» » Pusher (2012)

Pusher (2012) HD online

Pusher (2012) HD online
Language: English
Category: Movie / Crime / Thriller
Original Title: Pusher
Director: Luis Prieto
Writers: Matthew Read
Released: 2012
Budget: £2,300,000
Duration: 1h 29min
Video type: Movie
In London, a street dealer's life spins out of control over the course of one week after he borrows money from his supplier on what's supposed to be a sure thing.


Cast overview, first billed only:
Richard Coyle Richard Coyle - Frank
Bronson Webb Bronson Webb - Tony
Agyness Deyn Agyness Deyn - Flo
Mem Ferda Mem Ferda - Hakan
Zlatko Buric Zlatko Buric - Milo
Paul Kaye Paul Kaye - Fitz
Bill Thomas Bill Thomas - Jack
Neil Maskell Neil Maskell - Marlon
Daisy Lewis Daisy Lewis - Danaka
Ray Callaghan Ray Callaghan - Maurice
Badria Timimi Badria Timimi - Senior Officer
Adam Foster Adam Foster - Zack
Richard Shanks Richard Shanks - Junior Officer
Shend Shend - Meten
Joanna Hole Joanna Hole - Frank's Mum

Zlatko Buric reprises his role as Milo from the original film. He is the only actor to appear in the three films of the original trilogy and this remake.

The director of the original film, has a role in this remake.

Reviews: [25]

  • avatar


    The original version of Pusher from Drive director Nicolas Winding Refn was an excellent crime-thriller with a stand-out performance from Kim Bodnia. This British remake stars Richard Coyle in the central role. Its narrative is really very similar to the original. It means that if you know the original then there aren't really too many surprises here. Nevertheless, this is a remake put together with some energy and style. And Coyle is very good in the central role.

    The story like before depicts the downfall of a pusher who loses a kilo of cocaine worth £55,000 when he is busted. Milo the Mediterranean gangster who supplied him with the gear demands his money back within two days. This leads to an escalation of violence.

    Zlatko Buric reprises his role of Milo the crime boss, which he memorably played in the original. Once again he is a scene stealer throughout. Although it's basically Richard Coyle's movie, he is in more or less every scene, and he propels the narrative. It's a story that has a real inertia. It's fast paced and has real energy. It's helped hugely here by the soundtrack by Orbital. Even when these guys were in their heyday in the 90's their music always had a film score feel to it, so it's no surprise that their music here fits the film so well.

    Director Luis Prieto holds everything together well and ensures that there is a stylish look to go along with the grit. Although, I wouldn't say that this is an improvement on the original. It's just too similar. But on its own terms it is a good, energetic crime-thriller with some great performances.
  • avatar


    For some strange reason, I thought this film being executive produced by NWR would render better results. Alas, I was duped again by marketing.

    I should have known. After all, what made the original Pusher (and it's two sequels) great was not the very basic, over told story, but rather the style of NWR's direction, the performances of the actors and the very real time nature of the film.

    The directing here is quite pedestrian and downright lazy, bringing nothing of the style of the original. The acting is decent, but again we've already seen this done better.

    And by the way, this film was already remade two years ago in India.

    Every director has movies they just LOVE and would want to emulate. For such a basic story, this director could have come up with any one of many basic "drug deal gone bad" stories and used his style to tell it. Unfortunately, this film takes the easy way out, trying to simply capitalize on the name of the original, without elevating it.
  • avatar


    Although there is nothing seriously wrong with the movie, it is however a pointless remake of a superior product. Basically the only point of the movie is to cash in the 'executive producers' name/previous work. The performances of most of the actors was adequate, however I would advise anyone interested in the themes and concepts explored in this sub- standard remake to watch the original (in fact watch all 3 of the Pusher trilogy, although 2 and 3 seem a little rushed they remain better quality than this version). Having said that; it was good to see Zlatko Buric in a role in this film.- hmmm only nine lines and just like my friend said to me last night: 'I need another line'. ANyway I give Pusher (2012) 4/10 and thats Pushing it...
  • avatar


