Besides the poor production and dragging story line... It started out anti-nigger/immigrant.... But then 2 out of 3 "bad guys" on the bus were White. Then later some White dudes drug some women at a night club. Then there is a long, unnecessary sex scene as degenerate as anything to come out of Hollyjewood.
I turned it off half way through. IMO, I would not bother.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
AndurilElessar on scored.co
3 hours ago0 points(+0/-0)1 child
>Who commits the rape in the movie? A Muslim kid (so BASED) and his checks notes multi-ethnic friends? Because British kids are being indoctrinated into raping their own by Muslim culture?
I don't know where you are getting this interpretation. The gang that raped the White girl were all mudslimes and nons? What is the problem? I didn't see any of them as ethnically British or European.
>Then there's the kids on the bus. Two White kids and their pet jiggaboo. No, we know how this goes, there are whole subs dedicated to chimp outs; it's not White kids, it's Blacks.
Again, this is not what I saw at all. I saw a mongrel non-White, a nigger, and a mudshark. All infected by obvious ghetto nigger behavior and I think that was presented pretty well.
>It completely reframes the problem of anti-White cultural warfare as "Muslims bad"; a classic Jewish trick.
You're over thinking it. Boll noticed something he doesn't like and he knows a lot of others don't as well. Muslim rapists. That's about as far as his noticing has gotten.
>Who actually rapes girls? Grooming gangs of mostly Pakistanis.
And the other assorted mudslimes from ex Soviet block countries, North African, and Middle Eastern shitholes. Which I think who the gangster vaguely Slavic looking guys were supposed to be that he kills? I agree the film could have been more accurate in depicting the specific perpetrators.
>It comes off as "rape culture" nonsense.
Agreed. It's not what the film should be focusing on.
>All of these things take something that the Boll knows "everyone" is mad about and gently twists it into something fantastical.
In a sense that is true. But what can also be true is that for many the hints of reality that are present are irrefutable and inescapable.
>That's how they pander to you; we all want someone to come out and say it so they have an "outsider" become the spokesperson.
I don't care about anything like that. I care about it pissing off the right people and waking up a few more normies. It's doing that.
>That's what this movie is: hate porn. But it's done as though the director doesn't know what boobs look like so they CGI butts onto people's chests. It's a fever dream. (read: degenerate retard)
Well, yeah... It's Uwe Boll. Thanks for your replies. I actually enjoy discussing this film more than I ever thought I would. So it's done something right in the sense that it's gotten people talking about it. And was banned as you pointed out.
>I didn't see any of them as ethnically British or European.
>I saw a mongrel non-White, a nigger, and a mudshark.
>But what can also be true is that for many the hints of reality that are present are irrefutable and inescapable.
*You* are the one headcannoning things because you *want* this movie to be based. It isn't. It's a midwit hate porn, at best.
You have an idea in your head, which maybe the majority of Whites share, that Boll is trying to exploit. But, because he's a total hack, he doesn't actually come close to understanding *anything* he's talking about and he sure as hell doesn't *beleive* any of it.
At best, he's playing alienated Whites for money. At worst, this is demoralisation.
Either way, it's a test to see if people can think critically when faced with bespoke propaganda.
>You are the one headcannoning things because you want this movie to be based.
That is how it looked to me? Call it my head cannon if you want. I think many see it the same as I have. The film doesn't have to explicitly line out the perfect version of your own ideological views, one for one, to have based true elements, my friend.
>At best, he's playing alienated Whites for money. At worst, this is demoralisation. Either way, it's a test to see if people can think critically when faced with bespoke propaganda.
Maybe so. I don't think there is anything so nefarious at work here. I think it's touched a nerve for some reason with many here because it comes close to presenting the reality that we want to expose, but doesn't go the full measure into presenting what they believe it should.
Again, that's because of who made it. Not because there is anything clandestine at work here, I believe. I look at this film akin to something like American History X, Romper Stomper or The Order.
