hateball777 I was waiting to see this since it came out, the trailer made the movie and concept very appealing.It is not!The whole time it revolves about the same issue over and over and over again with nothing actually new to add to the things everybody knows already.Wish i could get my minutes of life back, and the 3 euros i paid to rent this by VOD.

buzzcovington This biased piece of filth attempts to excuse vandalism and breaking the law by those that have not been able to adapt to society and it's rules. There is no excuse for the viewpoint that they are attempting to promulgate, and they come off as amateurish and juvenile activists with no real cause to rally behind. The only people that they can find to support their narrative in this poor attempt at a documentary are other outcasts from civilization who don't share one mouthful of teeth among themselves. I WISH they would try their brand of visual activism on my property. They would quickly become familiar with a few of the amendments of the constitution that I hold near and dear.

scottiem303 The film starts out very intriguing and interesting with some distinct bias on behalf of the producers. Being an artist, living in an urban environment, I can truly appreciate art of ALL forms. So I began the film with an open mind.As the film progressed I found myself screaming obvious questions at the television as the film dances circles around valid objections to the taggers/artists efforts, rather then face some given truths. One gleaming example of this takes place at an anti-graffiti convention, the film crew apparently tried to crash, an anti-graffiti guy walks up to the camera and acts to scratch his initials into the camera lens. Demonstrating the very principal underlying the public's frustrations with graffiti, DON'T F--- WITH S--- THAT ISN'T YOURS. The film crew was more than upset at this attempt to show them the error of their ways. Also, missing the point completely. Good (producer) did not address this at all, I am surprised they included it in the film. Surely they were trying to portray the vigilantes as extreme or demonstrate the films balance and fairness.As the film progresses, it becomes heavily biased. Very irritating and flat our ignorant. Filled with bold statements and obvious editing ploys to villainize the vigilantes. Even going to the extent to post "wanted" flyers including a picture and personal information of one of their foes. Seeing how these BS tags to some degree (some tags, clearly not all) are gang related, I could not help but think they are attempting (or raise the possibility)of getting this 65 year old man hurt. Weak, stupid, ignorant,and malicious - just like these f---ing tags. Did I mention immature? Like I said before, I am an artist. I love art. From craft to gallery. And despite what the film states, there are differences in graffiti. There is most certainly a distinction between tags for the sake of having your name or symbol all over everything and art (graffiti) that is created for the purpose of expanding and enhancing the human experience. It is a shame that this film missed the boat on this one.All credibility the film tried to raise in the beginning went out the door as the film consistently refused to acknowledge any graffiti as wrong doing. No intelligent person could honestly say that scribbling on a businesses door, window, wall, poster, sidewalk, pole, mailbox, trashcan, car, billboard, anything and everything is right. The easiest way to demonstrate this: I walk up to Good's house with a can of paint and let's see what he does when I write my name on his front door. Do you think he will sit there and let it happen because I am "expressing myself"? No, he will get violent. Without a doubt.The issue is, taggers/bombers/graffiti artists see no wrong when they are on the giving end of their art. Once on the receiving end (as with the camera lens) it isn't so cool.Through the entire 86 mins, the film makers attempt to point out the hypocrisy of the vigilante's efforts. That they themselves are tagging (performing graffiti. Ummm, am I the only one that sees the flaw in this logic? First off, they state that all graffiti is and expression of the "artist" and that all graffiti is art. They hammer his point home over and over again. So, if the vigilantes are also creating graffiti, then you are saying their cover up ("buffer") is also art. As an artist I will not concede that a single color blob over scribbles as art. Not at all. There for, tracking back, the vigilantes are not creating graffiti, however eliminating the problem. Second, they are attempting to thwart the taggers efforts, making their time, money and risk all for not - there by stopping the want to continue this pattern of vandalism. Simple. Stop the mindless tagging and there would never be a need for a buffer. These vigilantes are trying, in their way, to right the wrongs on behalf of their less proactive neighbors.This movie is a total joke produced by some single-minded anti-establishment kids living in men's bodies, trying to bring new light to a dark subject. My message to the producers: Leave the real world topics to the adults and just keep writing on walls. Hopefully your own.About me: I am 28 years of age, not some old fart talking about these damn kids. I live in Denver, in an up and coming neighborhood. There is a lot of beautiful graffiti all around my house. I love it. There is also a lot of visual garbage, hate and disrespect via graffiti. I am sick and tired of having "artists" writing on my house, block, sidewalks, business and street signs. It is all about respect and vandalizing what is not your is nothing short of disrespect. Period. End of subject. Next topic.

subverbal This was an interesting watch, albeit an incoherent one. The pro/anti- graffiti debate is fascinating, but only if one goes deep into the question of opposing rights of different-minded people. Here, much time is spent on talking heads overstating the obvious: "some graffiti is pretty", "tagging requires skill", "wall-to-wall advertisement is more damaging to the city landscape than graffiti, etc." Most of the talking heads stuff is of that nature. Thankfully, a lot of it is illustrated with thoughtful animation.More interesting is the portrait of the buffers ("remover of graffiti") themselves and their motivations. Their zealous desire to rid the city of graffiti turns them into bigger graffiters themselves, perhaps the most active of them all. The irony of the situation is not lost on the filmmakers, but somehow does not alter their discourse on graffiti.But if buffers are taggers, and tagging is art, then why come down so hard on the buffers? Shouldn't the right of someone to spray silver paint over a graffiti be as protected as the right to create graffiti in the first place? Unfortunately, when the documentary encounters such ethical dilemmas, it prefers to avoid the issues and simply portray the buffers as near or complete lunatics with personal problems.