Pusher III (2005) watch online HD

Storyline: 10 years have passed since the first PUSHER movie. Big-time drug dealer Milo (Zlatko Buric) is stressed. Milo attempts to quit heroin by attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings, a shipment supposed to contain brown heroin turns out to contain 10.000 ecstasy-pills, and it's his daughter Milena's (Marinela Dekic) 25th birthday, and Milo has promised to cook food for her 50 guests. Little Muhammed (Ilyas Agac) leaves with the ecstasy-pills to sell them for Milo, but soon Milo can't find him, and the Albanian-Danish gangsters who smuggled the ecstasy-pills into Denmark are stressing Milo for their money. Conidentially Milo meets Kusse-Kurt (Kurt Nielsen) who slips him a small amount of heroin. Soon Milo's finds himself in a spiral of bad decisions smoking heroin, sniffing speed and murdering gangsters. Is Milo's drug empire finally crumbling?

Each installment of Nicolas Winding Refn's docu-drama trilogy tells a story from Copenhagen's underworld, but from three completely different protagonists' POV's. PUSHER tells the story of middle-level pusher Frank (Kim Bodnia), PUSHER 2 tells the story of low-level criminal Tonny (Mads Mikkelsen), and PUSHER 3 tells the story of high-level pusher Milo (Zlatko Buric). The clear message of the trilogy is: you live by the sword, you die by the sword. All three movies end on very ambivalent notes. Frank gets killed... or perhaps he doesn't. Tonny breaks loose of his dead-end lifestyle... or perhaps he doesn't. And Milo's drug empire crumbles... or perhaps it doesn't. That's how life is. It doesn't just stop. Each movie keeps evolving in your head even after they've ended, similar to John Cassavetes' movies or Danny Boyles' 1996 masterpiece TRAINSPOTTING. It's certainly something one doesnn't experience in braindead Hollywood blockbusters nowadays.

Nicolas Winding Refn's PUSHER trilogy is obviously inspired by John Cassevetes' movie-making style as they are more instinctive than intellectual, because the audience goes through the same turbulent emotions as Milo, whether it's melancholy, joy or bitterness. It's not a very fast-paced movie (except for a few breath-taking scenes), but Refn manages to maintain an uneasy tension that keeps the audience on the edge of the seats. It reflects Refn's love for his (three-dimensional) characters. Refn's 95% non-Danish dialog (the cast mainly consists of immigrants) is somewhere in-between Quentin Tarantino and John Cassavetes: very self-conscious, yet also natural and realistic. The foreign languages only adds to the mysteriousness and danger of these immigrant gangsters.

The cast primarily consists of unprofessional actors, some even with semi-criminal backgrounds, and, naturally the great Zlatko Buric whom Refn has called "the new Dirch Passer". Buric brilliantly brings out Milo's two-face ambivalence and vulnerability of an aging man in a constantly changing milieu. Refn gets performances from the unprofessional cast that range from acceptable to great -- they all add to the realness and authenticity. Many of them, of course, more or less play their real life-themselves. Many of the PUSHER characters keep re-occurring throughout the trilogy. For example: Milo (Zlatko Buric) has a supporting-role in PUSHER, a cameo-role in PUSHER 2 and the main-role in PUSHER 3. Tonny (Mads Mikkelsen) has a supporting-role in PUSHER and the main-role in PUSHER 2. Kusse-Kurt (Kurt Nielsen) has a supporting-role in PUSHER 2 and a cameo-role in PUSHER 3. This provides a feeling of continuity to the trilogy's milieu.

Peter Peter (ex-member of the legendary Danish rock-group Sort Sol) has again composed the music in collaboration with Kyed. Although I preferred the 80's-synth-inspired score in PUSHER 2, this time it's effective, bleak and minimal. For example: When Kusse-Kurt slips Milo a small amount of heroin in the grill-bar, shortly after a disturbing, noisy, distorted guitar-riff begins clashing repeatedly with 4 second intervals. It underlines Milo's desperate mind-state. One minute later Milo walks into the restroom to smoke the heroin, where the clashing guitar sound slowly transforms into a beautiful, melancholic piano-tune to underline the heroin's effect on Milo. It's a good example of subtle use of music as a movie-language.

