The film is about frank a small time dealer who gets busted. Loses the stash, owes a drug lord money and tried lots of desperate acts to try and rake in the money.. Not much else goes on. The film has a club / revolver jumpy, waisted point of view and I found it hard to follow. At one point frank has 20k then he only has 6k.. He owes 55k but runs round collecting 100 here and there.. The movie felt slow and not much happens. I was disported by the end, his bird runs of with the money... Meaning he will be yet again emptied handed for the drug lord. Your left feeling he will most likely die.. But I didn't care. It was slow and I would not recommend it. It's like a really rubbish layer cake.

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.

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.

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.