    I have to say this 'remake' was incredibly disappointing. well to say that i was expecting much is not quite accurate, in fact, i was expecting not very much. however, what i saw with this film was utter mediocrity by this director with poorly directed scenes which if properly produced would not have made the final cut. overall it's an amateur production of this cult film remake. around the halfway point it did in fact start to pick up its pace and there were some memorable scenes. overall though i have to say most scenes were unmemorable. the cliché British techno/house score did not help matters. a big plus was seeing the actor who portrays Milo in this film, as he starred in 2 of the original pusher films by refn. he actually made the film enjoyable to watch at times by his performance. ultimately, Refn had far less of a budget to make his pusher film compared to the budget Luis Prieto had to work with. So to create such a lackluster effort all around by Prieto and the crew is quite a disappointment. Refn had stated early on he did not want to interfere with this remake, though I think he should have considering it does reflect on him somewhat, albeit indirectly.

  • avatar


    I saw this due to my love of the original Danish trilogy and was quite excited to see what would be done with this remake. Unfortunately though, the answer is not much. The film has been made with a worse cast, worse direction and what even looks like less of a budget (although I'm sure that's not the case). The bland styling of the film, set in unnaturally lit night clubs in "London", somehow make Copenhagen in 1996, seem far more relatable than the modern day England portrayed here.

    Obviously, the film's strength is the still solid script, which remains, for the most part intact and there are some strong scenes towards the end of the film, but it fails in recapturing the emotion or energy of the first. The dynamic of Frank's relationships with both Tony and Flo are poorly executed this time round, with neither dilemma being quite as believable as before, which ultimately confuses who you're intended to be routing for.

    Finally, the ending of the movie, intended to be open ended (as in the original), is poorly directed and edited here, which causes it to cross the line into the "frustrating" category. Refn's original didn't hold your hand either, but with the way the original is edited and interplayed, with flashes of the foes after Frank running through his mind, it at least pointed you towards a conclusion in your own brain. This ending, like the film, leaves you a little cold.
  • avatar


    The Pusher in question is Frank. Frank buys drugs from Milo, amongst others, cuts the coke and sells it on, keeping a small amount back for a rainy day. Frank's girlfriend is a pole dancer, his best (only?) friend is an idiot and when a deal that said idiot friend talks him into goes awry, Frank is on the way to being 'the human formally known as Frank'. Frank is in very deep do-do indeed.

    Sound familiar? It should do; it's been made twice before! Executive producer Nicholas Winding Refn wrote and directed the Danish original in 1996, his feature debut in both roles, and in 2010 there was a Hindi version.

    Oh, and he wrote and directed two Danish sequels.

    Director Luis Prieto (in his English language debut) and his cast have a lot to live up to but Zlatko Buric, at least, is on familiar territory having played Milo in all but the Hindi version of Pusher.

    You'd have thought that between them they'd have got it right fourth time around.

    Alas, Winding Refn's involvement in this version, beyond that of executive producer, is limited to a vocal cameo as Amsterdam Bob and the film is left wanting because of it. His absence, not his cameo. Though Winding Refn delivered one of the finest films last year in Drive, Pusher doesn't belong in the same room as that film, let alone on the same shelf.

    Pusher is a low budget British film with a small cast and a short running time (89 mins) but that shouldn't count against it because so was Tower Block. However, Tower Block warranted a very solid eight stars while, but for the presence of Richard Coyle, Pusher would fail to limp beyond two. In the opening scenes (and by opening I mean the first 40 minutes or so before I gave up wishing for an improvement) everyone, Coyle aside, seems to be trying so damn hard to impress. Bronson Webb (idiot friend, Tony: "Whatever the opposite of scared is, that's me") is a far cry from the convincing, chilling actor we saw in Eden Lake; Buric clearly wants to leave us in no doubt that he is happy on the surface because he keeps jumping up and down like an excited three year old with a deep voice; and Agyness Deyn (pole dancing Flo) seems unsure of her own ability half the time.

    Coyle (Coupling, Going Postal) alone convinces but even he seems less involved in Pusher than we are used to in his other work. He glides along in the film smoothly and, though we never really know what makes him tick, he avoids the block capital, stereotypically villainous character traits. When it is his turn to intimidate, he does so quietly with subtle, determined menace rather than a crowbar. Indeed, when placed in a position of dishing out violence, he is reluctant to be involved.

