In the realm of cinema, where art and ideology often intertwine, the latest offering from Uwe Boll, 'Citizen Vigilante', emerges as a peculiar and thought-provoking piece. This movie, set in the nameless city of Croatia, presents a vigilante, Michael Sanders, played by Armie Hammer, who, in the eyes of the audience, is a complex figure. The narrative unfolds with a chilling opening, depicting a brutal murder and an apparent call for a vigilante to restore order. However, as the film progresses, it becomes clear that Sanders is not your typical hero. He is a landlord, a detail that adds a layer of irony to his vigilante persona. This juxtaposition of his peaceful, mundane life and his violent alter ego is a fascinating aspect of the film, one that challenges the audience's expectations.
The movie's premise, while intriguing, is not without its flaws. The narrative fails to delve deeply into the political and social issues it hints at, instead opting for a shallow exploration of right-wing ideologies. The film's lack of coherent ideology is a significant shortcoming, leaving it feeling more like a petulant expression of right-wing frustration rather than a well-crafted piece of art. The right-wing art movement, as the author suggests, is characterized by its cheap and often incoherent nature, lacking the depth and empathy that great art demands. This is evident in 'Citizen Vigilante', where the violence and gratuitous killing seem more like a spectacle than a means to an end.
The author, in a personal reflection, compares the movie to other conservative films, such as 'Bad Boys 2' and 'Sicario', highlighting the irony of right-wing art. The conservative worldview, as the author argues, often clashes with the empathy and skepticism of authority that great art requires. However, the author acknowledges that great conservative art has always existed, even if it is often overlooked or misunderstood. The problem with 'Citizen Vigilante' is not its conservatism, but its inability to execute its ideas coherently and with artistic integrity.
The film's ending, with Sanders murdering a Muslim family, is a provocative and offensive act. However, the author suggests that getting offended by this movie is giving it more respect than it deserves. The movie's provocations are so poorly executed that it becomes nearly impossible to care. The author questions the very concept of trolling and ragebait, wondering if the future of political cinema lies in leftist movements, hoping for better-made films to emerge from that wave.
