The movie is about a foreigner (an American) who owns thousands of properties in Europe. He acts entitled because of it. He doesn't like that there are older people in their 50s and 60s working for his company so he tells a manager to get rid of them and bring in new blood. He is in his 40s but he's not married and he doesn't have children. He has sex with prostitutes. And he kills European citizens.
He killed law enforcement officers for doing their jobs. He killed innocent people in a car (men? women? children?)simply because they didn't change lanes.
There were some cool moments and some good points made but it was really badly done.
Not to mention the gaping holes in the plot. He asks a woman in the hospital if she wants justice and she says "Yes" and that's the end of it. The movie never shows the vigilante going after her assailant. Then there are three teenagers in a park assaulting an innocent guy. Two guys and a girl. The vigilante breaks the two guy's bones but the girl magically disappears.
I understand the point it was trying to make and I agree with that point, but it was so terribly executed.
Ah I see. This is very typical pattern in movies that I call "weaponised disclosure" where they purport to disclose some redpill (like foreigners committing crimes) but distort it in a way to smear the wrong people (Instead of muslims or blacks or Indians or pakistanis they pick an American as a "foreigner").
So you cant say "Media doesnt talk about foreigners committing crimes" because when you say that someone will say "But this movie does exactly that".
This is why the movie feels so confusing - that is the purpose of whoever is behind this movie's symbolism, but in reality since more and more people are waking up, people will fill in the blanks themselves.