These films were intentionally made to be propaganda against our ideology and to denigrate the people in our movement. You may be correct in assuming these are the same intentions with Citizen Vigilante. However, I think all those films inevitably became adopted by our guys for the kernels of truth present within them and eventually benefitted our purposes more than they ever did the subversives who created them. Just ask Tony Kaye how he feels about American History X.
I don't know where you are getting this interpretation. The gang that raped the White girl were all mudslimes and nons? What is the problem? I didn't see any of them as ethnically British or European.
>Then there's the kids on the bus. Two White kids and their pet jiggaboo. No, we know how this goes, there are whole subs dedicated to chimp outs; it's not White kids, it's Blacks.
Again, this is not what I saw at all. I saw a mongrel non-White, a nigger, and a mudshark. All infected by obvious ghetto nigger behavior and I think that was presented pretty well.
>It completely reframes the problem of anti-White cultural warfare as "Muslims bad"; a classic Jewish trick.
You're over thinking it. Boll noticed something he doesn't like and he knows a lot of others don't as well. Muslim rapists. That's about as far as his noticing has gotten.
>Who actually rapes girls? Grooming gangs of mostly Pakistanis.
And the other assorted mudslimes from ex Soviet block countries, North African, and Middle Eastern shitholes. Which I think who the gangster vaguely Slavic looking guys were supposed to be that he kills? I agree the film could have been more accurate in depicting the specific perpetrators.
>It comes off as "rape culture" nonsense.
Agreed. It's not what the film should be focusing on.
>All of these things take something that the Boll knows "everyone" is mad about and gently twists it into something fantastical.
In a sense that is true. But what can also be true is that for many the hints of reality that are present are irrefutable and inescapable.
>That's how they pander to you; we all want someone to come out and say it so they have an "outsider" become the spokesperson.
I don't care about anything like that. I care about it pissing off the right people and waking up a few more normies. It's doing that.
>That's what this movie is: hate porn. But it's done as though the director doesn't know what boobs look like so they CGI butts onto people's chests. It's a fever dream. (read: degenerate retard)
Well, yeah... It's Uwe Boll. Thanks for your replies. I actually enjoy discussing this film more than I ever thought I would. So it's done something right in the sense that it's gotten people talking about it. And was banned as you pointed out.
>I saw a mongrel non-White, a nigger, and a mudshark.
>But what can also be true is that for many the hints of reality that are present are irrefutable and inescapable.
*You* are the one headcannoning things because you *want* this movie to be based. It isn't. It's a midwit hate porn, at best.
You have an idea in your head, which maybe the majority of Whites share, that Boll is trying to exploit. But, because he's a total hack, he doesn't actually come close to understanding *anything* he's talking about and he sure as hell doesn't *beleive* any of it.
At best, he's playing alienated Whites for money. At worst, this is demoralisation.
Either way, it's a test to see if people can think critically when faced with bespoke propaganda.
That is how it looked to me? Call it my head cannon if you want. I think many see it the same as I have. The film doesn't have to explicitly line out the perfect version of your own ideological views, one for one, to have based true elements, my friend.
>At best, he's playing alienated Whites for money. At worst, this is demoralisation. Either way, it's a test to see if people can think critically when faced with bespoke propaganda.
Maybe so. I don't think there is anything so nefarious at work here. I think it's touched a nerve for some reason with many here because it comes close to presenting the reality that we want to expose, but doesn't go the full measure into presenting what they believe it should.
Again, that's because of who made it. Not because there is anything clandestine at work here, I believe. I look at this film akin to something like American History X, Romper Stomper or The Order.
These films were intentionally made to be propaganda against our ideology and to denigrate the people in our movement. You may be correct in assuming these are the same intentions with Citizen Vigilante. However, I think all those films inevitably became adopted by our guys for the kernels of truth present within them and eventually benefitted our purposes more than they ever did the subversives who created them. Just ask Tony Kaye how he feels about American History X.