samuel_ronalds
"Pusher III" is the final installment of the gritty and often bleak trilogy. The film maintains the conventions so well established thus far - a commitment to realism, subdued plots, and strong characters brought to life by intelligent writing and refined acting. It also maintains the same visual style as established in the first film and improved in the second - a graceful yet documentary-like style of camera-work, coupled with tasteful framing. Like its predecessors, "Pusher III" utilises a character-driven plot, and focuses on the tension surrounding the main character, who is Milo - the drug lord central to Frank's deterioration. At first, this seems like a strange decision, and one that is somewhat hard to take seriously - however, the trilogy's trademark writing, of inferred depth and subtle drama, manages to cast Milo in a light that, as a supporting character in the previous films, we haven't yet seen him in. The film focuses on Milo's struggles with drug addiction, as well as his efforts maintain a balanced family life in the face of his criminal work. Unfortunately, there are two drawbacks regarding plot points that ignite the film's narrative. The first regards the usual subplot of missing or owed money - this section of the film's narrative is initiated, yet again, by a drug bust going faulty. It seems at this point in the trilogy to be a somewhat cheap excuse for implementing tension within the criminal aspects of the plot. However, the decision to initiate this subplot does, in fact, pay off later on in the film. The second drawback is the initiation of the second subplot - Milo's relapse into drug use. This is started when a particularly unlikable character from the second film pays Milo a visit, and whimsically hands over some heroin before leaving. Why he would hand over such an expensive drug to someone he has no plans of reconnecting with is bizarre, accentuated by the fact that this character is never to be seen again - this particular plot point feels like an arbitrary interjection for the sake of kick-starting the suspense within the film. However, once these subplots are started, they work beautifully - they converge into the singular and central plot of the film, focusing on Milo's increased burnout and dependency on substances. We watch him become subordinate to people he dislikes, and lie to his daughter in order to conceal his habits. There is still one more weakness in the sequences of events, in which Milo is moved to kill a Polish pimp. It is not this act itself that is somewhat faulty, but the specific event that spurs this into motion - the pimp's prostitute attempts to escape, and she does so because the pimp momentarily runs to the bathroom to vomit, leaving her free to make a getaway attempt. This feels like yet another arbitrary moment written in for the sake of the plot, yet its snag is minute. While we are on the topic of this particular scene, it's perhaps worth mentioning that, during a moment wherein the Polish pimp pours boiling water over the prostitute's arm, the actress's screams are all too fake - this, too, is only a minor drawback. However, what follows is the film's most rewarding scene - a lengthy sequence involving Milo and his former henchman, familiar from the first "Pusher" film, dispose of the body. This scene involves the men hanging up the body, draining it of blood, and gutting it. This sequence seems all too real, and while it may seem to contribute nothing to the narrative, it is one of the most telling scenes. Throughout the film Milo is depicted as losing more and more self control, culminating in him murdering two men purely out of rage, and it is during the sequence in which the dead Polish man is drawn and gutted that Milo's final mental state is on subtle display. He is careless - helping himself to the victim's watches, almost forgetting to wear gloves, and picking up his coat instead of his apron. Throughout the scene his expression seems blank and pitiless, and it is apparent that he has reached a point of mental defeat - while he still seeks to avoid the reparations of his acts, his demeanour gives the impression of a complete lack of care. Milo has spent the whole film being stressed, and now he is completely burnt out, and sees no desire in stressing any further, and no reason to stress anyway. This isn't, however, a liberating notion in any regard. This demonstrates another element characteristic to the "Pusher" trilogy - of nuanced narrative reinventing. Whereas the first in the series was a crime-thriller, the second film balanced this with the presence of a family-drama. "Pusher III" maintains both these films and instills them with the overarching traits of a psychological-drama. This is accentuated by the use of music - the abrasive rock instrumentals are entirely gone, and are replaced almost entirely by ambient pieces, with the exception of a couple of transgressive industrial pieces. Much like the second "Pusher" film, the music is paired exceptionally well with the visuals and narrative, however it does possess the tendency to lend an easy and perhaps shallow method of displaying visceral, psychological scenes regarding Milo - these scenes will often feature slow-motion shots of the character staring into space, often out of a window, accompanied by an ambient piece. While these scenes are aesthetically meriting, they do little to display what is actually going on in Milo's head. Despite this, the film's narrative manages to pull off its slow-burning approach, and appears to be the most subdued film of the series. Overall, "Pusher III" isn't as strong as its immediate predecessor, but is still a worthy film of the franchise that upholds its defining traits while still pushing the narrative approach in new directions.
Robyn Nesbitt (nesfilmreviews)
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.
Christian H-N
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!
