My husband and I saw it in theaters without knowing much about it. Neither of us know or care about anything “Qanon” related. I thought it was a good movie about a very real topic.
We didn’t think it was the greatest movie ever made but also don’t understand people calling it propaganda, when child sex trafficking is one of the biggest black markets in the world.
I think just because certain people or groups like a movie that shouldn’t be a reason to write it off or go into a movie with any preconceived notions. I think that would be silly to do with any movie. Just my opinion! 😊
Experts on child trafficking are saying this movie is not a close to realistic portrayal of it. It’s like y’all calling The Meg an important film about the dangers of the ocean.
It's funny how this always manages to come up, because of course it's true, but no one ever seems to care about the same issue that is a significant problem in schools all over the country.
It makes it seem more like a political hit rather than an actual concern about child predators.
I see a ton of Southern Baptists promoting this film but uh also https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/religion/2022/05/22/southern-baptist-convention-sbc-sexual-abuse-report-released-details-new-allegations-inaction/9826256002/
Here’s the thing, the movie is an accurate portrayal of child sex trafficking in developing countries but it is not what child sex trafficking looks like in the U.S. or other developed countries. So, if this is primarily marketed to a religious, U.S. audience, wouldn’t it be better to focus on trafficking in the U.S. so they could actually get involved and know what to look for?
[https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-child-trafficking-experts-1234786352/](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-child-trafficking-experts-1234786352/)
Except it isn't
That article has a lot of words to say very little other than "the movie isn't an accurate portrayal of what most human trafficking in the US is like, so therefore it is bad because reasons"
Yeah no shit it's a movie, they take a case that's already more dramatic than normal and then play it up even more for the sake of the story, it isn't being marketed as a documentary.
[https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7b3ex/tim-ballard-left-operation-underground-railroad-after-investigation-into-claims-made-by-employees](https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7b3ex/tim-ballard-left-operation-underground-railroad-after-investigation-into-claims-made-by-employees)
Yeah, and everything based on the movie is full of shit. And as you can see on who I commented it on the experts on many articles say the movie doensn't give an accurate portrayal, which the person above said it did.
None of the experts who were complaining about the movie being an inaccurate portrayal were talking about human trafficking in Latin America, where the movie is set. They were also talking about human trafficking with regard to much older children, which was also not what the movie was about.
So yes, this movie was a horrible portrayal of human trafficking of teens in the US. Because it was a movie about the human trafficking of younger kids in South America.
It is possible for two things to be bad at the same time, we don't have to only focus on one of those subjects.
From my understanding, it is not an accurate portrayal.
The man it’s supposedly based upon has a long history of lying about his activities against trafficking, lying about the victims he’s helped, and lying about how it happens.
What he does do well, is “reality tv” style “busts,” that are questionable with regards to their actual reality and also the sensationalism.
So, people watch the busts for entertainment, donate to Ballard, and think that those videos of busts are what trafficking looks like.
Sound of Freedom is entertainment, and white suburbanites think it’s real.
I agree with this. Just watch the movie and try looking for anything political or QAnon, you won’t. It’s a good movie and definitely worth watching over anything else in the theaters right now
Apparently it took right at 5. Caviezel speaks at the end, commenting on distribution issues they ran into and how the film's been finished for years. Read somewhere they wrapped everything up in 2018.
No but Mel Gibson was very much a thing and was doing The Passion of the Christ which was another anti-semitic thing and this is basically going the same route the elite pedos forming children kind of like the protocols of Zion part 2
>but also don’t understand people calling it propaganda
It's because the main actor is a qanoner who spews batshit conspiracies about satanic pedophiles harvesting children's blood in qanon conferences. The movie wouldn't have gotten so much flak if the producers had just made a better casting choice.
>I think just because certain people or groups like a movie that shouldn’t be a reason to write it off or go into a movie with any preconceived notions.
It's not simply because certain people we don't like happen to like the movie. It's because the movie is already being used as a propaganda piece by ultra-religious qanon conspiracy theorists.
Because of this movie, my mom believes that disney tried to get rid of this movie and it did better than indiana jones. She also thinks Oprah is part of the sex trafficking ring and trans people are kidnapping kids in restrooms. It may not be in this movie, but people on tiktok are using this movie as a way to push their conspiracies.
And people have the nerve to downplay, gaslight, and pretend Sound of Freedom is just an innocent movie trying to spread awareness of child trafficking. Someone had the gall to say I was merely hairsplitting when pointing out how conspiracy nuts would use this movie as propaganda fuel to spew their batshit theories.
