie as Hollywood could make.

Miller's Crossing is my favorite film of all time. Absolutely brilliant. Ebert was way off. Siskel nailed it.

**spoiler but it’s worth pointing out why Ebert was wrong** Why did the two other gangsters (Frankie and Tic Tac) not bother to witness or check on Tom walking Bernie out to the woods to murder him, trusting that the sound of the gunfire was sufficient to convince them that Tom indeed killed Bernie? Because Tom told Johnnie and the Dane where Bernie was! Not only that, but Tom went with Frankie and Tic Tac to pick up Bernie from his hotel hideout, and drove all of them to the woods! At that point, Johnnie’s gangsters knew that Tom was willing to give up Bernie to at least them, expressly for the purpose of being killed, and Tom was also a willing accessory to the murder by driving them to the woods. They were careless sure, but it’s totally acceptable storytelling that they would be lazy enough to not bother walking from the road to the woods and back because they trusted Tom to do the job, knowing he was totally ok with *_someone_* killing Bernie. If Ebert considers scenarios like these to be so unrealistic that it bothers him- to the point he’s trying to convince Siskel that Siskel also has a problem with the film- I can’t imagine how many other movies with minor “jeez why did they do that, but ok” scenes got ruined for him by having an unreasonably high standard for characters’ decision making

This movie required more than one viewing. After you know the characters you see the masterpiece that it is. The dialogue is second to none imo.

When you realize how wrong Ebert often was.

This is by far the best Coen Brothers film. Gabriel Byrne should of won a Oscar for this role. And, Ebert was wrong about his view of this film. I know No Country is also a great movie, but this one is a cut above most gangster movies except for the The Godfather and Goodfellas...A perfect script, good direction and actors who where perfect for their roles.

Well Siskel was right about this one.

My favorite part is Polito’s explanation of the meaning of “ethics.”

Ebert said the story started wrong because of all the names that were mentioned in the dialogue, people we dont know so we dont feel any relation to them. And that is true..but if you watch Millers Crossing for (lets say) the third time and you already know all those characters..then you realize how brilliant this film actually is Same with Fargo. It gets better everytime you watch it. And like Millers Crossing, the story of Fargo also started with a lot of detail and names

It's one of my favorites. As a dumb 20-year-old when I first rented it, I was confused and unable to keep up. But the film is so incredibly great that in my tenth or fifteenth viewing, I finally got it figured out. Each time I re-watch it I find something new to appreciate. As for the Two goons not checking for the corpse the first time, they paid for it when Eddie Dane beats them up for not doing so.

Did Ebert think his cheap rhetorical devices would talk Siskel out of liking the movie?

One of the Coen's Brothers underrated gem 💎. Great performances all around especially Finney.

They miss the mark by categorizing this as a gangster movie, and then measuring it by those standards. It's a movie about gangsters, but the sub-genre is noir, especially when it comes to the plot.

It's a perfect parody of film noir/gangster: filming and acting techniques in particular, also film noir character and script tropes. And all that on top of very solid script. Ebert somehow didn't catch any of that and I find that hilarious.

I watch this film ALL THE TIME. MAGNIFICENT DIALOGUE AND ACTING

Greatest of all the Coen Bros. films.

I'm surprised neither mentioned the source material for the plot, Dashiell Hammett's novels Red Harvest and The Glass Key. Both had convoluted plots. In that sense, the film wasn't as original as Siskel said. But the acting and the dialogue in this film was brilliant.

Ebert's review was beyond ridiculous, he's been proven wrong as the film endures as a classic also all the characters come clearly into focus as the movie progresses. The opening is magnificent the old Irish gangster doesn't know it but he's about to be supplanted as boss of the underworld. One of my all time favorite movies, great characters and the dialogue making this a great film.

The crispness of the dialogue is what always makes me laugh when watching this movie. The scenes work even if you don't get the comedic elements, but it so much better if you do. This is a fantastic movie. Definitely the most underrated of all the Coen brothers films.

The Danny Boy scene is still my favorite of all time.

The best movie by the Cohen brothers. Excellent cast, Gabriel Byrne and Albert Finney are superb in their roles.

My favorite gangster movie ever. I think. Lol

Extremely underrated gangster movie, it's right up there with The Godfather and Goodfellas.

The odd occurrence where I'm on Siskel's side, and Ebert is way off the mark. However, I will say I did not "get" this film the very first time I saw it. It takes a couple viewings to really catch everything, and get a proper understanding for the particular type of dialogue.