    Pusher is a long way from being a dreadful film but it could be so much better as the original proved. As we departed, I asked my companion his opinion.

    "I liked the font." I don't have a problem with liking the font. It's good to have a fellow cinephile who appreciates the small touches, but if that is what is foremost in the viewers' minds when they leave the cinema, the director really needs to ask himself some serious questions.

    For more reviews from The Squiss subscribe to my blog at

    Like the Facebook page:
  • avatar

    black coffe

    Pusher is a flat film, leaving you waiting for a climax that never happens. The films gives you a chocolate box assortment of every character in every drug related film you can think of. You have the loose cannon side kick, the stripper girl friend, the pathetic junkie and of course the drug dealer heavies. The only person that manages to escape two dimensions is Zlatko Buric the main bad guy who gives a standout performance as the smiling psychotic Milo.

    For all its style and flashing lights and camera tricky, lies a poorly executed film and I found myself just waiting for it to be over not caring who lives or dies. For it attempts to be modern it's also quite a dated film and seems more like something from the early 1990's. Avoid this film and just buy the amazing orbital sound track. I'm just happy this film was made so that orbital made another album. Bad film! Great Music!!
  • avatar


    I was thrilled when I first saw that a remake (and an English one at that!) was being mad. After watching the result I can only say that I wished I never watched it. The original is so much better that I am at a loss for words.

    The plot is still the same, and even though Milo is played by Zlatko he seem to have lost some of his original...zest.

    This might have been a descent remake if the casting had been better.

    For starters: Kim Bodnia played the original Frank, his alter ego in this one is not even a distant shadow of the same character. Tony comes across like some dweeb...

    Sorry but this is not good.
  • avatar


    PUSHER was a strong and vivid little Danish crime thriller, made by Nicolas Winding Refn back in 1996. It was the start of what has become a successful Hollywood career, and obviously at some point somebody had the grand of idea of shooting an English-language remake. Unfortunately, this remake is completely redundant for anybody who's seen the original. It's a scene-for-scene copy, one of those which I hate, and other than the different backdrops and actors everything plays out almost exactly the same. And, somewhat inevitably, it's an inferior product to the first film in every respect.

    The cast just don't scream authenticity here as they did in the original film. Richard Coyle is a selfish, mean-spirited protagonist and I found myself actively wishing for his demise. Bronson Webb takes the Mads Mikkelsen role from the first film and is absolutely awful, going way over the top without any attempt at restraint. The only decent performance comes from Zlatko Buric, making a welcome turn from the Danish film and playing the same role.

    Inevitably the sex, violence, and profanity are ramped up from the original movie, but the script feels lowbrow and director Luis Prieto is no Nicolas Winding Refn, that's for sure. His attempts at style, with the camera speeding around his protagonist while thumping music plays, just feel dated and very 1999. Not a good film at all.
  • avatar


    Rarely have I got to a film feeling so little about it. I don't hate it, I don't love it, I'm just completely and utterly indifferent to the 90 minutes of droning nothingness.

    I haven't seen the original so I cant compare, but the plot is incredibly thin, just an endless chain of events, that follow on from each other with no particular cohesion. An ending that leaves you feeling frankly conned, and some situations that even in the realms of the movie word are unbelievable.

    The worst part is the complete lack of exploration of the characters and events. Despite the small cast you come out feeling you know very little about the characters, and equally you care very little for any of the characters. There are no real good guys, no bad guys, just a whole bunch of indifference. Too much is not explored, where did the police come from and why? How is it possible that no word got out that he had been arrested, leading to the belief that he had ripped off the bad guys in some way.