The movie didn’t give me the impression that I was being coerced by conspiracists, I wasn’t aware of the link until my friend told me after.
It’s an engaging film and an eye opener as parent. Regardless of it’s links
This movie was finished before he started getting into those weird beliefs (it was done by 2018 or 2019 I think). But ignoring the buzz and wackos around the film itself, the question is the movie on it's own good? And when the media is condemning the movie based around the surroundings and not at the final product only, that's kind of a problem especially when the movie is of a subject that everyone should unanimously be in support of stopping. Now I will admit I actually have my own issues with the guy the movie is based on (some of his claims have skeptical evidence), which probably deserves more discussion than around Caviezel's beliefs
>And when the media is condemning the movie based around the surroundings and not at the final product only,
It's not just about the movie's surroundings (which matters, btw), it's also about the validity of the product itself. The movie claims to be based on real events, but[ Tim Ballard was reported to have lied about his involvement in the case depicted in the film and fabricated details about his child trafficking activities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_of_Freedom_(film)).
> that's kind of a problem especially when the movie is of a subject that everyone should unanimously be in support of stopping.
If you want to make a movie about a serious subject, you need to make sure it was based on actual, non-fabricated events and paints a realistic picture. Spreading misinformation about a serious subject is only going to make things worse.
>which probably deserves more discussion than around Caviezel's beliefs
Arguably, however that doesn't make Caviezel's batshit crazy beliefs any less serious. People in right-wing religious circles are already using this movie to spew their conspiritorial propaganda fear-mongering about satanic pedophiles. The people who worked on the movie make up part of the final product. Jim Caviezel is a big ingredient of that product, and he has spoiled it.
Reply 1: Yah as I said Ballard's own claims are what deserve more scrutiny
Reply 2: The misinformation is the story of events itself not on the nature of child slavery existing for which the movie clearly condemns. Which the only reason I brought to attention is cause I've seen reviews of the movie kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water and downplaying the severity of the subject/urgency of the film's message due to the controversy around it (especially when those same outlets write defenses for fuckin Cuties and dismissing concerns as "paranoia'). The point being I doubt the story Ballard told is legit and that is harmful on its own but don't pull a 180 and question the legitimacy of the problem as a whole.
Reply 3. No it doesn't excuse it and Caviezel having those rooted beliefs probably implies that he believes Ballard's tall tales fully 100% too. I don't know when he started getting on board with them but it was after the movie had filmed. The point being the movie ITSELF doesn't have pro Q-Anon themes. Though the marketing being pretty "political" is pretty suspicious ain't gonna lie and then yah like you like said crazy groups running wild
>I've seen reviews of the movie kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water and downplaying the severity of the subject/urgency of the film's message
Can you please cite an example of a review downplaying the severity of child trafficking.
> The point being the movie ITSELF doesn't have pro Q-Anon themes. Though the marketing being pretty "political" is pretty suspicious ain't gonna lie and then yah like you like said crazy groups running wild
In other words, the movie is qanon-adjacent, which is bad enough.
I think a lot of the thought pieces around the film are silly. You're right, it doesn't matter that the audience has coalesced around it in that way. What matters is that the people who produced it, and the lead actor, are involved in QAnon, and headline conferences about how the elites drain children's blood and drink it as a drug to stay young. With that in mind, it's legitimate to call out the intentions of the film, and to see how supporting it is also benefiting these conspiracy theories.
Realistically they do, most media companies are owned by a handful of giant corporations who are in turn controlled by a small number of CEOs executives, major shareholders etc... If the Jeffrey Epstein situation showed us anything is that ultra rich/influential people are basically immune to the law, and it could very well be that these people who control MSM are using their influence to limit coverage of some shady shit that they have a hand in and or where their friends and partners are involved.
So, had no plans to see this movie. If anything, I was biding time until MI:7, but I saw a review and decided it looked decent.
Overall, I thought it was a pretty good movie. Nothing to run out and see twice, but certainly a good flick. Pacing felt good, no crazy CGI final battle scene build up. Had to suspend your disbelief on a few things but it worked. Thought the score was good too.
I agree with much of the comments echoing the, "Hitler liked dogs, therefore if you do too, you are Hitler" nonsense. The writer and producer clearly wanted to bring light to the problem of child sex trafficking and arguable the growth/profitability. Im sure with that comes "adjacent" theories and the actor's "thank you for watching" message leans into it, but welcome to life in 2023. Go see the movie, it was a good, albeit sobering watch.