Yeah, yeah.... There are some credibility issues with the convoluted plot but, jesus h christ... This is one of the most entertaining movies ever, and I mean EVER, made. It needs to be seen twice (at least) if only to catch and release the 1920's jargon. It's crazy that Miller's Crossing and Goodfellas came out the same day. Because they both represent the epitome of the gangster film in totally different ways.

A great piece of filmmaking.

*spoiler alert* When they go looking for the body in the woods, the body they discover is Mink (Steve Buscemi), killed and placed there by Bernie. Duh.

Curious that the fellas don't realize that Miller's Crossing is (kinda) a remake of The Glass Key. Also they don't mention (or just miss) the love triangle between Mink, The Dane, and Bernie which just complicates the plot further.

I love this film. Why it’s overlooked, God only knows.

I remember seeing this movie first as a teenager. Had almost no clue what was happening in the story but I really liked it, and in that sense I can understand why Ebert didn't like the movie as much, but when I later rewatched it I realized that (like when I first saw it) you don't really even need to pay attention to the story at all because the atmosphere and dialogue and acting and set pieces are all fantastic. Though when you DO figure out what's happening in the story it really elevates the movie even more.

I find it weird that in every Siskel and Ebert review, people always comment “Ebert got it wrong” or “Siskel got it wrong”. How about they just have a different opinion? I’ve come to the realization that a lot of Siskel and Ebert fans aren’t particularly open minded to other people’s subjective opinions

Ebert didn’t give a bad review. He recommended it. He just liked it more for technical aspects than dramatic aspects. I love it, but I get some of his points.

It's my 2nd favorite movie of all time. It's brilliant, and anyone who says different has simply missed it.

“Muss-tudh! The kid likes musstuhd”

My jaw dropped when they went to check in the woods later in the film and found a body. Dark comedy with elements of Surrealism. The cyclical nature of the dialogue and storytelling was amazing. An utterly unique gangster movie. I love the Coen bros. If you understand their angle on cinema, you will adore this movie.

I adore this movie.

I usually prefered Siskel's takes.

Favorite film of all time. JE Freeman (Eddie Dane) RIP

Woof, Ebert missed hard on this one!

great film and good on Ebert for sticking to his guns

Ebert was usually right but here he was just dead wrong. Miller's Crossing is in the top 3 Coen films, if not *the* best.

Lmao Ebert was having a bad day. I tend to always be on the side of whoever likes the movie in these arguments. 😂

Take your flunky, and dangle!!!

I really enjoy this film as well!

I hope Ebert ended up rewatching this movie, there’s too much to take in on a first viewing. I only recently got that the body in the woods was Steve Buscemi character that John Turturro killed. Man this review was sad also the opening monologue is awesome it’s sets up Leo and Casper’s characters right from the beginning

I saw this movie in the theater when it first came out. I loved it then, and I still love it. Siskel and Ebert are not infallible and do have a considerable history when it comes to bad film reviews.

You're a bunch of fancy pants...all of you... -gasbaro

I love this film its one of my favourite of their films.

my god, Ebert hated Raising Arizona too. That doesn't play well for Ebert all these years later, a big miss. RIP to Roger though, no hate, just a critical disagreement

Great movie 1990 and 2024

Looking back on this review, the Fat One is an idiot, and skinny one is right. Decades later this film is still GENIUS.

I can’t believe Marcia Gay Harden played a hottie. She’s so different than everyone else she’s played.

Siskel was right.

R.I.P Siskel, Ebert and Albert Finney.

Mink, The Dane and Tutturo's character are all gay... I only found that out a few minutes ago.

Ebert was wrong about this movie.

Ebert didn't get it. That's ok. Tik Tak didn't either. . .2 in the Head and one in the heart. Easy Peasey. It was the mink layin with his brains blown out . . . . And the shmatta Kid got the same at the end. . Jesus Tom

I have not stopped laughing since I first visualized somebody giving the "high hat." 😂😂😂😂

I think both of them do make good points, but I think what really sticks out is when Siskel says "it challenges you", which it seems Ebert missed. I also think the movie benefits from multiple viewings, which I think Ebert would have liked it more the second time around.

I love the Coen brothers but sometimes they can be too smart for their own good.

That was a strange review because it didn't seem that they fully understood the plot of the movie it's one of the reasons why I don't really like critics because I think they become lazy and just mail it in so to speak

When I first saw this I didn't care for it. Very confusing. Now it's one of my favorite movies. It takes quite a few viewings to appreciate it.

It's a Great movie 🍿

The reason he gave for not liking this movie is a bit ridiculous; The Godfather does the same thing

It's a mash-up of Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest and a little bit of The Glass Key...i thoroughly loved this movie, i re-watch it every year.

