User reviews

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.

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.

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

Like its predecessors, 'Pusher III (2005)' is, essentially, a comedy of errors where the errors are fatal. Nobody trusts anybody else, which is why even the most simple - not to mention genuine - misunderstanding can often result in nothing short of death. Of course, double crosses do occur in the movie's world of drug dealing and other dodgy business practices, something which makes distinguishing between honest mistakes and malicious decisions difficult for practically all those involved. It also doesn't help that these people all put on a veneer of kindness, appearing as a friendly face and appealing to each other's assumed 'better nature'. Milo, an ageing drug lord struggling to maintain his relevancy and keep up with the pace his lifestyle demands, is perhaps the epitome of faux friendliness; he even tricks the audience into thinking he is a nice guy. His smile belies his true, ruthless nature and his Aunty-esque cooking obfuscates his capacity for violence. He isn't a nice guy, but he wants you to think he is. That doesn't mean he isn't good to his family, however. In fact, most of the picture sees him preparing the food for his daughter's expensive twenty-fifth birthday party. It takes place over the course of a single day, following Milo's exploits both as doting dad and cautious criminal. The conflict of the feature often comes from the way in which his two lives encroach on one another. As his daughter's party settles into place, his criminal enterprise begins to destabilise. This is due to, as I mentioned earlier, a series of misunderstandings. It's also due to the fact that our so-called hero can't speak Danish quite as well as those around him, leading to frustration on both sides. A deal goes wrong and a language barrier prevents it from being repaired; a deal is struck and a language barrier prevents one side from understanding its true nature. Communication, or lack thereof, and mistrust are the prevailing themes here. As is stress, which builds and builds alongside the protagonist's harmful desire to break his five-day clean streak and smoke some heroin. In some ways, the movie feels more like a slice of life than a straightforward narrative, though those two things obviously don't contradict one another. This is mostly due to the way in which it ends. I won't spoil things, but I will say that it sort of just fades out. This is a little disappointing when it occurs, primarily because there are several plot threads that feel as though they're left loose. However, it's actually quite a strong note on which to finish. It ends with a sigh, almost an admission that the protagonist's life can't continue this way. It caps off the overall narrative and reframes it as a realisation that something needs to change. The feature isn't as lethargic as this may suggest; it's as often overwhelming as it is genuinely funny, balancing its stress and tension with its dark comedy surprisingly well. It's the funniest film in its trilogy, for sure. That doesn't mean it isn't grim, though; it features the goriest sequence in any 'Pusher' film. It also isn't afraid to explore the immoral actions of its characters, presenting them in non-judgemental way without coming close to endorsing them. It's an art film at its core, despite its rough exterior. Its protagonist is trying to survive in a metaphorical sense, trying to stay afloat in a world that no longer needs his skills while somehow providing his daughter with the life he feels she deserves. That's a rather poignant theme, even if it isn't as resonant - or, I suppose, apparent - as that found in 'Pusher II (2004)'.

'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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

This film follows a drug dealer by the name of "Milo" (Zlatco Buric) who was an addict at one time but, within the last week, has decided to kick his habit and go sober. To that effect, he attends group therapy to help him in this endeavor. One major problem is that his connections--along with his close proximity to illegal drugs--makes dealing with the temptation of using narcotics much more difficult. Throw in the fact that he is actively sponsoring the birthday party for his 25-year-old daughter "Milena" (Marinela Dekic) and the pressure is almost more than any person can handle. That being said, when a drug deal he is actively engaged in goes bad, things really take a turn for the worse from that point on. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this film started off well enough, but it started to focus too heavily on some rather sordid details in the last 20 minutes or so--which slowed everything down at that point. Likewise, the ending was much too abrupt and left a number of key questions completely unanswered as well. At least, that's the way it seemed to me. Be that as it may, while I applaud the production of this film on such a limited budget, I didn't particularly care for this movie, and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly below average.

Weakest of the three, for me.

For large portions of 'Pusher 3' I was not truly feeling it as it was giving major 6/10 vibes, yet by the time it's gut-wrenching (pardon the pun?) final few scenes had concluded I actually wasn't unhappy with what I had just sat through. As noted, I do believe it's below the original two flicks but it kinda works still.

The major reason for that is Zlatko Buric. I'm not sure what it is about his (relatively low-key) acting but I just really enjoy watching him perform. He's solid enough in the 1996 and 2004 flicks and I like him in 2012, so finally getting to see him in a lead role I was actually unsure if he was lead worthy - but he is, just about. Buric kept my interest in the film alive, that's a fact. I see he later 'reprised' the role of Milo in the 2012 remake... weirdly. I'll have to check it out one day.

The rest of the film doesn't spring any major thoughts into my head, if I'm truthful. I will not forget that final act though - they sure went there!

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 2005 finale in Nicolas Winding Refn's trilogy now focuses on our favorite drug supplier Milo, again played by Zlatko Buric (who essayed the same part in 2012 remake) & how he has to juggle his upcoming celebrations for his daughter while maintaining his drug business. When an expected smack supply instead shows up as ecstasy, Buric hopes to recoup his money by giving another client the drugs for him to sell in lieu of the money he owes him. While he awaits for that matter to resolve itself, he's also putting on the finishing touches w/the hall his daughter's birthday will take place at where we clearly see who wears the pants in the family as the daughter runs over him rough shod. W/the party underway, calls to the ecstasy guy go unanswered which puts Buric in a tense mood (he's also a recovering drug addict as we witness him attending meetings) which puts him in a tight corner when his own supplier encroaches upon his turf in an attempt to sell a sex trafficker's wares goes horribly wrong. Easily, for me, the best of the bunch, w/Buric's sad sack anti-hero capably finding the audience's sympathy (he may command a mini drug empire but his cooking stinks!) being the kind of man he is. Only when the film delves into the needlessly violent & distasteful scenes of typical crime depravity (a couple of bodies are carved up & disposed of by one of Buric's old running buddies) does the film go on repugnant autopilot & we wait for the more interesting character stuff to return.