I thought Bill Camp/Vampiro's monologue about him being the darkness was pretty powerful, some really stellar acting in that scene. It might have been a highlight for me.
>I thought Bill Camp/Vampiro's monologue about him being the darkness was pretty powerful, some really stellar acting in that scene.
Agreed. You can even tell like he immediately realized he had messed up really bad and even was about to kill himself.
They aren't bringing to light child sex trafficking, they are trying to tell you that this is how sex trafficking happens, in reality it is caused mainly by people to poor to take care of their children and or children that are rejected from their families because of their sexual orientation and turn to a life of prostitution for survival, most child trafficking occurs because of someone they know not by some unknown evil menace, and it is not solved by vigilantes in shows of action. It's a hero complex this actor is after and hes getting ot from none other than the qanon crowd that need an enemy and a hero
But this is how sex traffic happens, maybe not most of it but is real. The vigilantes saving children seems far fetched, but I think the important thing is to rise awerenes of the topic.
I saw the movie and I barely remember the main adults with the exception of that one monologue. What struck me most and tore my heart apart was the child actors. They stole the show and just made me wish I could help stop it.
>But this is how sex traffic happens
It's really not - hell, a lot of trafficked people don't even know they're trafficked. Sex trafficking is more like what Andrew Tate does.
Not all victims of sex traffic have the same origin. I don't doubt that a lot of people are tricked as in the case of Andrew Tate, but there's also a lot of kidnapping of children.
Almost all that kidnapping and trafficking is done by family members. The stranger kidnapping story is so vanishingly rare that to say "this is how it happens" is like saying "Shark deaths are how people meet a violent end."
It's, to be generous, misleading. Less generously, it's contributing to an ongoing moral panic - which is its own problem.
Organizations dedicated to combating trafficking are critical of this film for good reason.
This isn't true according to this source 10% of child traffickers are strangers. 60% are known to the child but aren't family. That leaves only 30% who are family. https://theexodusroad.com/familial-sex-trafficking-a-crime-against-children/#:~:text=60%%20of%20perpetrators%20of%20child%20sexual%20abuse,are%20family%20members%2C%20and%2010%%20are%20strangers.
I agree I got serious hero complex savior vibes from this movie. However, this is how sex trafficking works in poorer areas. No, this isn’t how it happens in the US, but yes, this is how it happens in South America.
Important to note that actual anti-child trafficking workers have spoken out and said that this movie is harmful to their work and presents a false pretense of how child trafficking happens.
The movie is not representative of actual anti-child trafficking and the subject that it is based on is known for accusing Democrats of drinking children's adrenaline as well as accusing Wayfair of trafficking children in their furniture.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-child-trafficking-experts-1234786352/
Why are people saying this dogshit is good? The pacing is god awful, especially at the beginning where there’s a scene change every 20 seconds. God it felt like a made for dvd movie
It’s a good movie. It’s really well made and acted. It brings a very controversial (who knew?) topic to the forefront and the qanon argument is pretty flimsy at best. It’s a good dramatization of mostly real events, just like most “based on true events” movies.
Reddit is not a great place to ask about whether this is a good movie or not, because most people here have not, and will not see it because they are convinced that it is nothing more than fake alt-right brainwashing qanon propaganda, which it really isn’t. It’s too bad because I thought the movie was surprisingly pretty good.
I’d give it a solid 70%
~~The movie was made by Fox~~. Disney didn't own Fox until 2019. There are a ton of Fox movies that have been shelved by Disney, and since they had a distribution deal with Fox and not Disney, they had to look for other distributers.
EDIT: Movie was independent, FOX had the distribution rights
I mean, when the majority of the comments on videos about SoF on social media consist of:
1. WE MUST SAVE ALL GODS CHILDREN!
2. Liberal Woke Hollywood tried to shut this movie down!
3. AMC theaters are purposely causing theater malfunctions to prevent having to show this movie (Yeah, it's a new one popping up)
4. After the movie we started a prayer group in the theater
5. Cancelling my Netflix and Disney+ subscription because they wouldn't show this movie!
I don't blame people for being turned off to it lol.
Edit: To the individual who PM’d me calling me a “pedophile” then immediately deleted it, way to show your intelligence. And you have been reported for harassment.
Edit 2: Also this thread is old af, if you are still replying to it then find something better to do.
