arun-g-233-550662 Here in the Nordic Europe, we don't use so much physical violence and guns like in USA. We use psychological terror instead. That's why this movie is scary, but not so explicitly violent.The fear and terror that Frank experiences comes from being a small time drug dealer and owing his money to the big, but low-life drug supplier. The way the drug supplier goes after Frank with the collectors is a psychological game that Frank cannot get out of. There is also the element that they used to be "friends" and they turn on each other with hate.The scene where Frank and Radovan seeks out a poor druggie and he gets so scared that he shoots himself with a shotgun is very sad. It shows how these criminals use mental terror to scare their victims.Well, it's meant to be a crime movie. The movie is a bit over the top, but it has a point.

bowmanblue Apparently this gangster film was really huge in Europe. I'm not sure how 'big' it was here, in Britain, but, in my opinion, it's no 'Lock Stock.' Firstly, it feels cheap. I know a lot of people who enjoyed it will call it 'gritty,' but Reservoir Dogs was 'gritty' and still felt stylish at the same time. 'Pusher' just feels like it was filmed with a video camera without anyone's permission on each location.It's about a gangster, who seems to dabble in everything from drugs to armed robbery, trying to organise a drugs deal which – guess what – goes wrong and leaves him in debt to an even nastier gangster. Do we care? Not really.I have no problem with films about gangsters (or 'bad guys' to use another term). We don't have to like them to enjoy the film, just as long as they provide some form of entertainment. Our central character here doesn't. He's bland. He doesn't ever really inspire us to care whether he lives, dies or finds a way of paying his way out of the situation. He just sort of spends the film wandering around doing some half-hearted effort of calling in old debts.And that's about it. A cheap-looking film with bland characters who you won't really care about and a plot that's been done to death. Yes, the film has Mads Mikklesen in an early role, but he doesn't do enough to elevate it to anything other than very ordinary.However, this film has seemed to have spawned a couple of sequels meaning many must have seen something in it that I didn't. I guess if you can put up with the subtitles and don't mind the rawest of raw films then you may get something out of it.

Jack Coen A drug pusher grows increasingly desperate after a botched deal leaves him with a large debt to a ruthless drug lord.Today I continued the Nicolas Winding Refn marathon with his first movie "Pusher". I had begun with "Drive" and was great, then i followed with four films (Valhalla Rising-Bleeder-Bronson and Fear X).Pusher is a very good movie and when you take into consideration it was his first movie, it makes it all the better, you can sum up the movie in one simple sentence, (A really bad week) in the life of a Danish drug pusher. That's the story. For a first time director, working with a lot of first time actors, he gets great performances out of them. The story moves along very quick and has enough turns in it to keep the viewer interested.The characters are also deep enough to make you actually care what happens. Many first time film makers seem to go more with whats happening now then character development. Refn however does a good job at both. The only familiar face in the movie is Mads Mikkelsen, who played the villain in Casino Royale and also was the main character in Refn's "Valhalla Rising". This movie is the first in a trilogy but has a definitive ending that does not make you feel you need to see the rest immediately, ending leaves one speechless. I won't spoil it, but it's unforgiving and breathtaking.

Der_Schnibbler Rather slow-moving until the last thirty minutes or so, though even then it can be stop-and-go at times. The drawn out dialogues in the car and convenience store which take place the protagonist and his sidekick in the beginning are juvenile and boring.Aside from a rather unexpected turn out at an attempted money collection around the middle, nothing really exciting happens until the very end. But even then, it is almost torturously slow and suspenseful, which I guess is the good thing going about the film.I suppose I shouldn't put it down too much, since it's not particularly boring. It shows the more mundane side of a criminal's life, and presents the inevitable downward turn with realism.One part that impressed me was a conversation which takes place in the car between Frank and Frank's boss' goon. The guy casually talks to Frank about how he once cut out a guy's kneecap with a knife while collecting money. In the meanwhile, he and Frank are heading somewhere for Frank to collect money he himself owes the goon's boss. Yet they speak as if they were best friends. This was the one thing about the film that truly stood out to me, as far as the characters go. Up until the very end, they all speak as if they were friends. Don't expect the American-style macho-talk and cursing here.The best part is perhaps the anti-climactic ending, which just leaves you staring at the screen with a distinct creepy feeling of hopelessness crawling up your spine.To summary: not for action fans; decent film for more serious viewers who prefer a more dramatic approach to the criminal-life-gone-bad theme.