Siskel and Ebert had the same taste in movies as Travis Bickle.

TV was not a good medium for these two. I remember saving written reviews by Roger Ebert because of their thoughtfulness not just about a particular movie, but of moviegoing as an experience and of life in general. He was an impressive writing critic. As we see here, when having to speak to fit into a time slot he comes across as arrogant. A pity, really.

So the one guy isn’t that smart I guess.

I get Ebert's point. It goes on and on and on. First time watching it earlier today. I loved that final ending and music tho. But I watched it, I might have been sleepy so I turned it off twice and then finally finished it. It's not a bad movie. Hopefully I'll give it another view someday now that I've seen it

Miller's Crossing is one of the best in the 90s. Period. Full Stop

I love Siskel and Ebert but I think the idea that you must be farmiliar with old gangster movies to understand this one isn’t true. I think it’s very complex but it’s not a genre whatever whatever

The pinnacle of their film making. Ripped off from THE GLASS KEY by Dashiel Hammett, but a magnificent film!

Ill take a high hat

Wow, those glasses were clearly decorative because Ebert was blind as shit here.

🤣 I love these two 🪽🪽💛

I've found Ebert is off on a lot of important movies. He gave passes to insipid block-busters but tended to go hard on creative films. He would find something about them that 'bugged' him. This was such a strikingly original film, its hard to imagine him nit-picking it the way he did.

Completely agree with Ebert that the first half is frustrating. A lot of characters talking about other characters that we don’t care about. Thankfully though, the movie really picks up, I think the last half is incredible.

Roger Ebert, who is a real blowhard in this review, couldn't easily slot it into a category, so he dismisses it. I had to watch it a couple of times (okay, 3 or 4) before I got all of the nuances. But never did the film "go on and on and on" until it leached out all pleasure. Quite the reverse! But of course, the two dumbbell assassins didn't go back to check that the guy was really dead. They weren't supposed to be terribly bright. And this failure set up what followed. I wanted to yell at Ebert here. Thank you, Siskel, who got it.

Miller's Crossing is a great film -- which I've seen many times over -- but I do agree with Ebert that there were scenes that could have been shorter. And it's still my second fav Gabriel Byrne movie...next to Usual Suspects.

Roger should have worked in an interrogation room lmao

Ebert doesn't understand dark comedy apparently.

Look sometimes they’d get it wrong. For the “Casino” episode Siskel hated it!

Roger Ebert missed the boat on this one, just because it can't easily be slotted into a character study. He just didn't get it. But today, it's hailed as a modern classic. The two guys who didn't go check on the murder were a plot device; they were incompetent. They HAD to screw that up, so the plot could unfold.

Ebert didn't really like it. He was wrong, as he often was.

Jesus Ebert....

I say to Ebert..so fukn what..??

Ebert hated more talented people than himself

Proof that Ebert often didn't know WTF he was talking about and would downrate a movie for being too smart for him.

This is one of the greatest movies ever made ... and the dialogue is criticised? You can't please everyone, least of all frustrated critics.

Hey Ebert, why don't you take your flunkie opinion and dangle. (I usually agree with the guy, but sometimes he's so weirdly wrong. They didn't check for the body first time cuz they knew Tom, thought he'd go through with it. Plus, they're lazy.)

Damn… never seen this before (I used to watch Siskel and Ebert when they were on TV). My problem with Ebert’s review is that he comes off so closed-minded, as if only his opinion matters, even challenging Siskel with whether or not a scene makes sense. Seems to me that Ebert just “didn’t get it.” I’m willing to bet that after the Coens became more renowned by critics, Ebert regretted having this review on record.

It’s funny Ebert says the plot was too messy here. But with his review of The Big Lebowski he says the plot being messy didn’t matter.

Ebert would be a huge Michael Bay fan

It aint elves

I agree with ebert

"Don't get me wrong. There is a lot here to admire. Albert Finney is especially good as Leo, the crime boss, and Jon Polito is wonderful as Johnny Caspar, his rival, who keeps talking about "business ethics." One of the most interesting characters in the movie is Bernie Bernbaum (John Turturro), a two-timing bookie who pleads for his life in a monologue that he somehow keeps afloat long past any plausible dramatic length. The pleasures of the film are largely technical. It is likely to be most appreciated by movie lovers who will enjoy its resonance with films of the past. What it doesn't have is a narrative magnet to pull us through -- a story line that makes us really care what happens, aside from the elegant but mechanical manipulations of the plot." Ebert - October 5, 1990