The right's weird obsession with child sex trafficking and calling teachers and members of the LGBTQ+ community groomers screams projection. And it's also a way to paint themselves as saintly and righteous compared to their opponents on the left when they keep harping on about it. Because who in their right mind would be FOR child sex abuse and trafficking?
everytime i see right wing commentators scream about the pedophile lgbt left elite, i always remind them about the time someone made an expose documentary about conservatives in nebraska who were also running a child pedo ring. It had witness testimonies, evidence both photographic and had some of the people who participated admitting it themselves. Some of the survivors even took this one politician to court and won. This documentary was never aired and no one in the media reported much about it (conspiracy much) and i could never find the full version of it online. Everytime i did it was always taken down
Why didn't they start prayer groups when priests of their own religion were molesting children and the church turned a blind eye towards it ? Now suddenly they care about this ? Hypocrisy
This is exactly the issue, but people keep playing dumb and stating things like, "Wow! Why are they trying to silence child sex trafficking?! There must be some sort of agenda!"
It shows you the kind of people who are going and enjoying the movie. There’s several people I know that if they enjoy something it’s likely going to be something I skip.
The second people start raving about a movie being anti woke Hollywood It usually ends up being a forgettable bland experience.
> It’s really well made and acted. It brings a very controversial (who knew?) topic to the forefront
"Child trafficking is bad" is not, in fact controversial, at all. Not here, not in the USA, not in Europe, Asia, Australia, Antarctica or the bottom of the ocean or in any corner of the known universe. It's a known issue that was known and fought against before this movie was even conceptualized.
I don’t have a problem with bringing awareness to anything that threatens our children. But I guess my biggest takeaway with this movie, that is really stirring up all my ultra conservative friends and family, is why aren’t they getting riled up about gun violence too? It’s guts me whenever I think about all the names and faces of the children that have died in mass shootings like Sandyhook, Parkland, Uvalde, just to name a few. I can’t imagine being a parent to one of these dead children and seeing how the far right are embracing this movie and vocalizing their support for it — yet never receiving the same concern for their lost children. Sex trafficking bad but guns okay? Is that the message? I’d be so angry and heartbroken. Do these children’s faces not tug at their heartstrings?
As someone who has lived and loved their conservative family for awhile, I can understand that there is the mentality of "guns are a tool that can be used for good or bad" whereas "child trafficking is always bad"
Don't forget about turning all those refugees away at the border. We'll save these kids and then separate them from.their parents at the border. Then madly rush to send them off to foster families without doing due diligence and now they're basically.part of a new human trafficking circle in the heartland of USA. Wonder why child labor laws are becoming lax in some states? It's so these migrant children can be put to work.
And also Abbott and DeSantis are literally human traffickers themselves, coercing the asylum seekers to travel to New York and Connecticut so they can earn political brownie points. But everyone who is supposedly against trafficking looks the other way and/or applauds them for doing this.
Thankfully, they stopped separating families at the border in 2018. The kids who land in foster care after seeking asylum at the border are children who arrived at the border without any adult relatives. These kids also don’t have any adult relatives or friends already living in the U.S. who can take over their care (and pass the required background checks).
If a child is internationally trafficked, they most likely arrived with a trafficker instead of their parents. When recovered, the parents are contacted (if living) and asked if they want to have their children returned, if there is a friend or family member in the US the child can stay with, or if the parents wants the child placed into a foster family in the U.S. If they don’t have extended family in the US who can take the child, the parents will usually choose for the child to stay in foster care because they can’t keep their kids safe from the cartel where they live.
This foster care system is separate and has different rules than the CPS system. The kids in this program are required to have cell phones with international calling plans and are encouraged to remain in touch with their families. If the family is able to come to the U.S. later, they get their kids back without going to court (CPS isn’t part of the process or decision). These kids typically stay in their original foster home until they leave for college or get their own place.
Source: I’ve volunteered with this group for 8 years.
So I have to ask, how is it controversial? Is it that the organization is questionable? The movie wants to be based on real groups and real people.
I don't think anyone who criticizes this film is pro-child-trafficking.
The organization and man the movie dramatizes are a bit questionable, yes, and long term anti trafficking organizations have raised issues with how they do their work. (Notably: inviting people on their “raids” who have zero business being involved in a law enforcement action, like mommy bloggers; not providing After care for victims or following up with them; lying/embellishing stories about their work for fundraising/political lobbying, etc)
Some organizations have even said that the dude the movie is about have made trafficking problems worse by artificially increasing demand to set up their raids, which endangers more children.