    The film ended with you feeling that there was so much more that could have been explored, so much more that you could have been told about the characters, the locations and the events. The trouble is, I came out feeling that I didn't really care enough anyway to even want to know more.
  • avatar


    I actually really liked this movie! It was frantic and exciting with strong character performances. I have never seen the original movies but threw this on late at night at my home in Vancouver and was instantly drawn in by the great story and cool plot line and dope music! The one thing i didn't like was the end but at the time of watching it i didn't realize that it was part 1. the lead actor was good, I read someone say he was kind of a dweeb, but i personally think he was great and his character was supposed to be like that. I think he was still a strong person not a geek or dweeb. i myself was in the drug trade for many years and this movie and his frantic performance rings true....Glad I got out when I did but i looks like for him things are just getting started!! Awesome music to keep the movie flowing as well!! I personally cant wait to see the next movie!! #Bravo I'm also a big fan of N.W.R love his movies
  • avatar


    Review: Honestly, how much bad luck can one man have. He was definitely in the wrong profession! Anyway, I quite enjoyed this movie but the music was so annoying. All of the actors put in good performances, and the storyline was cleverly written to keep the audience in suspense. It does tend to go round and round in circles and it could have done with a bit more action, but for a British film, it was good to see something fresh without the same old faces. We have seen this storyline many times before, but the director showed us a the life of a drug dealer from a different point of view. I did expect more after watching the first half an hour, but its not a bad watch.

    Round-Up: I haven't seen Richard Coyle in any other movies, but he brings a kind of intensity to the role as Frank, which worked well in the movie. Although his character has followed the bad path in life, you can't help but feeling sorry for him throughout the movie because of his bad luck. The main question that comes to mind whilst watching the movie is, Who Do You Trust, even though everyone seems to like Frank in one way or another. It also shows the dark underworld with drugs and violence which we have seen quite often in movies nowadays with the involvement of Eastern Europeans.

    I recommend this movie to people who enjoy there British movies about drugs and violence and a man trying to pay of a debt. 4/10
  • avatar


    STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

    Frank (Richard Coyle) is a London drug dealer, whose friend Tony (Bronson Webb) brings him in on a deal that could net him some serious dough. He tries to rope Eastern European crime boss Milo (Zlatko Buric) in on the deal, but things go pear shaped when there is an unexpected police bust and he is forced to dump his stash in a pond. Now in major debt to Milo, Frank finds himself in a desperate race against time to come up with the cash he owes...or else.

    Luis Prieto, the man behind the recent hit thriller Drive, here takes Nicolas Winding Refn's cult Danish original from the nineties, and injects it with the same drowned out, moody style, as well as the grim, gory violence he employed with Ryan Gosling. Given the original film's critical raving and cult status, it probably had a big enough cult following that a remake, as always, was inevitable. While he's crafted a film with an absorbing sense of style, his narrative flow as a story teller is left slightly wanting, and while the film is not quite a case of style over substance, there still seems more emphasis on the style than the substance.

    The cast really raise it up a notch, most notably Buric as the head gangster, really filling the screen with a natural air of big hearted warmth under which lurks a psychotic monster. The support cast include Agyness Deyn as Frank's troubled stripper girlfriend, as well as Paul Kaye and Neil Maskell, doing another convincing northern accent. It's short and sweet, as well, but, maybe more short than sweet. ***
  • avatar


    If you were ever curious about delving into the wonderful world of small time recreational narcotics dealing, then this film would have to be the 'must see' film for how not to do so successfully. A British import, this film centers around Frank played by Richard Coyle (Coupling). Frank is definitely on the bottom rung of the London cocaine distribution scene; however, he does have a small niche of clubs and patrons to peddle his products. Director Luis Prieto does an excellent job of portraying Frank's meager existence to the audience. Without doubt not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, Frank's biggest downfall has to be his naivety to the industry. Always eager to make that next big score, common sense just seems to evade our film's most optimistic entrepreneur of illegal vices.

    Frank has two character flaws which undeniably hinder is ability to succeed in this profession: (1) he is a habitual user of the staple that he is dealing, and (2) he has elected to surround himself with a less than stellar cast of miscreants, and an even lesser class of clientele. Both of these defects lead to bad decision choices, which evidentially lead to Frank's demise. As anyone who has ever seen Scarface can attest, the two best rules in drug trafficking are (1) trust no one, and (2) never use your product. These sentiments are never more prevalent than in this film's two key scenes in which Frank's whole existence is shattered. In his first misfortune, Frank decides to give $18,000 pounds to a stripper to go to Amsterdam to pick up a half kilo of cocaine; and his second mishap, Frank had to destroy a kilo of cocaine in order to not get busted by the police in what was possibly a 'drug sting' operation. Both incidents had serious repercussions in our would-be pusher's life.

