For some reason I had put off watching this film for 25 years. Just watched it and it's great! Some briliant characters involved in a great plot. Don't make my mistakes and watch straight away.

Why was I disappointed?1.) The Cohen brothers always develop unique and entertaining products. But this one in my view was a dud.2.) I am a fan of Gabriel Byrne so I was intrigued to see him in a starring role as an Irish gangster. Unfortunately he did not come across as a realistic gangster. I think he got beat up on at least three (3) occasions and he just seemed to cower in the corner and take his beating like a scared school boy with no retaliation.3.) I am also a fan of Albert Finney and the one scene where he gets attacked at his home and his mansion is set on fire, he jumps out of his bedroom window to escape the attack. Before he jumps out of his bedroom window he throws one of his assassins tommy gun's out of the bedroom window, which he turns on the assassins getaway car as he walks calmly down the road in his pajamas and slippers. After he sees the car run into a tree noting to the audience he killed all of his assassins I asked myself one question? In an earlier scene we see that mobster boss Leo (Albert Finney) has at least 50 of his hoods protecting him just in his hallway alone, but yet at his mansion it appears he had only one (1) bodyguard protecting him during the evening? 4.) Besides the above points it was hard for me to imagine Marcia Gay Harden as the only love interest of both Leo (Albert Finney) and Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne). She certainly did not come across the screen as a vixen, nor seductress.5.) Lastly, I got the feeling that the film came across more as a stage play, than as a major motion picture release. There was so much emphasis on Gabriel Reagan's tough Irish portrayal of mobster Tommy Reagan, but yet his character came across to me as shallow and scared, and not as the smart thinking hard drinking/smoking Irish mobster made man that he was portrayed as.Overall I was disappointed in Miller's Crossing, and I am not trying to be overly critical but I find it hard to understand how over 110,000 IMDb users have an average rating of 7.8 for what I deem is a lackluster crime film release. I can only assume I need to watch the film again to see what I may have missed which places it in a near 8.0 IMDb rating?I can only give Miller's Crossing a 5 out of 10 rating. No more, no less....well maybe less, but I like the Cohen brothers body of work so a "5" rating it will stay.

I would echo the review of Pclark in nearly all aspects. I want to add something that I am going to flag as a "spoiler" even though it isn't about the plot or the movie, per se: It is about technique. Miller's Crossing does an absolutely brilliant job of taking things to an exaggerated level (dialog, plot, characters, everything), but never crossing the line where you would not take it seriously while watching it. The Coen Brothers just weave magic around the hyperbole line: They run right up against it, but never quite cross it. Miller's Crossing is truly a singular film: You will find nothing else like it anywhere.

It took me three views to figure out the entire plot. It is a terrific story about the incorruptible at the bottom of the heart that can't be told but can't be beat. Dashiell Hammet, wherever he is, must be applauding. The first time I was caught by the style. The second time by the acting. The third time by the craftsmanship of the plot. The nice thing about the 30's is that corruption was so simple then. To the people who lived in it, personal loyalty was the only thing to hold onto, or not. This incredibly elaborate movie is simply about one man with that one motive. The plot, of course, is something else. A violent war between gangs gets won by wits after so many twists and turns that you wonder how someone can be so smart... oh, and there is lots of black humor. If you like film noir, and if you think nothing new could be done with it, watch this movie.