This ain’t it.
The most heatedly discussed film of the summer season (no, not Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey) does not run in theatres. It is neither made by a celebrated director nor starring world-famous actors. And, until recently, it was effectively—though not officially—banned in Germany. It is Citizen Vigilante by notorious exploitation director Uwe Boll, starring Armie Hammer, whose career has floundered after he was caught up in allegations of sexual misconduct.
The movie itself deals with the very pressing topic of violence perpetrated by migrants. It was reportedly inspired by the gang rape of a girl in Hamburg by 9 migrants in 2020, and the verdict of 2023 by which all but one of the men walked free, Boll has even dedicates his newest work to the “Thousands of Rape and Murder Victims in Europe who were betrayed by our legal system”. All this alone would provide for an intense debate, but then the German state stepped in, and things really got rolling.
In order to be distributed in Germany, a film has to pass the Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft (the board for “Voluntary Self-control of the Film Industry”) and will then be released with an age rating similar to the MPAA ratings used in the US (e.g. PG, NC-17, R and the like). Without this rating, a film cannot be shown or sold (except via import) in Germany and is therefore effectively banned. After a months-long struggle session, the movie has finally received its FSK-18 certification, which means that no one under 18 years of age can be admitted to see the movie.
After a months-long struggle session, the movie has finally received its FSK-18 age certification.
Citizen Vigilante was already gaining traction for speaking “harsh truths about mass migration”. When the decision of the German authorities became known, the internet exploded in outrage, decrying the banning of a film with an anti-migration message. However there is a legitimate question as to why this particular film was almost blocked: similar films like Taken, which deal with Albanian sex traffickers, are readily available in Germany.
In the weirdest possible turn of events, Elon Musk came to the film’s rescue. For a duration of 48 hours, Musk posted Citizen Vigilante in its entirety on his X account, thereby making the film accessible to millions of X users. A short time later, Boll’s film became the most-streamed film on various streaming platforms and is said to have made multiple millions in streaming revenue. The grim story is not just a financial success; it also grew into a cultural phenomenon, earning high praise from right-wing pundits, with Boll becoming a much welcomed talk show and podcast guest. Finally, someone had “the balls” to speak up against the perils of mass migration, migrant violence, a far too lenient judiciary and an uncaring political caste. A cultural watershed moment? Let’s ask a fundamental question first: is it any good?
Holiday in Croatia
As a film, Citizen Vigilante is extremely tasteless. At only 88 minutes long, it is a run-of-the-mill “edgy” action film. I subjected myself to watching it in full and felt underwhelmed beyond belief. In what passes for a plot, we follow the adventures of Michael Sanders (Hammer), an American who is looking after the business interests of his late father’s real estate and housing firm in a nondescript European country (it’s obviously Croatia, which ironically has never experienced mass migration). When not inspecting properties (and apparently dabbling in tax fraud), Sanders attacks and/or kills migrant teenage gang rapists (and their families), judges, date rapists, SWAT teams on his trail, rowdy teenagers and even uninvolved innocent people, to prove a point. The vigilante communicates his thoughts through endless monologues about the failure of the state to protect its citizens. He broadcasts these to a hero-worshipping public and even has the media (in the form of the fictitious TV channel “World News”) on his side.
The vigilante communicates his thoughts through endless monologues about the failure of the state to protect its citizens.
Armie Hammer performs every scene with the same stone-faced demeanor and deep monotone voice. This helps the viewer forget that his declarations sound like they were written by a 15-year-old edgelord. Meanwhile the story is a visual stream of barely connected scenes, some of which go nowhere. Why does Sanders do it? Don’t know. Who is he anyway? We learn about his estranged father and his military background, and that’s it. He is not a character, but an avatar for the viewer.
The movie’s cinematic aspects are also weak. Stylistically, it is nothing more than an assembly of action film tropes, presented with generic military-sounding music and uninspired cinematography. Boll really loves to dwell on gory details, whether it be police forces being burned to a crisp, people getting shot in the head or bleeding out after having their throats slashed, or bones sticking out of a broken wrist. How charming.
Don’t Call It Death Wish
Citizen Vigilante has frequently been compared to the Charles Bronson classic Death Wish, the mother of all vigilante films. For good reason, at first glance. The story of the mild-mannered architect Paul Kersey, who becomes a gun-toting vigilante on the streets of 70s New York after his wife and daughter were viciously assaulted, spawned several sequels with rising body counts. In its wake, a myriad of like-minded films stormed the screens. There are historical similarities between the two films: in the 1970s, metropolises like New York or LA were crime-ridden, and a general feeling of unease haunted the public. These 1970s vigilante films were an expression of the collective wish for law and order. In that regard, Citizen Vigilante is a typical entry in the vigilante genre. Still some important differences should be considered: notably, in Death Wish, we get to know Paul Kersey’s motivations as a man consumed by grief and anger.
Citizen Vigilante has frequently been compared to the Charles Bronson classic Death Wish, the mother of all vigilante films. For good reason, at first glance.