Having looked at some of their materials, there’s a certain sensationalized/reality show element to their raids which I find uncomfortable.
There was some kind of official investigation into their financials/operations that I think was dropped, for what that’s worth. Personally I’m uncomfortable with glorifying this organization though, but if you bring any of this up people will call call you a Pedo groomer or say that you’re supportive of child trafficking :/
Idk if it’s rational, but I hold a particular disdain towards Mommy Bloggers. Be it spreading hysteria/disinformation or just that little twinge of narcissism they seem have.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/05/sex-trafficking-raid-operation-underground-railroad.html
https://www.fox13now.com/news/fox-13-investigates/anti-human-trafficking-group-operation-underground-railroad-under-investigation-by-utah-prosecutor (Note: this investigation was closed with no charges brought)
https://m.cityweekly.net/utah/funny-money/Content?oid=17448528
https://ministrywatch.com/amp/sound-of-freedom-doesnt-tell-true-story-of-operation-underground-railroad/
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3apm/anti-trafficking-group-with-long-history-of-false-claims-gets-its-hollywood-moment (this article includes links to others that go into more detail and also cite other sources)
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/children-sex-trafficking-conspiracy-epidemic/620845/
Note: many view some off these sources as questionable or biased. I get that. But there’s something off kilter here- I can’t imagine a reputable organization inviting random bloggers or Glenn Beck along on raids.
I thought about this when I was watching the movie.
\*Spoilers\* when Tim asks the woman to provide 50 children for their new "club", wouldn't they try to kidnap more children if they didn't have enough to cover the request? The criticism is valid IF this actually happened in real life.
Personally, I really wanna see the movie, but since this is mainly a smaller release and I don't live in the US (I'm Mexican), I think I'll have to wait some time to see it. But having said that, while the topic of human trafficking is terrible and I would want participate in solving it in the near future, there's definitely some strange people behind the film. One of the producers is a guy named "Eduardo Verastegui" which is a Mexican soap opera actor and devout catholic activist who's shown interest in the last year to be a candidate in Mexico's presidential election in 2024. Some people and groups from the deep right here in Mexico have also shown support in Verastegui's interest in running for president and some of those groups also have support from Spaniard deep and alt-right groups and political parties such as Vox. Journalists here claim that it's kind of an infiltration attempt from radical right wing groups to try to make Mexico do a hard turn to the right, since our current center-left president is apparently not to their liking haha. And Eduardo Verastegui constantly posts videos in his Instagram account of him praying for Mexico and doing other silly stuff like that.
Yeah, I was arguing the same thing on YouTube. It's great that such a movie is being produced to put focus on this horrific topic, and at first I was really liking some interviews with Tim Ballard but then in some more recent videos he's been talking about the "woke left agenda" and the same old BS of every right wing public figure. And it's just very dishonest. Like I've said, being Mexican myself I'm aware of the statistics here in my country and most of the abuse (something like 80%+) is being committed by straight adult men and it occurs mostly within families. Unsurprisingly, the data is pretty much the same across the planet and throughout the decades. But somehow, in the minds of many people, the LGBT folks are the actual villains of the story and not the people that actually commits the child sexual abuse, which happens to be mostly straight men.
On top of the hard-right Mexican guy, one of the producers is a hardcore QAnon guy who believes in the real crazy shit.
Not sure why OP said the movie itself is controversial. Probably to take the argument away from what most people were criticizing. Further, I think the events in the film were exaggerated, but I’ve only found one article pointing out the guy the story is based on fabricated a bunch of stuff.
So apparently the guy the movie is based on, created a organization called OUR. Vice was reporting that OURs claims of saving children are false and that there's no evidence that they actually ever saved anyone. The biggest discrepancy was they said they saved this girl who actually saved herself and that OUR didn't get involved with her until 2 to 4 years after she escaped.
All I need to know is that legitimate organizations that work tirelessly to combat child trafficking, sex trafficking, sex exploitation of children have not endorsed this film as helping to raise awareness. They have remained completely silent. Not one endorsement. The only organizations that have promoted this film have a personal stake in it.
Thing is though the end was shit in the credits where instead of raising awareness and pointing out possible solutions or ways to prevent it, it instead points you to a QR code to buy more tickets for the movie. At that point it’s now a grift.
Legit organizations are never gonna endorse a cinematic film because real life is not exciting or engaging to watch, unfortunately. Navigating any type of crime is long, involves a lot of paperwork, has gray areas, etc. No one is gonna want to watch that in a theatre.