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.

Milo, a drug dealer is trying to juggle family life with his shady business. Zlatko Buric nails the role, giving us a peek into the struggles of a criminal boss dealing with unexpected chaos.

The same style is used throughout the trilogy but this time a better story is attached with plenty of events happening along the way to keep you engaged.

THe best part of the film and the trilogy is the day to day nature of the story and the characters. Its not glossy, its not 'thugs life' these characters 'go to work' nothing more nothing less.

So from this perspective the trilogy is well worth looking at :)

To go back to the well a second time is risky. To do it a third time is truly tempting fate, but despite the odds, writer/director Refn pulled it off. Again.

This time the focus is on Zlatko Buric's Milo - the drug dealer who was a supporting character in the first two films. I wasn't a fan of Buric in the first film; I thought he came off as too friendly, too indulgent, and too passive a presence to be taken seriously as a feared crime lord, but here Refn and Buric have made that work for them.

The plot again revolves around money owed due to a drug deal gone south (Is there any other kind?), but this time the focus is on what it takes to hold onto what a man has built, especially as age advances, and a new generation wants a piece.

This sort of territory has been successfully explored in criminal settings before, in The Godfather trilogy, in The Wire, to name two, but Buric's slightly exhausted, slightly lacking in energy performance adds a sad note to this tale. If he was ever feared, it was a long time ago, and Milo is clearly now coasting on reputation.

Pusher III: I Am The Angel Of Death continues the second films focus on the family life of its criminal characters. Milo is here not only contending with rival gangs and drug distribution issues, but with his own drug addiction, and the 25th birthday party of his daughter who is used to getting what she wants.

This immersion into one particularly stressful day for Milo allows Refn to engage in the Pusher series' trademark vision of criminal life as a whole lot of sitting around, talking, nothing-happening punctuated by explosions of violence and chaos. This style lets us sit with the characters as they probe each other, try to establish trust, and occasionally resort to violence if they need to.

The movie wisely reintroduces Slavko Labovic's Radovan from the first movie; the gangster who is all smiles until he has to break your legs.

That unease, that tension between nothing happening/everything happening, friend/enemy, quiet/violence, resonates throughout the film. The handheld camera, the dirty locations and production design, the actors nervy energy all lend themselves to a sense that things aren't right.

On this busy day, we follow Milo from place to place, as he gets increasingly frayed, and the tension ratchets up, reaching boiling point in a finale that is as remarkable for its violence as for its unflashy, no-nonsense approach to that violence. Violence is simply a part of these people's lives, and as shocking as it is to us, it's just another chore for these men.

This film doesn't attempt to sum up the Pusher series (it doesn't even reveal what became of characters from previous movies) but taken as a whole, these films offer a window into life lived on the criminal edges of Copenhagen. A life of grime, paranoia, and violence. Taken as a trilogy, it's a serious achievement.

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.

The final part of Nicolas Winding Refn's Pusher Trilogy, Pusher III (I'm The Angel Of Death) centres on estranged drug baron Milo (Zlatko Buric), who is trying to quit his own addictions. But the pressures of his life, his age, and the fact that he has to deal with his daughter's imminent birthday party, all while dealing with another drug deal gone sideways, prove too much for Milo. Leading to a messy, and quite violent (and graphic) conclusion.

Zlatko Buric is amazing, hilarious and scary here. And gives an excellent performance as the troubled Milo.

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.

Come on - Pusher 3 is a perfect and very fitting end to an amazing trilogy of crime films that any self-respecting film fan will have seen. The performance of Buric as Milo is a masterful and surely one of the best in the trilogy. Refn never patronises his audience and always delivers. If more people could get beyond the subtitles they would be amazed at what they find. Pusher was a seminal film and casts a long shadow - however, Pusher 2 and 3 are very different films in terms of styling and shows a Refn maturing as a director and writer. It will be fascinating to see what he does after the Pusher series - word is that he is going to do a Viking picture with Mads Mikkelsen. That sounds pretty damn interesting to me, and proves that great European directors can create a body of work despite the difficulties they face with financing etc these days.

From hosting his daughter's birthday party to smashing an entire human's entrails down a garbage disposal in one complicated day.

What a fantastic trilogy. And to end it by focusing on the big boss man from the first two is a very atypical and brilliant move. Anyone who saw the wonderful Triangle of Sadness will recognize lead actor Zlatko Buric as the unforgettable character Dimitry, but I was extra excited to see him in that film because I already knew him as the boss from the Pusher trilogy. He makes for a wonderfully unique lead - it's really a bit fascinating how a merciless drug lord killer can be made so likable but Refn and Buric really make it happen here.

It's more of a "day in the life" experience than one might expect. On paper, the story might feel a bit incomplete, but when you watch it feels just right. The movie is nearly 2 hours but feels much quicker. The pacing is immaculate - it's a smooth ride that picks up gradually as it goes, until you get to the final act and...well, nothing is very smooth anymore, quite the opposite really. Some of it got me cringing! (in a good way).

Though the 2nd chapter was my favorite, this one came close, but really everyone should experience the full trilogy. It puts Refn's American filmography even more into perspective as well - it might make you appreciate his work more. It feels funny to say but I think the Pusher films are his most accessible ones. Now, I'm gonna go check out Copenhagen Cowboy...