Among the vigilante films are fine examples delving into the mind of someone losing it, notably the 1976 classic Taxi Driver and, 20 years later, Falling Down, starring Michael Douglas. De Niro’s Travis Bickle is a terminally lonely, maladjusted man who is unable to forge human bonds and can only turn his inner frustration against the outside world.
But Citizen Vigilante is not about character or depth. It is hardly on a par with Death Wish, let alone Taxi Driver, but rather akin to late 1980s Michael Dudikoff video store fodder. Boll’s film is violence-porn to release the base urges one feels after doom scrolling the news.
In a just world, this film would have ended up in the abyss of a streaming service. For now, however, it has become a cultural touchstone.
A Man Named Uwe
To explain how we got here, we must take a look at the man behind the movie. To put it very mildly, writer, director, and producer Boll is a divisive figure. He has a reputation for being one of (if not the) worst movie directors of all time. His films are reviled among critics and most film fans. His adaptations of popular video games like FarCry drew the ire of the gaming community. Still he has worked out how to turn himself into a cult figure. Boll has famously financed his films through loopholes in German tax law and challenged critics of his work to boxing matches. He is also known for his harsh criticism of the German film industry, claiming it is biased and unfair towards “independent film makers”. With Citizen Vigilante, he has garnered himself a new role, that of an Icon of Free Speech. This is a part the director embraces, having written a book about “cancel culture” in 2022. Boll’s existence as a film maker boils down to only one thing: to making “exploitation film” with a knack for courting controversy. That’s not a bad thing per se, but unfortunately this film makes it somewhat complicated. Of course, a director trying to capture an audience through controversy and scandal is nothing unusual. Uwe Boll, though, takes it a few steps too far.
Uwe Boll has a reputation for being one of (if not the) worst movie directors of all time.
As an exploitation film, Citizen Vigilante seeks to titillate and entertain the viewer with simulated, bloody violence. If this were all it aspires to be, reviewing Citizen Vigilante would prove way less difficult. Exploitation is not about weighty things. It gets complicated when the film’s proponents attest Citizen Vigilante to be much more than gore, and Boll, not for the first time, maintains his film includes a “deeper message”.
It gets complicated when the film’s proponents attest Citizen Vigilante to be much more than gore, and Boll maintains his film includes a “deeper message”.
Indeed the director (who resides in Vancouver, Canada) also has a a history of making purportedly “socially conscious”, even left-wing films (Boll calls himself a former “lefty”). In 2011, Boll made a semi-documentary about the Auschwitz concentration camps, which graphically depicted the dying of prisoners in the gas chambers. Boll described his film as a call for civil courage and “against forgetting” out of “duty as a German”. A few years later, he tackled yet another hot topic with his film Hanau, marketed as a warning against the danger of right-wing extremism, re-enacting the 2020 Hanau shootings that left nine people of Turkish background dead. When his plans for the movie became known, the city of Hanau and the families of the victims issued an open letter to the director. They urged him to stop production in honor of the victims, since Boll did not ask for the consent of the bereaved. He ignored their pleas and went ahead with the film.
The Exploiter Exploits the Exploitable
With his newest work, Boll benefits from two important factors. The first one is obvious: the still unsolved problems of mass migration, and the social tension it creates. The number of victims of crime, rape and murder continues to rise, while trust in institutions erodes. And yet, despite all of this, politics and mainstream media refuse to recognize the crisis and downplay it instead. It is therefore no wonder that a film like Citizen Vigilante receives a fervid reception. People just need to find a mirror for their anger, and sometimes artistic quality is not their top priority—like a stiff drink after a really hard day.
The second aiding factor is the right and its desperation for cultural momentum. While right-leaning parties are gaining ground and “alternative” media outlets are challenging established media, when it comes to popular culture, the right is losing. Except for the Paramount TV show Yellowstone, there is hardly anything in mass entertainment adhering to “conservative values” or right-wing standpoints. In this situation, a film like Citizen Vigilante, despite (or because of) its crassness, appears like a godsend in the culture war against the woke left (in one of the film’s cringiest lines of monologue, Sanders explicitly addresses “the blindsided woke left”). But is this is really the type of populist, “low-brow” art the right wants to rally behind?
When it comes to popular culture, the right is losing.
Except for some secondhand catharsis, Citizen Vigilante has nothing to offer. What solution does the film present? Should the citizens of Hamburg, Berlin, or Rotherham simply retaliate in kind and turn their streets into an open war zone because that would be “based”? It is difficult to take Boll’s assurances that the audience should question Sanders’s actions seriously. There is nothing in the film to indicate any kind of criticism. It should also be noted that Sanders enacts violence on everyone he doesn’t like, not just criminal migrants.
Should the citizens of Hamburg, Berlin, or Rotherham simply retaliate in kind and turn their streets into an open war zone because that would be “based”?
Ultimately, the biggest mistake one can make with Citizen Vigilante is to take it or its director too seriously. Uwe Boll’s profession is exploitation, and he has learned how to exploit social ailments.
It is laudable that Citizen Vigilante is now released to the public with an R-rating-equivalent. The attempt at “hiding” the film only contributed to its success. But is it a good film? No, it is not. Hopefully, someday someone might make a film about migrant violence which treats this pressing topic with the respect and depth it requires.
