“Citizen Vigilante”: A Terrible Movie With An Important Topic
A few weeks ago, the Internet was turned upside down by the release of a little independent film. Let’s take a look at the controversy that is Citizen Vigilante.
At least once every two or three years, the industry is shaken by the release of a film that touches on a sensitive topic of the time and becomes the target of a big media cancellation campaign. The last case was Sound of Freedom, in 2023, whose focus on child trafficking was heavily debated online. This time around, the latest target is Citizen Vigilante, by German director Uwe Boll, a film that dares to take a clear anti-immigration stance.
And as with Sound of Freedom, there are plenty of people online who have not watched the film, either highly praising or strongly condemning it. So, what is going on? Is Citizen Vigilante worth the scandal, or is the controversy just another of the Internet’s fabrications?
What is Citizen Vigilante About?
Set in an unnamed European city, the film follows Michael Sanders, a man enraged by the continued failure of the law to protect citizens.
Intent on avenging the victims who have been failed by law enforcement and the criminal justice system, Sanders becomes a vigilante, an anonymous but lethal figure who goes after criminals and the corrupt officials protecting them.
From Banned Project to Internet’s Favorite Topic
By just reading the synopsis, you may be tempted to ask: what is the problem with a guy taking out criminals? Cinema has done that a million times, and no one ever felt offended. The thing is that most of the criminals in this movie have a distinct quality: they are migrants. And as you may know, modern left-wing morality dictates that holding these people accountable for their actions is “racist.”
Citizen Vigilante was acquired by Quiver Distribution, securing a limited theatrical release in the U.S. in June of this year. However, it was denied an age certification in Germany, which banned the project from wide distribution and advertisement. The alleged reason for this decision was the FSK (a self-regulatory body of the German movie industry) considering the film “anti-immigrant” and a “promotion of vigilantism,” while Boll himself attributed it to a desire to hide his portrayal of migration-linked crimes in Europe, where many governments actively support mass immigration. In short, it would not be politically convenient to let it be released.
But on June 25, the film was made freely available on Elon Musk’s X account for 48 hours, with the director’s endorsement. This immediately boosted Citizen Vigilante’s popularity and put it on the radar of millions of Internet users. Not long after, Quiver bought the rights to distribute in several other countries, and just a few days ago, the FSK reversed its decision and assigned an 18+ rating to the film, allowing it to be shown in German theaters. In the meantime, digital purchases of the film skyrocketed in a matter of days.
All these events are responsible for 85% of the online mess, but don’t relax because there’s more.
The Director And The Star
I was not familiar with Uwe Boll, but my research before I sat down to watch the film made me aware that he is not considered the most capable in the field. And after watching… I understand why. More on this later.
The other ingredient was casting actor Armie Hammer, who has been a pariah in Hollywood for years, in the lead role. He fell into disgrace after receiving abuse accusations from some women and the resurgence of some text messages in which he discusses cannibalism. A random Tuesday morning in Hollywood, I guess. Hammer was never convicted for anything, but he hasn’t really worked again since, at least not in big studio movies.
You mix all these ingredients, and you have the recipe for a perfect storm.
Michael Sanders: A Confusing Protagonist
Armie Hammer did not have a lot to work with, truth be told: Michael Sanders is a great example of incompetent character writing. I cannot say it’s the worst I’ve ever seen (I review Hollywood movies after all; it would be a dishonest assertion), but it’s bad. Terrible, actually. I deduce that Boll, who also wrote the screenplay, wanted to portray Sanders as a morally grey character in an attempt to give him more depth and make him more mysterious. However, he lacks the subtlety to show that without falling into ridicule.
The only thing that is somehow important for the story is the fact that he is in the U.S military, which explains his skills. Aside from that, we learn that he is currently in Europe to take over his late father’s business, but he refuses to apply for citizenship. His work involves the administration of a lucrative real estate business, so we spend a good amount of time watching him supervise and document the conditions of the buildings he owns. How is it connected to the main plot? That’s an excellent question. Most likely, this was Boll’s way of slipping in a critique of governments that seize vacant properties to provide housing for migrants. But this storyline ends up giving some of the most random moments of the movie.
