Pusher (2012)

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

So much average

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Review: The picture had an elementary plot with a tense and gripping atmosphere. The opening scene introduced the audience to the main characters with a trigger pulling style. I'd enjoyed the action sequences because I was trapped in suspense. The characters in the film were easy to acknowledge but the picture wasn't physiological. It was like watching a Martin Scorsese film because every scene was a highlight with tension. It's a movie fun to watch like (Pulp Fiction) but not physiological. I liked the London landscape because it gave a modern substance. My ears were trapped in the tech-no soundtrack that was composed and played in a nightclub mood. I liked how the characters were expressive with their vocal chords and body language. It was like staring into the seven expressionism of art. I believed that the picture had a modern looking production and casual costume designing. I give the movie a 6/10.

Richard Coyle is a drug dealer on the make in London. He and his mates do good business with different schemes. One day, an old prison mate comes to him to do a big buy. He takes on the risk by borrowing from a scary supplier. That's when things start to go wrong. Nothing goes his way.The style is the perfunctory hip drug story with bright colors and pounding music. There's nothing new here, but nothing wrong with it either. It's all about Richard Coyle. He's a compelling actor. He commands the screen. The major problem is that he's the most trusting drug dealer I've ever seen on film. Time after time he takes minimal precautions. It just made him more incompetent than Richard could portray.

This is a British Remake of a movie made by Refn at the early stages of his career. Of course the Refn movie (with the same title) spawn a trilogy (I'm not sure, if it was always intended as one, but it worked as far as I remember). Problem is, it's been awhile since I watched the original movie, so I'm not entirely able to compare both movie as equals and be entirely truthful.Still I do remember or scenes came to mind, when I was watching this. A wonderful lead and a bleak (while still colorful) setting. While the main role is played wonderful, some of the bit players might fall a bit down compared to their counterparts in the Original. It's always tough to fill in Mads M. shoes. I don't think it is necessary to watch this, if you have the chance to watch the Original, but if you like your movies in English language, than you might want to check this out I guess.What I didn't know, there is another British Remake and it's made by someone who people might think would do a Bollywood style movie (which from comments I read, he didn't do).

This movie is an obvious example of bad remake attempt. Pusher original is a great movie and one of the best crime drama in modern European cinema. Actually, Dannish. Also it is a part of the trilogy which were (all three) directed by now well known director Nicolas Winding Refn. While Pusher were presented as a very realistic dark crime underworld, this remake is just a poor copy of the movie, same individuals, same places and context. The original movie language is Dannish and is placed in the city of Copehagen, and this one were made by UK actors and placed in London. There is only one actor that played the same character in original and this remake. It is Milo, played by great Zlatko Buric, but what generally fail here, is that Milo have a Turkish background here, while in original he was presented as a Yugoslavian, as his original background is from the region of Ex Yugoslavia (precisely Croatia). As a disappointing point is Milo presented with Turkish background which did not suit here at all. I thought if the characters were original as in original movie, Milo will have original presentation, but it ends as something different. Maybe it is because in original movie he was presented as a Serb praising some of the well known war criminals like Karadzic or Arkan. Maybe only because of that director Luis Prieto presents Milo with different background. The obvious copy of the plot did not look effective at all. The feeling is that we watch bad repetition of original, and it is so obvious how original is good. Far from better, unique I should say. The actors also were not convincing as those in original. I don't think that this movie will leave positive marks among critique and audience, but this is my opinion. No one have to agree with it. I say, this one is not worth to remember, only as a bad repetition of original great Film. Director Nicolas Winding Refn acts here as an executive producer, and I really don't know what is his opinion on this one, but regarding original Pusher, he made other two stories that follows first Pusher, and all of the three stories fits excellent in a whole, as a Pusher Trilogy. I found that there are also one more remake of Pusher made in 2010, in Hindi language. I did not see it so I will not comment on this one.