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.

Jorge Reyes 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).

dave-sturm 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.

willedmiston 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.