    This is quite the departure of roles for Richard Coyle, who excelled as the clueless, breast-obsessed, likable Jeff character on the BBC series Coupling. As drug dealer Frank, Coyle effectively communicates his desperation and despair on-screen to the audience as seemingly nothing goes his way. Perhaps this is most significant in the film's closing sequence as a slimmer of light finally befalls our unlikely lead character. Director Prieto's final close-up shot of Frank's facial expression of dismay is simply priceless; it absolutely without a doubt summarizes this whole movie in one single frame. "WTF?"

    I am really not sure that I actually enjoyed this film enough to recommend seeing it. I have serious reservations recommending any film(s) which glorifies the use of illegal substances. Yep, I'm that guy. However, there are way better films of this genre which would include 'Transpotting', 'Scarface', and 'Goodfellas'. I would suggest foregoing this film, and opt for something with a more positive outlook.

    See more of my reviews on FB @ "The Faris Reel".
  • avatar


    To review this film you need, no..., it depends on where you start - This is a remake of the film of the same name 'Pusher' in 1996. I have seen both now and I can say I did not enjoy this version nearly as much. It has lost some of the grittiness found in the original, in Copenhagen things felt so much worse even the police seemed a little more hardcore, you will probably laugh out loud at the bad cop in this! Does that ever happen in the UK? The set locations just feel a little 'staged' and maybe contrived I am not even sure where he was based, London? The lead did a fair job and 'Milo' (who played the original 'Milo' in the 1996 version)did a classic retake of it, inspired - In my view Oscar winning. Supporting cast less so.

    I did find the characters are not as fleshed out as much in this version and that did not help, you learn more in 1996 which adds to his problems and worries - I notice that they have changed some critical scenes as well - and while I would not disagree to their inclusion, they change the tone and flow a little compared to the original telling switching it to something a little deeper and in some cases complete bemusement - does it work, not for me really.

    His partner though now seems a little crazy and it seems too unlikely a friendship for it to be real - whereas in the original that friendship never really came across as that but more of a forced together kind of bond; Bound by criminal acts rather than friendship (Later sequels better explain their partnership). Don't get me started on the £3,000 scene!

    Having read this review(if many do?) I can see you asking yourself "this guy constantly compares to the original" - and that's the thing. This is an unashamed remake and they have taken that tag and ran with it - I end up reviewing more as to how close to the original they go and not whether I liked it as a standalone film! The problem is that a remake has to be better than the original otherwise what's the point?! ...this is not better than the original. You just never quite believe it. Go and see the original it's a better film.

    As a standalone and assuming the viewer has not seen or heard of the original I think it just about stands up - 6/10 for me. A good try but it had stiff competition.

    Don't forget that the original has 2 further films which loosely follow each other, by watching those you get the story first - there is going to be a remake of 2 and 3 next, I can just feel it!!

    Edit - after having slept on it, my review changed to a 5 - Why, this adds nothing and simply remakes by numbers. Is it bad, No - the original was not so it had a blueprint. Is it good, No not brilliant since it misses (almost) everything that made the original good. Worth a watch.
  • avatar


    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.
  • avatar

    digytal soul

    In Pusher, we follow Frank, a low lever drug dealer/user in London for a week. Usually he deals small quantities in danceclubs or larger quantities to partying rich low lives. His girl, a stripper and escort but not prostitute, keeps the money for him. He also spikes the drugs and keeps the remainder in a storage space.

    He's got two major deals going on. In the first his sidekick recommended him to some guy who wants to buy 1 kilo of drugs. Frank is reluctant, he doesn't know the guy, but he eventually accepts. He gets the kilo on credit from his dealer whom he already owes 3000 pounds. The second deal involves a girl who will bring him 1/2 kilo somehow in her body from Amsterdam.

