Could Elon Musk’s Involvement Make the Controversial Uwe Boll Film About Immigrant Violence Even More Problematic?

Uwe Boll’s *Citizen Vigilante* has somehow managed to tighten its grip on the title of the most cursed movie of the year. With distributors understandably hesitant to release this anti-immigration murder fantasy featuring an alleged cannibalistic fantasist, none other than Elon Musk stepped in, uploading the entire film to his X account for a limited 48 hours.

Boll is infamous for his string of poorly received video game adaptations in the 2000s, including *BloodRayne*, *Alone in the Dark*, and *Far Cry*. While he lacks any real filmmaking talent, he has a knack for exploiting tax loopholes across Europe. Though his name faded from the spotlight, Boll has rebranded himself as an alt-right champion of free speech, which essentially means casting disgraced actors in deliberately controversial films to grab attention.

*Citizen Vigilante* is a particularly grotesque example of this trend, aiming to be a sort of *Death Wish* for the far-right. The plot follows a man (Armie Hammer) who embarks on a killing spree against immigrants after his wife is randomly murdered in a violent attack in “EUROPE.” The film is astonishingly poorly made, with no grasp of basic filmmaking principles like eyelines, framing, or pacing. The lighting is laughable, and the editing swings wildly between jarring rapid cuts and long, tedious scenes. You’d think after all these years, Boll would have picked up some skills, but he remains as inept as ever. It’s also shockingly racist.

Given this background, it’s clear that the film needs to reach as many viewers as possible. Not distributing a film like this is seen as an act of censorship, a complete suppression of free speech, and many would argue it borders on a war crime. Enter Elon Musk, the self-proclaimed savior of our time.

Reports indicate that Musk reached out to Boll through his podcast but never spoke directly to him. When asked if Musk had permission to upload the film for free, Boll responded, “Basically, yes.” So, not really. He further commented on the situation, weighing the potential financial impact of the upload against the publicity it generated, stating, “You know, you get a lot of PR, but you don’t get a lot of money. So, we will figure that out in the next four or six weeks.”

Following this stunt, a U.S. distributor has picked up the film for international release, though it won’t be available in the UK or Germany, where it has already been denied a release. With all the extra attention, it might generate some additional revenue beyond the meager $600,000 Boll claims the $2 million film has made so far, especially from those who missed the chance to download it for free. But honestly, anyone who pays to see it is in for a rough time, as it’s painfully dull.

I can’t emphasize enough how boring this film is. From the opening credits to the 40-minute mark, almost nothing of interest happens. There’s an excruciatingly long scene where Hammer lectures three teenagers on a bus about the economic consequences of not paying for tickets. In one of the film’s most unintentionally funny moments, Hammer interrupts a sexual encounter with a prostitute to point out the mold on the walls, explaining that it’s due to her letting clients use the shower without opening the window. I can’t make this up.

Hammer, of course, wasn’t “canceled” for any political misstep. Multiple women have accused him of emotional and physical abuse, sharing what they claim are private messages from him that contain some of the most disturbing content imaginable. This kind of stunt casting, much like the embarrassing choice to cast Jonathan Majors in another problematic film, conflates the so-called anti-woke backlash with giving opportunities to genuinely harmful individuals.