Refn's love for so-called trashy genre-flicks shows through-out his work. Although his movies (the PUSHER trilogy, BLEEDER and FEAR X) are more art-house than genre-pieces, they are loaded with references to his favorite obscure movies, most noticeably in BLEEDER. But also PUSHER 3 contains a subtle reference, probably not known to most audiences. The climax-scene in-which Radovan (Slavko Labovic) slices up the body hanging form the ceiling is an obvious homage to one of Refn's favorite-movies Paul Morrissey's FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN from 1973 starring Udo Kier. FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN is a an original twist on the Frankenstein franchise with necrophiliac undertones. Refn borrows his climax from the climax of FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN: the music, the chains slowly pulling the body up, the depraved depiction of human-flesh etc. As they say, the best directors borrow from their favorite-directors.

Although all three installment are semi-masterpieces I personally prefer PUSHER 3 by a few inches. It's more honest, more disturbing, and more experimental. I have experienced the first-mentioned first-hand, as I spend years in the drug milieu. Refn's PUSHER trilogy is a street-level counterpart to Martin Scorsese's gangster trilogy (consisting of MEAN STREETS from 1973, GOODFELLAS from 1990, and CASINO from 1995), because both trilogies portray the crime underworld from low-level, middle-level and high-level gangsters' POV's. I highly recommend PUSHER 3 especially if you enjoyed its successors, although, the re-occurring characters aside, it's not completely necessary to watch the prequels before experiencing this gem, but I recommend doing so. Watch it! 9/10

'The third part of Nicolas Winding Refn's Pusher trilogy is clearly the best. With each part, Refn's approach becomes more daring and complex. However talented his debut from 1996 was, and however innovative the second part, this third part has a charged emotionalism that is difficult to beat, along with tension and courage. I'm the Angel of Death - Pusher III focuses on the Serbian drugs baron Milo. In earlier parts, he was an extra, a feared power lurking in the background. He is not some grand godfather, and as a middle-ranking boss he has also been on the decline for some time, yet he should not be underestimated as an adversary. At first, he seems to allow himself to be trifled with. His spoiled daughter is very demanding in everything on her birthday. His gangster sidekicks have been put out of action by food poisoning - as a result of Milo's cooking. Albanian crooks cheekily try to take over his dealing turf. He obediently attends meetings of Addicts Anonymous, afraid of returning to his old ways. But don't trifle with Milo. Or you will come to a bloody end. With his trilogy, and certainly with this last part, Refn has not only succeeded in renewing the gangster genre, but also providing it with a new geography. The American mean streets have been convincingly replaced by the multi-ethnic pavements of a Europe that has not yet been given the profile it deserves.'

quoted from: film festival Rotterdam (2006), GJZ

I couldn't agree more. Go see this film. Sharing 'downfall' as the central theme, it's better than Scarface and even more realistic about non-Hollywood gangster life than the Sopranos.

Pusher 3

Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn (2005)

"Hvem jeg er? F*cking King of Copenhagen!"

This is the final part of Nicolas Winding Refn's "Pusher Trilogy" – a movie series about the life of three different persons with a relationship to one another. In the first of three movies Pusher (1996) we follow the drug dealer Frank and his problems when he drops a big deal. In the same movie we meet Frank's friend the bum Tonny and Frank's supplier Milo. In Pusher II (2004) we followed Tonny's life after he comes out of jail, and in Pusher 3 it is Milo's character that is the leading character.

The movie follows one day in Milo's life. He is helping planning his grownup daughter's birthday party and he has a major drug deal going on. But something in the deal goes wrong when Milo is tricked by his "partner". Milo now stands between the men he owes money and the man who owes him money. To solve all his problems Milo has to make some drastic and dramatic decisions and do some gruesome things. This includes among other things involving his old friend Radovan, known from "Pusher".