    The first deal goes wrong, the cops show up and Frank is forced to dump the drugs in a lake, so the cops have to release him. Now he has no drugs and no money, and owes his dealer even more. His dealer likes him and treats him alright, as long as things are going well. But when he can't deliver, things get progressively worse. Frank and one of the dealer's guys start collecting debts owed to Frank and things get violent. And this is also a warning to Frank about what will happen to him if he doesn't deliver.

    Frank is counting on the second deal to go through, but it doesn't. The girl eventually shows up with 1/2 kilo of sugar. She was ripped off in Amsterdam. That gets Frank a good beating and a final deadline to obtain the ever increasing amount of money. Finally he sees the light and decides to escape the country with his girl, but he's got a couple of things to take care off.

    I have not seen the original version of this. Pusher while marketed as some violent edgy movie, is rather a very good thriller/drama with a unique personality. Frank and his friends are a likable bunch and you don't want to see them in trouble. Since you care for him, the story itself is interesting and most of the other characters are also compelling, especially his friendly but dangerous dealer. Stories like these work only as long as the characters remain irrational and insist on staying in their little hell and refuse to see the obvious way out- get the hell out of town and take your business elsewhere. Acting, direction, editing and good all around. The music is also excellent, there's lots of electronic music when Frank goes to clubs.
  • avatar


    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.
  • avatar

    doesnt Do You

    I wanted to say that this film didn't really have a point before I knew it was a remake after a Danish movie. I mean, I get what the story is supposed to be: a week in the life of a small time drug dealer. The inevitable downward spiral and tense attempts to keep floating do not fill the one hour and a half of the movie, though, making it feel unnecessarily long and boring.

    Maybe you need a specific mood to feel enough sympathy for the character that his plight might move you emotionally. I wasn't in that mood, however. To me it felt like a really predictable story with nothing new to bring to the table. I kept watching through the scenes I had predicted tens of minutes before, waiting for a big finale, something to warrant all of the non action and unoriginal plot. But nothing happened. The film just ended abruptly.

    Bottom line: I would guess that the original was better, for the reason that someone considered remaking it for an English audience and because Danish films are pretty good anyway. Even so, knowing the subject, I wouldn't want to watch a presumably better version of this film. It's just a show about nothing.
  • avatar


    I really enjoyed this movie, it's fast, fresh, realistic, artistic, I loved the whole cast, especially Richard Coyle! The soundtrack from Orbital was amazing! For me it was even better than the original, hats of to Luis Prieto. This movie is a little gem. Richard Coyle deserves an award for his performance, he put so much heart & passion into the role, "it really shows" what I love about the characters in the movie is that you feel for them, even for the bad guys! The soundtrack really gives the movie a kick, what can I say Orbital are great! I also like the fact that they brought the mafia boss Milo from the first movie in this one! He really brought laughter to the movie! The locations spots for the movie were shot in Stock Newington, which I felt gave a different take of London, also having a Spanish directer, direct the movie in London gives a fresh pair of eyes to the whole London culture, club culture & drug culture!I know there will be people comparing it to the first movie, which is much more violent & gritty, but I fell that this movie is a breath of fresh air being set in London, great soundtrack & in my opinion a much better cast!
  • avatar


    There are valuable lessons to be learned here: pay your bills on time and don't aggravate your suppliers. And don't extend credit recklessly without checking carefully into the creditworthiness of your customers. These are the two main ones - sound commercial principles, I think you will agree. But there are others: don't send untrustworthy minions off to Amsterdam with large wodges of cash to buy drugs from equally untrustworthy suppliers who will take your money and send you sugar, for instance. One of the lessons is paradoxical: don't sell drugs to druggies, because they aren't very good with money. Pusher Frank learns all these lessons during this film, in which the gap between the money he owes supplier Milo and his ability to generate the funds needed to pay that bill widens constantly.

    This film is based on a European film which I haven't seen, so I base my comments solely on what happens here. This film is well directed and well acted: the small cast are all very good, and Ageyness Deyn (the top model with the silly name) proves to have genuine acting chops, not to mention stunning eyebrows. I have a thing for eyebrows).

