Pusher III

I'm the Angel of Death: Pusher III

I'm the Angel of Death: Pusher III

I'm the Angel of Death: Pusher III

Moviecut—Pusher III

Can someone please explain how the open endings are the 'significance' of the films?...I think someone doesn't know what they're talking about!...And pleeease, how can you possibly suggest a pusher 4? the idea of another open ended, unfinished film is completely insane. The fact is, Nicolas clearly can't come up with any conclusions about his characters; leaving the story to the audience?...pull the other one! And to think they're doing a UK release of the whole trilogy in June, we sooo don't need that! I supposed those of you needing subtitles in English will be satisfied, but if you ask me, you were better off without the translation.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.