I am danish and I do not like this movie, well and that goes for most movies by Nikolas Refn winding.The lead character is boring. The dialog is often painfully constructed and knowing drug dealers in Copenhagen at that time in the 90' I can say they did not speak like that at all! The movie has its funny moments I most give it that but the story in general is just one stupid and not realistic moment after the other.How this movie got its fame is beyond my understanding What to fill out for the last line?? THere are thousands of better movies to watch so skip this one.Skip most of Nikolas Refn Windings movies they are overrated! SKip danish movies in general

"Pusher" is the first installment of a gritty crime trilogy from Danish writer-director Nicolas Winding Refn set in the Copenhagen underworld. In each of the three films, the main character (a different one in each) is trapped in the same existential scenario: One incurs a debt from a drug deal gone wrong and must pay it back on a tight deadline. It's not stupidity that puts these pushers in a bind: The drug trade is inherently a risky one, and even the smart players can get beaten by the odds. Relying on hand-held camera-work, a tight budget, and an emphasis on natural lighting, the trilogy's gripping set of stories unfolds with the raw immediacy of a documentary. In "Pusher," our anti hero is Frank (Kim Bodnia), a mid-level dope dealer who is successful and hardcore enough to live his days in a fast, fun-loving manner. Accompanied by his friend/enforcer Tonny (Mads Mikkelsen), Frank spends the movie's first half-hour roaming from deal to deal, to a couple of bars, and simply living it up with Tonny. Bad news arrives, of course, in the offhand form of a score gone wrong with local kingpin Milo (Zlatko Buric) on credit, despite Frank's looming debt. When the cops chase Frank down, he dives into a lake, taking the drugs with him. Now his debt to Milo is unmanageably huge, and as the thugs come looking for him, he begins a frantic, frustrated search for cash. The film begins loosely structured, but as Frank's predicament becomes more dire, the narrative tightens. Surprisingly, Frank slowly becomes genuinely compelling despite the fact that he is a low life smack dealer and now an emotional wreck beneath his stoic exterior. Abrasive from start to finish, Refn's debut has a vibrant life apart from its obvious influences (Mean Streets, Trainspotting), and he has the gift for taking familiar material and making it his own. Refn scoffs at Hollywood's third-act redemptions and justice served as simply a pipe dream, while refusing to glamorize criminality or trying to correct it. As botched-drug-deal stories go, "Pusher" digs surprisingly deep.

Awful! A drug dealer has to dump his drugs when the cops get him, and so he owes his supplier big. He can't pay, and grows desperate trying to scrape together the huge sum he owes, otherwise he's toast. My question: who cares? The dealer is a total dick. I pretty much wanted to see him die from the film's first frame, and every second the thugs who are after him aren't torturing and killing him is a wasted one, in my opinion. To boot, the film is absolutely ugly visually. How the Hell did Refn ever produce a film as great as Drive? The only thing I really liked in the film was Laura Drasbæk, the prostitute whom the drug dealer is kind of dating. He treats her like such crap, though, it's hard to watch.

Frank is a drug dealer moving heroin between the level above him and his customer base. When he is asked to get 200 grams of dope in less than 24 hours he balks but when he is offered 700 on the gram he tries to pull it together. Already 50,000 in debt to local gangster Milo, Frank takes a risk and gets the drugs on credit ahead of a good sale. However when the sale goes down the police are tipped off and the only thing saving Frank from jail is his quick wits to dive into the lake and destroy the evidence against him. Released by the police within hours, Frank knows his problems are only beginning as he now owes even more money to Milo – a man not known for his patience.Although I had not really heard any hype over this film, I had heard it compared to Mean Streets in style so I thought I would give it a try. The main thing that struck me was how gritty it was and how lacking in the style and pop culture that the post-Tarantino audience have become accustom to. For some viewers this may be taken as a complaint but for my money it made the film that much better as a piece of dramatic realism as opposed to a modern thriller. Of course "reality" is a loose term in regards this film because I hope I never see this as a world I recognise, but it is still one that I found convincing.Refn's direction helps it by being hand-held and mobile in lots of good locations – the viewer never feels like they are on a set or with jobbing actors. It is perhaps a bit too gritty and slow for some tastes though but I didn't really find much wrong with it in what it tried to do. Perhaps I would have gone for a bit more character development and emotion or maybe it could have lost a bit of running time and been tighter for it, but mostly it was effectively desperate, gritty and with a good feeling of claustrophobic hopelessness. Bodnia does this aspect really well; he is an unsympathetic character but we are taken along with him as he is convincingly real. The film belongs to him but the support cast is mostly good with turns from Buric, Drasbæk, Labovic and Mikkelsen.Overall then a convincing and gritty crime story that reeks of fear and being trapped. It avoids the trappings of modern Tarantino style and instead keeps low to the street, meaning that it does well by aiming for its own target and hitting it consistently.