    My reservation is that I simply didn't like it very much. None of the characters is very sympathetic, the story is squalid and dispiriting, and I came out of the cinema fairly depressed at a downbeat story featuring people I don't care about in the slightest.
  • avatar

    Risky Strong Dromedary

    Why filmmakers find it necessary to remake versions of films successful in other languages so soon after the release of the originals is puzzling - but we have remakes of the Stieg Larrson "Millennium series" and now the Nicolas Winding Refn Pusher trilogy transplanted to London instead of Copenhagen: the question remains as to 'Why?' Supposedly it is the finest form of flattery to copy another's work, but with the paucity of really quality films in the theaters now the trend seems a redundant waste.

    Not that the current Luis Prieto/Matthew Read single version PUSHER is not worth the effort because in many ways it is a tight and tense and well crafted little film. Comparisons seem unfair were it not for the fact that it is a condensation of the Refn trilogy. The story starts off with a bang and races pell-mell to its finish, and the camera work and music background aid immeasurably to the success of the movie. It is a race against the clock thriller in which a minor drug dealer Frank (Richard Coyle), accompanied by his sidekick, the female obsessed Tony (Bronson Webb) botch a surefire drug deal from an import from Amsterdam via carrier Danaka (Daisy Lewis) is supposed to pay off crime lord Milo (Zlatko Buric in a fine replay of his original role) and his guard Hakan (Mem Ferda), but deal after deal fails, Frank is arrested after dumping a large amount of cocaine in the river, and for a week Frank attempts to borrow money from everyone he has befriended in the past including his girlfriend Flo (Agyness Deyn) and his mother (Joanna Hole) and his hit Marlon (Neil Maskell). Frank's desperation mounts as Milo demands payment and literally everything falls apart for Frank - except for the hope of getting out of the game, and even that fails if we are to believe the end of the story.

    Richard Coyle strikes the right note of empathetic victim and out of control desperation and his performance gleams. The supporting cast is very fine, but somehow the film isn't able to muster the conviction it should. Drug dealing is bad (especially when the dealers are seen snorting their own product throughout the film) and this version of the drug scene in London is credible. If the viewer has not seen the original, then this film will stand up better with the comparison to the trilogy.

    Grady Harp
  • avatar


    This movie is a disgrace to the original Danish movie (1996) and I cannot understand the reasoning behind the filming of this so-called ''remake''. It is sad to see Zlatko Buric, who gave an excellent and memorable performance as Milo in the first film, being a caricature of the sinister gangster who haunts Frank. Richard Coyle cannot be compared to Kim Bodnia or Bronson Webb to Mads Mikkelsen, while the direction is unsuccessful in creating the gloomy atmosphere of the original film. Overall, this movie feels like a parody of Danish ''Pusher'' and if you are a hardcore fan of Nicolas Winding Refn masterpiece, avoid it at all costs!
  • avatar


    Based on the original Danish film by Nicolas Winding Refn.

    The English language version of Pusher stars Richard Coyle as Frank as drug dealer who has borrowed money from an East European gangster for a big deal that has gone wrong. Worse his dim sidekick has grassed him up. Now with no drugs, no money, he has to pay his debt. Frank is having a desperate week as the gangster's henchmen are on to him.

    The film wants to have a flash kinetic energy with an electronic dance beat soundtrack. Coyle gives a convincing performance as a man who is getting increasingly desperate. However Frank is not likable nor that bright. His mouthy sidekick is even worse, you are glad he ends up in hospital with a broken jaw so the audience does not have hear any more from him.

    It is a druggy grimy cockney gangster cliched drama with wacky characters. Not original and not that good.
  • avatar


    Remaking a film is never going to be an easy task or please everyone - but at least the production team could have made an effort.

    Most of the cast engage in 3rd rate drama school acting where the lines are repeated pigeon fashion without any real flow or connection between the characters.

    In particular, the character of 'Tony' is nothing more than a stereotypical foul mouthed hyperactive young man. A character which is played to death in many American teenage B movies. All dialogue and no substance. It would be hard to see how the actor ever worked again after this performance - but he did, so perhaps he learned the craft more in-depth.

    The film tries to steamroller it's path to the end with a stream of foul language, violence, sex, and not much else to substantiate their use.

    |My advice would be to watch the original and give this low-rate remake a miss - it is not worth your time.