Pusher 3 is a great finish to Refn's series about the Copenhagen drug world. Zlatko Buric is amazing in his first leading role, as the old drug dealer/supplier Milo. If you liked his role and performance in Pusher, you will love him here! The movie has some very disturbing scenes and the cinematography helps the movie to appear very realistic. This movie shows a scary environment, interesting and frightening characters and contains a disturbing story.

8/10

Come take a look at the violence and depravity that goes on in ... Copenhagen.

Copenhagen? Yup. But this is pretty effin' far from Hans Christian Anderson and the Little Mermaid.

This movie caps Nicolas Winding Refn's gangster trilogy and veers off in a somewhat different direction from the first two. "Pusher I" and "Pusher II" were tense and violent movies about the Danish drug trade, but both had an element of comedy.

By contrast, Pusher III is one of the darkest movies I've ever seen and it has an extended scene at the end that would never, ever be allowed in a mainstream Hollywood gangster movie.

Pusher III happens in a 24-hour period as we follow along with Milo, a mid-level drug kingpin who is apparently a Serb. Milo has a busy day ahead of him. His daughter's 25th birthday is that evening and he's promised to cook food for 50 people. His product supplier got shipments mixed up and sent Milo 10,000 ecstasy tabs instead of the usual heroin. He's withdrawing from heroin himself and drops in at NA meetings during the day. His crew is getting ornery, giving him lip all the time.

Sigh. It's hard out there for a gangster. You almost feel sorry for the schlub.

Then, when a Polish pimp shows up wanting cash in exchange for a badly frightened 18-year-old girl he has in tow, things start to go bad.

This is in no sense of the word an action movie, although there are murders. No guns, either. It's remarkable how directors from outside the U.S. can take material Americans are completely familiar with and make it look completely different. Take the Korean monster movie "The Host" and the Swedish vampire movie "Let the Right One In." Familiar material. Brand new take.

"Pusher III"is like that. It has stretches where not much happens. But it builds to a horrifying climax all the more horrifying because it plays out utterly matter of fact.

And props to Zlatko Buric, who plays Milo. The camera is on him for the entire movie and we get to know every seam in his weary face.

First off, I have really no idea why the film has received so many 1 star ratings here-- Buric's lead role alone is worth at least five times that.

Now with that out of the way... The film is pretty much excellent. I can't see anyone who's liked the first two being disappointed with this one. The dialogue, the characters, the situations-- Winding Refn is becoming, or should I say has become, a true master filmmaker. I don't have much to say about the story, except that it has more in common with the first Pusher than the second one as it all happens in less than 24 hours. Furthermore, Milo's situation is somewhat like Frank's in the first one-- which is obviously quite ironic.

A few minor, almost intangible details prevent Pusher 3 from reaching perfect status, but it really is a tour de force of film-making. A couple of scenes are really extreme, but hopefully they won't keep anyone from seeing this first-rate film.

i actually went through the registration process on here solely to come on and defend against some of the attacks i saw of this film. i watched all three parts, and personally i felt this installment was a perfect and fitting end to the three. whether or not it portrays the drug underworld of that particular region to the tee is really not that important. it is a very human portrayal of a man who others likely see as inhuman, and without talking about the plot at all (don't want to do a whole spoiler thing)is a film that possesses a quiet, dark, and stark beauty. i have no possible clue how someone could like the other two and not the third, but as someone who watched them all, if you've seen the others, i would strongly recommend you watch this one as well. it is both haunting and strangely heartening, and you won't be disappointed.

The director Nicolas Winding Refn once again delivers a day of total agony and disaster. This day is almost as well presented as Frank's day in Pusher and gives you a look inside the life of a junkie, psychopath and father; Milo the drug-dealer.

Although the entire movie feels slow-paced there are few movies which will leave you as stunned and with such an ugly feeling inside your stomach. This one is truly merciless in it's presentation of the criminal world in Copenhagen, and globally, where nothing is tabu and everyone lives by a code as dark as charcoal.

