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.

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.

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.

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).