Review of Miller's Crossing (1990) by Nicolas K — 13 Nov 2010

8.2/10.

"Miller's Crossing" is not amongst the Coen Brothers' best films, although it's close to being one. It just barely misses the perfection mark. Still, there is much to admire with this film. Visually, it is astounding. But it's also well written, often times humorous, well-acted, and intelligent; just as a Coen Brothers film should be. The film is a showcase of common Coen Brothers-fare, and that's why it's both good and imperfect. I love the Coen Brothers, so that is a good thing. But then again, nothing new means nothing interesting most of the time. Well, that does not go for the Coen Brothers. Just because their talents consist of great cinematography, an eye for acting talent, and great writing does not entail that any of it gets old. I love it as long as they keep the good stuff coming. However, they do not come without their flaws. But then again, that's what makes them so goddamn balanced whether half of their films are just barely escaping mediocrity or not. None the less, this is a great film from the duo; a smart period piece. This gangster drama may not be the most memorable cinematic experience, but in no way is it forgettable. I do not regret the experience; quite in fact I enjoyed (nearly) every moment of it. What can I say; the film was delightful, in a twisted/violent sort of way. You know: the usual Coen Brothers-fare. Reader be warned: this is not a good way to start with the Coen Brothers. Start with "Blood Simple", as I did long ago. THEN see this movie, for it is not worth a miss. That is unless you can't stand heartless movies such as this. Its own heartless tendencies drew me into the film. It is a paragon of pure interest from start to finish. Fun to look at, interesting to watch, and even more fun to absorb: that is what "Miller's Crossing" is. The only thing it isn't is a classic.

The Coen Brothers tell similar stories most of the time. One of them is that of a man (or woman) who takes on a personal quest which renders them down the path of eternal darkness over time. This is one of those stories. Tom Reagan is the confident of Irish Gangster-Political Boss Leo O'Bannon. When an Italian rival named Johnny Caspar shows up and expresses his wish to kill a man named Bernie, who is the brother of Tom's "lover", Tom expresses his own views on the matter. He says that he wants to protect Bernie, which greatly angers Caspar. Leo then goes to war with Caspar, throwing Tom into the middle of it. Tom eventually goes to work for Caspar, who shows him the dark side of criminal action. They capture Bernie and in the woods, he begs Tom for his heart and his forgiveness (best scene in the movie). When Tom fails to shoot Bernie and lets him go on his way, the matter is only complicated further. As it turns out, Bernie is not ready to go away. He comes back and attempts to blackmail Tom. This causes even more conflict as Tom attempts to get Caspar to go in for the kill. But...ah, screw it. It's not worth spoiling any more of the plot. This is a well written film and I wouldn't want to ruin the experience. I liked the execution and the outcome was satisfying. There were several outstanding moments of considerable power that stood out against the more typical moments scattered throughout, and that's why this movie works: because it has moments of high tension and emotion. I'd say this movie is completely heartless much like its main character, but a film of such artistic craft needs to have a heart to get by.

Gabriel Byrne is a talented man, as far as I can tell from his performance. Byrne gives off such good vibes in this film, playing such an intense and dare I say heartless character. And it takes a big character for me to call them "heartless". The word is not one I enjoy using lightly. I use it here only because the character himself claims that he is heartless. And according to definition, he most certainly is. But Byrne's performance has plenty of heart in it, at least enough to move it far towards greatness. John Turturro gives one of his most eccentric and interesting performances to date in "Miller's Crossing". When Turtorro's character begs the main character for mercy, there was such power in his fear and stuttering. I can't say I know what compels me to praise it so, but what the hell. I say it's memorable. Albert Finney gives a nice performance, as does the ever-so-delightful on-screen playfulness of Jon Polito. Otherwise, there are some very good cameos in this film, one of them being a couple good-earned seconds from Steve Buscemi. Let me tell you: he deserves more time than most people involved in this film. He is a great actor with great skills, and he's going to do great. Enough said.

The Coen Brothers make delightful films which are (mostly) delightful to watch. While most of them start out either lightly or heavily, each and every one has at least one bloody or violent scene in them. That is the Coen Bros' signature touch; a dash of darkness. In "Miller's Crossing", the darkness is imprinted in the film from start to finish. This film reminds me of how violent the Coen Brothers can get without going terrifically over-the-top. I like their sense of restraint without restraint. They are courageous men. "Miller's Crossing" literally caught my eye. It's as visually beautiful as any Coen Brothers movie, featuring more dazzling cinematography a minute than my eyes can typically handle at the moment. However, I was able to swallow all of it by the end. I cant' say that it was the most difficult thing to do. The original soundtrack/score was also pretty good, although by no means was it masterful. Most of the better pieces were the mellow ones, as on the contrary some of the better SCENES were the more intense ones. That's odd for the Coen Brothers, since some of the best stuff in their films comes out of silence. In this film it is not as so. Most of it comes out of scenes such as the begging-in-the-woods one as well as the baddass-old-man one. The elderly are back, and kicking loads of ass.

To fans of the Coen Brothers, definitely see this movie. Anyone else, see it too. If you are not entirely new to the Coen Brothers, that is. If you are, then go someplace else first. Start with one of their first GOOD movies (that means NO "Raising Arizona") and then come back to this beauty. Regardless of whether it's truly awesome or not, there's still a whole lot to consider with this film. It is very artistic visually and is a very well written gangster-period-piece. I like me a good period piece, and while this may not be one of the bests, I can say that it was worth my time. After all, who doesn't like good acting, good visuals, and good direction combined into one pretty-damn-great film? Not me. I like my films that way, as long as they are truly artistic. And "Miller's Crossing" is for sure an artistic film. So go on and see this movie, for while it is not one of the Coen Brothers' best films of epic perfection, it is still one of the good ones. Take it as you will.