This deterioration of gangster and his respect is a truly scary journey filled with disappointment, failure and death.

I found Pusher Three the best of the trilogy and would strongly disagree with anyone who bashes on this film. Of course, what makes the Pusher movies great is how realistic the scenarios are. Unlike Tarintino, who's dialog is tricky, sometimes too tricky, the Pusher films have simple, believable dialog. Similair to The Sapranos, Pusher III's appeal is seeing the personal life of gangsters. Milo is a chef and restaurant owner but a drug dealer behind the scenes. Its great seeing Milo go back and fourth between preparing a fifty person meal for his daughters 25th Birthday and settling a drug deal in the back room. A great movie that shows you the stress of a gangster trying to maintain his status as a family man. Milo is one of my favorite movie drug dealers. If your not into drugs, you probably won't appreciate all the minor details of the Pusher trilogy.

It must be hell being Milo. This film starts off as one of those "everything-goes-wrong"- movies that were so in vogue in the mid-nineties – although the focus here is not some spectacular heist but a routine heroin deal, all in a day's work for aging mid-level Serb gangster Milo.

In a way, the plot (not the film) starts out resembling that part in Goodfellas, where Ray Liotta has to keep his mind on a lot of different things at the same time and ends up being busted.

Milo also has a lot of things to mind – the heroin shipment from Holland, the preparations for his daughter's twenty-fifth birthday, keeping his NA appointments and actually staying off blow and tar for his daughter's sake as he's promised himself. The fact that he has to cook the whole birthday dinner for a party of 50 himself, and that his daughter is a full- blown Serbian bitch, surely doesn't help matters much.

Then there are some unforeseen complications which I will not discuss, but that seem to be evidence that the gods or somebody must be against poor Milo. Where most of the problems facing Pusher II:s anti-hero Tönnie seems to stem from his own weakness (and thus are perfectly believable), the combination of shortcomings that Milo faces seems a bit more far- fetched.

But anyway, that doesn't make this film less worth viewing. Just like the two other parts of the trilogy, it's a dark, depressing story full of characters and surroundings that seem perfectly real in every sense. The Scandinavian criminal underworld, with its Serbs, Albanians, Arabs and natives. Copenhagen is in many ways the heaviest of the capitals of Scandinavia, and has been rife with organized and not-so-organized crime since well back in the seventies.

One thing has to be said about the main character, Milo. The way he's portrayed in this film, I found myself having to remind myself of the Milo of the first Pusher film, the smiling gang boss having his henchman torturing small-time dealer Franke with electric wires. Whatever happens to Milo in this film, he's deserved it. Just keep that in mind.

This film is a portrait of a gangster boss. We witness the downfall of the once so cool and untouchable Milo that we got to know in the first Pusher film. Milo is trying to maintain his position in the competitive dopemarket of Copenhagen, but times are changing and younger generations are taking over. On top of this, Milo is trying to quit using dope himself and is attending meetings in Narcotics Anonymous, and he is trying to be a good father to his daughter and make her birthday party a good one.

Nicolas Winding Refn has a way of making my stomach twist and turn like no other director. I can watch gore and splatter films no problem, but the cold and cynical violence in the Pusher gets to me, because it is set in a, for me, very realistic environment. I'm not sure that I like it, but one thing is for sure; it works. The character descriptions are, as always, very believable. The mixing of a lot of the different languages of the different gangs is a funny feature, that I like. Technically, the hand-held camera works okay, but it's not the best. Music and lighting effects are great.

The film is not as good as the first Pusher film, but it has its moments, Zlatko Buric is enjoyable every second, gore is for gore-lovers, the Pusher "mood" is there and it is a fine ending of a remarkable and original trilogy that the danish film scene can be proud of.

I frequently visit the IMDb pages of movies I like. I've noticed that Pusher 3 normally oscillates between a 6,6 and 6,9 user rating (very rarely goes over 7). I personally gave it a 10.

