Pusher Trilogy (1997)

The Short Version: Watch the first two films, but skip out on the third. The first one is a great low-budget indie about Denmark's drug scene and a man who owes the wrong people. The other two, while interesting concept-wise, differ greatly from the first Pusher. The second film doesn't have the same amount of action (which wasn't much anyway), but stands on its own as an examination of a very compelling character. The third film tries to continue this idea, extending it to another character from the original film, but has even less action and a very tedious plot, with some guts chucked in at the end to make it seem like maybe it's a crime film.The Long Version: Ever since Netflix started up their preview section, I've been adding more and more DVDs to my queue (I'm down to to 416 since I didn't go online over Christmas break, though it's now steadily rising). Sometimes trailers mildly interest me, sometimes they don't, and sometimes they floor me. That's what the Pusher trailer did. The second it stopped I was looking up reviews and info on IMDb.To my dismay, the film wouldn't be out on DVD in the U.S. for another two months (this was back in September or something). Luckily, all three would come out at the same time, so I thought it would be great to get them all at the same time, seeing as how I can only afford the 3-at-a time plan.After two months of distracting schoolwork and other interesting movies arriving weekly, I was surprised and excited to see the first two Pusher films arrive in my little mailbox. I put in the first one and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was grainy, all handheld, and everything else that screams shoestring-budget indie. The acting was superb, but I think the picture quality and sometimes shaky camera might throw off some people not used to that style (though Soderbergh, Mann, Iñárritu and countless others have been working this style into more mainstream stuff). Either way, the film was gritty and just what I wanted out of a movie about Denmark's sordid drug scene. On top of that, I was interested in all the characters. They were more like real people, rather than polarized versions of good and evil. There was a good and bad side to each character, making them seem more human, more like people than characters in a film.Although the plot wasn't anything new (my thoughts on this here), it didn't feel like it was derived from anything. I think this goes back to that humanity. I didn't care where the story came from, I just wanted to follow it. The characters pulled me in; they made the story. I was hooked from the beginning, and I very eagerly wanted to know how Frank was going to get of this mess. I would rate the first film as the best of the three. Check out my favorite scene here (without subtitles unfortunately). Here's a link to the introduction, as well. Once again, it isn't an entirely new concept (see: Run Lola Run and probably a fair amount of others), but it still got me excited for the film, while introducing the characters, no less. I do wish they would've used something stronger than a 20-watt bulb for that scene, though.While the first one wasn't the Danish version of Crank, it had more action than the second one. That isn't to say the second one wasn't as eventful. The second film follows Frank's friend Tonny, a concept I thought was interesting. We see many characters from the first film, but now we get to see a close-up of the dismal life of a bumbling loser trying desperately to win his father's approval. While Tonny may be sort of an idiot, you can't help but want him to succeed and earn his father's respect. Of all the characters in the trilogy, I felt the most empathy for him, probably because he was played so well by Mads Mikkelsen (apparently a big name in the Danish film scene).I'll try not to give away anything, but the main thing about Tonny is he can't live up to what he expects himself to be. His tattoos reflect his self-image, but more what he wants that image to be. His main problem is he goes about fulfilling that in the wrong way. He thinks that being a successful criminal and living up to his dad's standards (unreasonably high for Tonny, but insanely low for his fat pile half-brother). One of the main points of the film could be about whose life each person needs to live, and how basing that life on other people's expectations can lead to constant failure and misery. Much more could be said about this, and it doesn't make as much sense now, but I had to leave some things out, as they could spoil the ending of the film, which, in my opinion, was perfect and possibly the highlight of the entire series.I don't have as much stuff to show about the second film. The intro is basically the same, but with this film's characters. I wanted to take some screenshots and upload them, but the main one I wanted is of the final scene, so I opted not to do that. Instead, here's a link to someone else's Pusher 2 photo gallery.For the final film, Refn used the same idea, this time focusing on Milo, the man who supplied the drugs in the first film (and made a brief appearance in the second). It's his daughter's birthday, and he's trying to prepare her party and make a few drug deals along the way. Things become increasingly chaotic (mostly on paper) as the day goes on and his life unravels. Determined to stay clean, he rushes around town and prepares the food for the party, desperately trying to please his daughter (interesting). Like Frank from the first film, Milo also now owes money to some shady people. After a while, his whole world basically unravels, ending in him doing some things he's going to regret in the morning.This films drags on forever. Mostly, it's him rushing around trying to get the food ready. He makes a few stops at support groups for recovering drug addicts, as if dropping in for a few minutes, telling his story, and leaving will give him that extra bit of strength he needs to stay clean. Again, we can see traces of the theme from the second film. He's always trying to please his daughter (kind of a reversal of the second film). The final scene, once again, gives us one last image that adds a new idea to the theme, but I won't say what that is. It isn't the same as the second film, but both times we get the picture from how we see the character in the final shot. I do like that technique, but the rest of the film just didn't add up to anything.One more complaint: near the end, after hours of no action, Refn decided to gut some people like "pigs." There's a guy's wiener and guts everywhere, and it just doesn't make for a pretty scene. It's not going to make you sick or anything, but it put me off just because of why, I think, they did it. It was unnecessary, and to me it seemed like he did for a shock factor. I would compare it to Caché, though that film had much more shock (but I wouldn't recommend it).I hope you enjoyed the review, though I think it went like the film series and kind of ran out of gas at the end. I would also recommend staying away from the Bollywood remake of Pusher (here, I think). It looks like quite a pile, but what would you expect? Bollywood will be Bollywood.