Pusher (I) (2012) User Reviews

An energetic remake of a cult Euro crime-thriller

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 24 June 2012]

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.

Ultimately Pointless

[topeconhilo · 5/10 · 18 October 2012]

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.

Unnecessary 'Remake'

[crimson66 · 5/10 · 29 September 2012]

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.

5.5/10

fine drug movie, Richard Coyle good

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 31 August 2013]

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.

Good as long as you don't expect it to be something it isn't

[TdSmth5 · 7/10 · 6 October 2013]

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.

Lazy Filmmaking of an already remade film

[speedmail20 · 3/10 · 25 October 2012]

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.

Awesome Movie!!

[davidwilliamrose38 · 7/10 · 23 April 2015]

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

Pointless Remake...

[owen-691-380910 · 1/10 · 28 September 2012]

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...

Much better than expected.

[paulclaassen · 6/10 · 15 May 2019]

I'm generally not fond of drug-dealing films, but I must admit I really enjoyed this film. Mainly thanks to the vibrant, thumping music, and Richard Coyle as Frank. Man, he was good! The film so effectively shows how a 'simple' deal in the drug world is not that simple, and how quickly everything can spin out of control - always for the sake of money. Poor Frank - I felt so sorry for this character, who was just trying really hard.

The acting in general was very good and believable. The film also delivers a very prominent message: never get involved with drugs - not using it or dealing with it. Director Luis Prieto focuses a lot on facial expressions and it is highly effective!

The film sure leaves you hanging for the viewer to make up his own mind as to whats going to happen next. Very good.

Frank is in very deep do-do indeed. But, alas, not in a great film.

[TheSquiss · 4/10 · 20 October 2012]

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 www.thesquiss.co.uk

Like the Facebook page: http://on.fb.me/RpitOG

Pusher

[omar99 · 10/10 · 1 April 2013]

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!

Stylish, if unremarkable, British re-make

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 7/10 · 19 April 2013]

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. ***

Redundant remake

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 2 March 2015]

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.

Well made but cheerless

[neil-476 · 7/10 · 19 October 2012]

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.

Pushing

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 9 June 2013]

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).

Push this film away.

[sixbells99 · 4/10 · 3 November 2012]

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!!

drug dealer having a really bad time of it . . .

[garyi-223-270702 · 6/10 · 5 July 2013]

Not bad . . . . really, i didn't think it was bad, but that said, certainly not necessary . . . I could imagine some viewers being put off by the rougher cinema verite feeling of the original (which I'm a big fan of as well as Pusher 2 and 3) . . . . and i can imagine some that would prefer the original compared to the slicker pumped up production values offered here . More than anything I'm left wondering why? It's not like they really tried to tell the story in a way that would in my mind justify the time and money spent given there was no real departure from the original story line. It would seem to me that if you're gonna just make the same film what you come up with should really bring more to the table than what i saw here. Are there behind the scene issues having to do with distribution or something or all said and done is this really just for people who don't wanna have to read sub titles . . . ? in any case for anyone whose seen the original i suspect you'll wonder why they bothered .

Not really worth wasting 89 muns of your life...

[scary_name · 1/10 · 23 December 2012]

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.

Raw, Moody, Gritty - The Rise of Richard Coyle

[gradyharp · 7/10 · 28 October 2012]

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

Just Watch the Original

[jdgonzo82 · 4/10 · 30 October 2020]

Nothing wrong with this film but when you've seen the original it pails in comparison. The original had style, it had first class acts and personalities that felt real and the situations were scary and threatening. This remake is tame and embarrassing to watch. Hearing the old lines delivered with British accents completely kills the script...even seeing Milo back was uncomfortable! Trust me, the original is a 10 out of 10 for me but this...this is lame...almost laughable BUT it did still hold up as a decent crime thriller but only just and I feel I'm being generous!

I can't think of any reason to see this other than boredom...or curiosity! ...just watch the original... ;)

Exciting Vibrant Ultra-Realism

[LeonLouisRicci · 8/10 · 28 October 2013]

This is a Review of This Movie Alone and Not Compared to the Foreign Language Original that has a Cult Following and Spawned 2 Sequels.

This one is a Visual Treat with Exciting, Vibrant, Colorful and Stunning Cinematography. The Framing and the use of Set and Setting are also Excellent. The Cast of Characters are Especially Low-Life Credible, with Sleazy and Street-Types Darting in and out of the Movie Regularly. The Pulsating Soundtrack is Right-On and Deserves Mention.

The Opening Scene of Two Main Characters Slinking through the London Streets with Vulgar, Funny, and Raunchy Dialog Instantly Reminds of a Guy Ritchie Movie, but Thankfully that Type of Overused Stuff Ends Quickly.

Then the Film Shifts Dramatically and for the Better as Things Spiral Out of Control for a Low-Echelon Drug Dealer. What Unfolds is at Times a Breathless Run to Grab some Cash and Avoid being Knee-Capped by a Drug-Lord.

There are some Gripping Performances by the Lead Actors and the Violence is Sharp and Painful in a Realistic Form, Void of Stylized Squibs and Jittery Camera. The Entire Film Feels Authentic Although the Settings have an Otherworldly Quality of the Underworld.

There is an Open Ending that might have some Viewers Crying Foul and Others Saying Bring on the English Language Sequel.

Pointless film

[siderite · 6/10 · 25 March 2015]

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.

Fails to deliver

[dave-930-756001 · 3/10 · 11 November 2012]

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.

Fits Well Into The British Gangster Genre

[damianphelps · 7/10 · 28 January 2024]

"Pusher" is a gripping remake that reinvents the cult classic. Richard Coyle's portrayal of a desperate drug dealer is magnetic and entertaining, adding a fresh layer to the character. The film is infused with a relentless pace and stylized visuals, creating a distinct identity.

The pulsating soundtrack complements the gritty atmosphere. While paying homage to the original, this remake stands on its own, offering a modern and visceral take on the criminal underworld.

"Pusher" (2012) successfully captures the essence of the original while carving out its own intense and engaging narrative.

Its a great remake if we had to have one :)

30 minutes in and realized this was not the original

[ritera1 · 7/10 · 12 July 2022]

...from the director of Drive, Nicolas Winding Refn. Actually the 2nd remake (vs India's 2010 version).

London drug dealer loses $45K in dope of a kingpin and has 48 hours to pay it back. Or BLAMMO... BLITZO... The big sleep... THE BIG SLEEP!

Moved well and acted fine. But left me with a "meh" feeling at the end. Tried to make him somewhat of a likable guy. And he sort of was. But it was just "hustlehustlehustle" and that became redundant.