I have derived a conclusion. There is a wide gap between people who like this movie (in my opinion the best of the trilogy) and people who hate it.

And I understand that the love-hate dichotomy can be explained by a simple fact: this movie is too violent. Picture two Yugoslav gangsters in the back of a restaurant, tying a rival to a chair and beginning the questioning with a plastic bag at hand. Then picture the same Yugoslavs (actually a Croat and a Montenegrin) at midnight in a dark basement looking where to plug an electric saw... This is not the typical popcorn movie of a Sunday afternoon.

This is how I explain the relatively low rating: there are some who are rating this very high (8,9,10) while some others have left the theatre with an unsavoury taste and are voting accordingly.

I liked Pusher 3 because of what the director recreated on the screen. The entire movie is dark in tone. After seeing Milo and his accomplice methodically dispose of two bodies, I felt like I needed to go outside and feel the fresh air, or listen to the current of a flowing river carrying crystalline water, the shades and aroma of green pines in the background.

Pusher 3 is a depiction of hell on earth. The underground hell in flames where torture is inflicted by demons doesn't exist: hell is the back of a restaurant, hell is (maybe) the guy who sits next to you in a AA meeting.

The movie left me with a bitter taste -and not just because of the violence. Like someone else has commented on this board, there are many unresolved issues (like the warning of the Police to Milo in case Kong of Copenhaguen went missing, or the reaction of Luan upon noticing that his associate Rexho is missing).

Paradoxically I think that a proportion of the viewers are still sympathetic to Milo (despite killing at least three persons in the movie and committing a number of other crimes). His defendants will argue that he was under a lot of pressure: from Luan, from Rexho, from her own daughter... The same defendants might go as far as saying that he protected a Polish girl who had been abducted and brought clandestinely into Denmark.

On the other hand the prosecutors will cite Milo's continued abuse of drugs, despite his commitments to end it and his visits to AA (or NA). Every time Milo takes drugs there is a before and an after eventually turning into his own Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. To the prosecutors, Milo is a ruthless monster, despite his caring for his daughter and his best intentions to please her.

The one thing on which defendants and prosecutors may agree is that Milo is at a crossroads. His influence is waning and his Serbian gang is coming into direct collision with newcomers from also the Balkans (Albanians) and from the Maghreb. His own daughter wants a piece of his turf (if not all of it).

Danish filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn directs and writes the third and final film of his gritty Pusher trilogy that explores the character of Milo played by Zlatko Buric, who hasn't given up his dominance of the Copenhagen underworld. Refn shows how hard this ruthless, feared man can fall over a harrowing twenty-four hour period, in which bad judgment, naiveté, and addiction nearly cost him an empire. He's frustrated, insecure, and tired of being taken for granted. And just like Tonny in "With Blood On My Hands," he can only be pushed so far.

A decade later, we find Milo in a NA meeting on the morning of his daughter's 25th birthday, for which he has promised to cook for 50 guests. A task now seriously derailed by the unexpected appearance of 10,000 hits of Ecstasy. Gripped in a nightmare of multitasking and becoming increasingly strung out on drugs, Milo must maneuver his way through the consequences of a botched drug deal and a new generation of pushers who covet the infamous title of "Kingpin of Copenhagen."

It's striking how dissimilar "Pusher III" is from "Pusher II," given that the two films are made back to back on a very tight timetable. "Pusher II" is full of poetic abstraction as an attempt to express Tonny's inner torments. 'Pusher III" relies on the repetition of frames, locations, and narrative beats. Except in a few key moments, it's not nearly as hectic as the others. You can't argue with hard-hitting, powerful filmmaking, and that is undoubtedly what's on display here. Refn's movie renders a nasty, harsh existence among the world of criminals competing and scheming well below law enforcement radar.

