Director:
Nicolas Winding RefnCámara:
Morten SøborgMúsica:
Peter PeterReparto:
Kim Bodnia, Zlatko Burić, Laura Drasbæk, Slavko Labovic, Mads Mikkelsen, Peter Andersson, Levino Jensen, Thomas Bo Larsen, Lars Bom, Nicolas Winding Refn (más)Sinopsis(1)
Frank trabaja como camello para Milo, un gángster al que debe 10.000 dólares. Cuando Milo le exige que pague su deuda, Frank se embarca en una operación de gran envergadura, pero la policía se incauta de la mercancía. Milo pierde la paciencia y está dispuesto a cobrar como sea; así que Frank se lanza frenéticamente a la búsqueda del dinero. (Prime Films S.A.)
(más)Reseñas (7)
De la apertura del «padrino danés» esperaba bastante, pero me dio aún más. Scorsese y Leone son en el género épicos a lo americano, Refn minimalista a lo europeo y mucho más directo. El primer Pusher es un gran calentamiento sobre el pequeño gánster y su caída debido a eventos impredecibles causados por personajes secundarios impredecibles. Los personajes, que, a pesar del pequeño espacio frente a la cámara, son tan interesantes por la estilización de dirección que el enfoque detallado en ellos en las dos secuelas es el último deseo hecho realidad de todos los comedores de películas. Una trilogía que hay que ver. La piedra fundamental de la película europea de gánsteres.
()
Voy a buscar a dos yonquis en la plaza Wenceslao y grabarlos durante una semana sin parar. Yo no vería algo así por nada del mundo. Por supuesto, las superestrellas danesas Bodnia y Mikkelsen añaden la dosis necesaria de autenticidad e interpretación, pero, para mí, el resultado es el mismo: una película aburrida, sosa, mierdosa e inútil. No entendí el sentido ni el beneficio de todo el trabajo y no sé si alguna vez encontraré fuerzas para ver las siguientes entregas. Dinamarca me ha decepcionado por primera vez, no pensé que algo así pudiera llegar a suceder.
()
Pusher feels almost incredibly civil and authentic. The protagonist is an unlikeable stupid asshole, which makes it feel more realistic than if the criminal (a street drug dealer) was a cool and nice dude that drops one wisecrack after another, something we know from other films of the genre. Very good début.
()
Searching for rhythm and a signature in long contact details and (apparently) partially improvised dialogues by a pair of delinquents. In the second part, when the film abandons the buddy movie model and begins to watch Frank's desperate struggle for survival, Refn's penchant for aestheticization of brutality and morally dubious characters is born in the neon light of nightclubs and bars. While at first classical red and purple lights are not used in a fundamentally symptomatic way, the magnificent final sequence gives birth to a director who uses his protagonists as projection screens of his brutal visions. A film on the edge between amateur cinema, the residual influences of Dogma 95 and the awakening visual monster.
()
I'm paradoxically reviewing the first part of the loose trilogy last. I saw it at the premiere and now I saved it for the end to confirm or refute my former impressions. Along with it, I actually account for the whole series and I give three stars for the overall image of the Copenhagen art gallery. Pusher does not lack energy and courage nor the effort to be authentic. The story is simple. After one botched delivery, the money and drugs are gone, and there's only an unpleasant debt with the customer, who has more than enough hands for dirty enforcement work. What brings Pusher down are typically Tarantino-like flaws, especially careless dramaturgy. The director is more focused on style and atmosphere than on storytelling. The pair of crooks drive through the streets for too long and spews out macho nonsense - I know that it's part of their character, but to this extent, it strongly smacks of self-indulgence. The behavior of the characters doesn't make sense in some cases. What in the world was the purpose of Frank's robbery with his girlfriend - at that moment, the director got him where he needed to, but it goes against the character and logic of the situation. I'm giving it three stars, but I'm not enthusiastic about it. Refn wanted to entertain and used music video elements so typical for the work of young filmmakers from the 90s. As a serious drama, it's too shallow and if I want to be entertained, Guy Ritchie doesn't play at having any deep exploration, but he entertains more effectively. I add a third star for the duo of big names in Scandinavian cinema - Kim Bodnia and Mads Mikkelsen. Coincidentally, I am currently watching the former in the series The Bridge from a few years ago, and it's an interesting comparison. Overall impression: 55%.
()
At times it felt like Pulp Fiction, but directed by Greengrass. Great actors, great characters and brilliant atmosphere.
()
Refn's debut is interesting in its depiction of how screwed the central character is and how he gradually gets into deeper and deeper shit. The stylization is mostly raw, simple, unremarkable, and feels almost documentary-like. The strong focus on the main character adds a fitting realism to the entire film. A pure counterpoint to the top Hollywood masterpieces from the mob setting, yet in its own way an original and profound insight into the Danish underworld.
()
Anuncio