For example, there is a long scene in which the character pays for the services of a woman, but their time together is interrupted because he cannot stop staring at the mold extending through the ceiling. That’s how we realize that he is the owner of the building, and he commands the woman to report the mold. The whole thing is extremely long and awkward, with the camera panning from the two characters having sex to the mold.
Later on, Sanders kidnaps a judge who released six young migrants who gang-raped a teenage girl. The reason for this? The judge considers that the young men are also victims because they are having a hard time “adapting” to their new home. Sanders lectures the judge during a car ride, where he disdainfully tells him that most people would rather get hurt or die than disobey the law. To prove his point, he causes a car accident by moving into the wrong lane. This scene is so outlandish that it made me burst into laughter.
His motivations and values never become clear, and after a while his actions become so nonsensical it’s hilarious.
No Money and No Creativity
If we go back to our previous example, Sound of Freedom was nothing extraordinary as a film, but it was competent, and it had good performances. Citizen Vigilante is a B movie in the full sense of the word. I 100% believe that a talented creative can turn limited resources into gold, but this is not what happened here.
For starters, there is no coherent narrative structure. The film jumps from one idea to the next, offering a nonsensical mix: we have a scene of Sanders training, followed by a scene of the military looking for him, followed by a scene that shows Instagram posts of people supporting the vigilante, followed by Sanders being interviewed, followed by Sanders taking photos of the facade of a building. It’s all over the place, all the time. It’s also plagued with continuity errors, and I believe the exact same shots were recycled for different parts of the film.
Cancellations aside, Armie Hammer is the only real actor in the project. Despite the terrible script and editing, he carries himself as a professional. The difference between him and the rest of the cast is painfully obvious in every scene.
Violence is a constant throughout the running time, but after reading so much criticism, I was expecting something much worse. Almost every scene that depicts explicit violence feels a little desperate, like the director was trying very hard to shock us.
The Key Scene
Out of the entire movie, there is one scene that I think will be remembered (aside from the mold one), not for its execution, but for its theme.
Remember the judge who let go of six rapists? In the last minutes, Sanders goes to the house of one of these young men and takes him and his family hostage. Both parents and the sister excuse his behavior and blame the victim, putting their religion and culture before the laws of the country where they now live.
At this point Sanders voices something a lot of people would agree with: Do you want to live by those cultural norms? Great, do it in your country. While you’re here, you live by our laws.
Sanders orders the man to call his friends who participated in the attack and ask them to come see him. Once they arrive, Sanders shoots everyone in the house.
The Final Question: Why Did It Have Such An Impact?
Despite its dubious quality, Citizen Vigilante has gathered support online, and for some media outlets and left-wing creators, this can only be attributed to “right-wing extremism” and “racism.” These people also seem to believe that everybody who supports the film (or simply admits it makes some good points) is a potential killer who will go out to hunt for migrants. Exactly like when the media spread concerns that Joker would incite episodes of “incel violence” back in 2019.
There are a few reasons why the film had the impact it did, and they are all extremely easy to understand. First, being banned or facing opposition from the media is the best way for a film to get public visibility. It works: if they hate it, I have to watch it to know why. And if it weren’t for the German ban, most of us would have never heard of it.
Secondly, Citizen Vigilante dares to touch on a topic that has become a growing concern in several countries, where mass immigration has caused situations similar to the ones depicted in the film to become normal. This is not one of those fancy problems Hollywood likes to portray, of little importance to anyone who is not filthy rich and has lots of free time, but the daily fears of regular citizens whose safety is being threatened.
Sanders tells people that he will continue to work for them until they learn to defend themselves, and on every occasion he is referring to defense against criminals exclusively. The film never attacks those migrants who want to adapt to the country and be productive citizens. The only ones actively fueling anti-immigrant sentiment are the politicians, who allow criminals to enter a new territory disguised as victims.
Citizen Vigilante is a bad movie, which possesses neither the skill nor the finesse to create something truly meaningful out of the topic it chooses. But let’s be honest: most Hollywood movies are the same, only with a bigger budget. In that light, we should give Citizen Vigilante some credit, because it has two things that Hollywood does not: cultural relevancy and some balls.