Buric offers a terrific performance as the unraveling drug lord being steamrolled by demands he is not equipped to deal with. The movie digs deep into the angst of a drug kingpin—a junkie himself—nagged by business details while being taunted by younger rivals. Like everybody else in the Pusher films, Milo contemplates what it would take to leave the mob life behind. "Pusher III: I'm the Angel of Death" pulls no punches. Viewers beware: it doesn't get much darker than this.

Well, well, well. What can I say? Either you love this film or you hate it.

I'm not going to write about the story - it's been done already I can see. All there is to say about this film is, that in my opinion, it's fantastic!!! Do NOT expect a high-octane action flick. You'll be very disappointed. It's more of a slow, quiet drama, with a main character that's SO fascinating, you can't take you're eyes off him. Zlatko Buric is so good in PUSHER 3. The end-scene/shot says it all - I can watch the film over and over again just for that scene/shot. The whole film is in that shot! Beautiful!

The PUSHER-trilogy could not end better, than with PUSHER 3. So, just watch it, experience it, see it, hear it.

It's common knowledge than when sequels and the likes are made, they never quite live up to the originals reputation, and in the case of the Pusher trilogy, this proves truer than ever. The first one was a massive shock, reached cult status and still bears ground.

Part two and three however gets worse by the second. The director Nicolas Winding Refn must be laughed his socks off at the people who spend money watching this drivel - he even openly told the public from the start that these two movies were only made to earn him the money he lost in his American project "Fear X", but it shows so clearly, cause there two films are not thought through at all..

Worst however is the case with part 3, it is so obvious that the director was looking for something this film would be remembered by, and what it is, is some very explicit scenes of a dead body getting halal butchered and then put into a garbage disposal. Going from a good realistic drama (part 1) to a poorly made splatter film (part 3) is not the right way to go.

So many people claim this film is true to nature, but obviously they never experienced the drugs environment in Nørrebro. This is exaggerated and openly tributes extreme violence - it is no wonder the youth of today is getting so mixed up with people like Refn cheering them up, putting more and more fire on the stake.

Shame on you, Refn...and please stop here, don't make part 4 as you've already threatened to do 1/10 - only cause a "0" wouldn't change anything...

The final sequel to the shaky pusher series is by far the worst and most embarrassingly bad. Was looking forward to it in a way, as liked the first one, second one was a big step down but glued together by the fine acting of Mads Mikkelsen, just about. Third movie; afraid to say; is the worst of the worst.

Seen Pusher 3 at the Premiere of the Copenhagen Film Festival, and went in with expectations very low and came out very disappointed, almost angry; I paid money for that "movie".

It all centres around Milo, who had;guess what; a drugs problem; and guess what; someone whats to remove him from his own turf; even his own kids. He has a party for his daughter that he plans.; yawn; I think the problem is Milo is more of a caricature this time and the surrounding cast are cardboard cut-outs.

What surprised me is a) where is the story? b) where is the character development c) Wheres is the appeal to an audience...there is NONE in this movie.

The Danish press, who are usually very kind to our own filmmakers, gave this very very bad reviews, I usually do not care what they say; but this time I agree - I actually think they went easy on the film! A movie that sucks is a movie that sucks.

I for sure will be shocked if this sells more than 100 tickets, and I feel sorry for those 100 who throw away there money - BUT you have been warned!!!!

Pusher was brilliant. Pusher II lost a little in plot but acting and directing kept it up. Pusher 3 though, loses it all.

The story focuses in on Milo, who in the first two seemed powerful in the Copenhagen "underworld" - but here he is turned into a pathetic chef. The motive is, I guess, to establish how younger "talent" is trying to break in on his territory - but it leaves you wondering what happened in between the movies so that went from being able to cough up any dope requested if the price was right - to now not being able to pay for MnM's.

Also I get the feeling Director Niclas Winding Refn doesn't trust his own touch anymore, as he uses a lot more score in this one to enhance the scenes. Some of the violence (or more accurately: the gore) feels like it's just there to be shockingly real - but unlike the first two Pushers, here it doesn't come across like that. More like "let's have a gore-fest".

I heard a story from Denmark that Winding Refn called a newspaper before Pusher 3 opened and asked them to give it good reviews. Instead the reporter wrote about him calling for reviews. That just about sums this movie up - a desperate attempt by a desperate director.

Pusher III is a good and apparently realistic round-up of the life of drug criminals in Denmark, with strong focus on Serbs living in Denmark and mostly dealing with shady stuff. Events are strange, but logical, although a lot of questions arise regarding the competence of Danish (police) authorities... Compared to previous episodes, the script is rather strong, although there was too much scenes about Serbian traditions and too little about Denmark (presumably intentional).

The cast is, however, "weaker" (= less catchy), Zlatko Burić as Milo outperforms others, but still, he is no Mads Mikkelsen or Kim Bodnia, I would have expected more charisma and management in his role. But all in all, there is not much to complain, Pusher III is still a far-above- average film about honour vs. betrayal, money vs. happiness, with several twists and giggling moments, but pushers are no heroes who live happy and glamorous life.

Zlatko Buric returns as Milo for the last film in the trilogy. He is looking quite a bit older. He is working on a big drug deal while planning his daughter's (Marinela Dekic) 25th birthday party. With her stressed out and nagging, I can see things as a little tense for Milo.

The party doesn't go smoothly, the drug deal is going wrong, and Milo is trying to deal with this and stay clean at the same time.

The most interesting part of the movie was when Slavko Labovic shows up to help Milo clean up some of his mess. It was the highlight of the movie.

The Pusher was the best of the three, but this was not bad.

Pusher 3 only makes sense, if you have seen the two first ones. First of all, those are FUNNY MOVIES, it is not social realism.

It is a combination of black humour and violent action. Everybody laughed at Milo and Frank in Pusher 1, where Frank had yet another problem, and Milo said with a heavy accent: Well Frankie, how many problems you really have, huh?

Pusher 2 also had some good jokes in it. "Can't we just rob the shop? No my brother did that last week".

But Pusher 3 has a totally different style. It starts out with Milo being very very stressed, and that stress-feeling works well in the movie. Then things start to slip out of Milos control. This plot can be made in many intelligent ways and hit some climaxes of various kinds. But it wasn't. It slowly loses energy until it reaches a very bloody and very long ending scene. Well, I have nothing against bloody endings, but they must be motivated by a good build-up, and in this case, it doesn't work. Especially when it is so long.

However, the music / sound effects work great. There is an eerie feeling throughout the movie, but he could have spent 5 more minutes (the double amount of time) on writing the script.

So my overall conclusion is: He ran out of ideas, but he had a deadline. I am not going to recommend this film to anybody, be warned against it!

This turned out to be a perfect end to Refn's fabulous Pusher trilogy. What is amazing is how the mundane aspects of our lead's life are seamlessly mingled in with a cyclopean disaster that is part and parcel with his vocation. In fact, it is the tedium that we are exposed to that amplifies the tragedies in a way that cannot but lead to a gut-punched effect. The acting was spectacular, especially since many were not actors per say, with a few real-life criminals thrown in for spice. The dialog was not witty but perfectly chunky, showing the actualities of a cosmopolitan city with its many differing ethnicities and languages. The story was of a day turned foul, with familial obligations at loggerheads with a business deal gone awry. The result is no bueno. The score was utilized to perfection, especially when used to underscore a decision that would fuel the spectacular denouement. Genruk' Evil Eye Reviews

Pusher is one of the best movies iv ever seen, actually its in the list of my top 10 favorite movies.

Unfortunately both Pusher 2 and Pusher 3 are horrible movies, but as bad as Pusher 2 is Pusher 3 is even worse. One reason that this movie is so bad is because of the very poor acting. But then again for me Pusher is Frank (Kim Bodnia), when I heard Kim Bodnia wasn't going to be in the other 2 movies I knew it wouldn't be a good movie. Another thing is that there is not really any story, its more like lets take some kokain kill some people chop them up and go to bed.

Horrible!!!!! Absolutely Horrible!!!!! 1/10

In the third (and final) installment of Nicolas Winding Refn's PUSHER trilogy, he takes a look at the Serbian drug lord from the previous two films, Milo. Taking place over the course of a day, it follows Milo as he has to balance preparing for his daughter's birthday celebration and try to work out a drug deal involving ecstasy pills (that he thought were going to be heroin). It's also revealed in the film's first scene that he's a member of Narcotics Anonymous. What makes the film, or at least Milo, compelling is the way he balance his personal and professional lives. He also struggles with addiction as he peddles drugs to other people. These discrepancies are what make him a complex and interesting character despite being surrounded with a bunch of one-note gangster/pusher types. Perhaps it's because I was a bit burned out from the previous two, but I found that this one didn't do enough different to make me really care about the story. Sure, Milo was interesting enough but by this point it felt like Refn was simply going through the motions. At times, this felt like a slower, feature length version of a rather famous scene in Goodfellas: the one where Henry is high on coke and goes back and forth between his house and several other locations as he cooks and picks up guns, drugs, etc. Still, the PUSHER III does have one scene towards the end where Milo disposes of some bodies that was able to capture some of the brutality and gruesomeness shown in the previous two films. From a technical standpoint, the film is done in a hand-held, documentary style that aims, and mostly succeeds at, capturing a day in the life of a gangster. Acting, from what I could tell, seemed to be pretty good or at least on par with the other two films in the trilogy. The score this time wasn't as memorable, but there were a couple key moments that were punctuated with a sound resembling the Hans Zimmer "bwwaaaaaaa" that has become common-place in movie trailers. Overall, I didn't find this film as interesting as PUSHER II, but it still was a well-made film and I'd be hard-pressed to call it "bad." If you've seen the other two, by all means check this out. If not, I'd stick with the first two (especially the second one).

The third installment of Pusher trilogy follows Serbian drug lord Milo (Zlatko Burić) during preparations for his daughter's wedding. At the same time there are some business issues to tend to. The market for synthetic drugs is becoming more sophisticated than in the previous two movies, so Milo has to catch up with a whole new range of players.

Nicolas Winding Refn stays dedicated to the documentary approach when filming Pusher 3. Although we're following a man who should be near the top of the food chains of narcotics, there is still little glamor in sight. Milo is capable of surmounting almost anything that befalls him, but the main question remains: Is there an end to this? Probably not, but he is still alive, implying there are thing he is doing right, after all.

This movie was apparently the second sequel to what was by all accounts a fairly popular and well done first edition.

I knew none of this when I picked it out of Netflix streaming as a movie from Denmark. Netflix didn't carry the first two more popular movies.

It would have been as though a Danish person picked out and watched Psycho IV with out any knowledge of the original Psycho Anthony Perkins or anything else....and Psycho IV had been made with a hand held camera and a budget of $2,000.

What I saw were jumpy camera shots of crummy Russian mafia bars and restaurants in Copenhagen. It was the day in the life of an unattractive middle aged drug dealer (Milo) who celebrates his daughter's birthday...gets cheated with some bogus drugs...and to round off the day kills someone manhandling a young girl being sold into prostitution. He then also kills someone who happens in on the murder scene.

He and and another Russian thug friend dispose of the two bodies by literally butchering them.

The movie did somehow keep your interest more than it should have..not sure if this was because everything about it was so out of mainstream...or there is some quality there I am not recognizing.

DO NOT RECOMMEND

perhaps not, yes without doubt Milo character went undeveloped so one whole a better alternative from the beginning release this story for that in a TV-show followup-development. Still think pusher 3 shows very dramatically a criminal culture aspect of the deep fears running thru Milo's head. mixture of feelings about this last of (3)triology,crappy script;low tempo no surprising movie tricky moments.Guess it better could fit more into a TV-drama release instead of a fully blown movie. anyway, 9 stars for Milo. Im not in favor of trying to make a comparison to the films before, all of them have their type of message, and thats what i intend to look for.