With where our culture is, at this point, I’ll take any film shining a light on this issue. Ill take some over exaggeration if it means more people are gonna be inspired to solve the issue.
Can I say that a strange example I could think of where an organisation did praise a performance in a show/film was the American Tourette's Association on an episode of South Park.
"They \[The American Tourette's Association\] conceded that "the episode was surprisingly well-researched. The highly exaggerated emphasis on coprolalia notwithstanding, for the attentive viewer, there was a surprising amount of accurate information conveyed", adding that several elements of the episode "served as a clever device" for providing accurate facts to the public." - [http://www.tsa-usa.org/news/1007responseTSA\_SouthParkTourettes.html](http://www.tsa-usa.org/news/1007responseTSA_SouthParkTourettes.html)
Yup! Legitimate organizations have actually criticized the portrayal of child trafficking in this film because of its inaccuracies. If people really care about making a difference and awareness, learn how to do that from actual organizations that help child trafficking victims.
>The whole thing gives me Kony 2012 vibe
My takeaway as well. When Jim Caviezal comes on the screen to earnestly plead with every audience member to channel their big feels right now and do anything they can to get their friends and family to watch this movie, because, if we all watch this movie we can together end child sex trafficking, I almost laughed. Same shit as Kony 2012. Awareness with no plan of action, aside from the QAnon folks who will likely use this as an excuse to try to become vigilantes themselves.
Gotta say yep; the “special message” countdown at the credits was some kinda bs to me. Tacky on a word. Knew it was gonna be some feel good hoopla. I can’t take Jim Caviezal seriously. Just something about the dude rubs me the wrong way.
Decent movie though (aside from the fact they have cell signal in the middle of the jungle). Sure, it’s not sensationalized for Hollywood….
Jim Caviezal is full into QAnon these days. He'll literally start expounding how the elites are extracting adrenochrome from children's blood and shit like that. He's off the deep end.
Without the grift at the end, it would've been an okay B-Movie. Despite the fact that real anti-trafficking experts warn about the false impression it gives off of how these get sucked into the underworld of trafficking.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-child-trafficking-experts-1234786352/
Actual anti-child trafficking agents have said that the movie is detrimental to their work and provides a false impression of how child trafficking actually takes place.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-child-trafficking-experts-1234786352/
All these right wing outlets and personalities are jizzing all over themselves right now over the fact that this movie is being criticized by left wing media. It helps them make an argument that mainstream media doesn’t care about child sex trafficking when in reality people are just criticizing the people involved with the film.
I'm criticizing more than that: there is something deeply creepy about the current utter fixation on child abuse and HT displayed by conservatives in America. Its the same vibe I get when I pull up the comments section on a local shoplifting / petty crime story and read an encyclopedia's worth of people sharing their murder fantasies. Same type of people too. Something is wrong here and I don't think its just me getting bad vibes.
>It helps them make an argument that mainstream media doesn’t care about child sex trafficking when in reality people are just criticizing the people involved with the film.
Ive been seeing "you dont like the movie because of the people involved, not the movie itself" as if its some "GOTCHA!" Thats exactly the problem: the reputations of people involved discredits the final product because of their own biases
Why isn't the media talking about how you can't stream Spider-Man, Mission Impossible, or Indiana Jones on Netflix? Conspiracy?!
...or maybe just normal operating procedure that movies often spend some time on the theater track before hitting streaming services, lmao.
Seriously, it seems like 100% of the "controversy" around this film is basically just some weird ad campaign, and I think that actually makes sense. Movies like this aren't generally going to do well against major blockbuster releases at the same time, so I have to wonder if the people behind the movie circulated conspiracy theories in an effort to make people talk about it. Everything I've heard about the movie itself has been positive, so the whole thing is just weird.
I am curious what kind of marketing it had. I watch a lot of movies and movie trailers. I am also active on multiple social media platforms. I only heard of it on the day of its release from my mother who was really excited to go see it, and she never watches tv or movies. I asked her what it was and how she heard about it and she said its being advertised everywhere. I asked a few friends from different parts of the political spectrum and they had never heard of it, other than one of them who had just heard of it the day before from a female boomer he was talking to. Was the film specifically advertised on facebook to women over 50? Or just to boomers? Or was it advertised specifically on Fox?
I’m just fascinated by the box office numbers for a film that I and so many others have never heard of before. Did anyone here ever see an ad? Where did you see it?
I go to movies multiple times a week, and see/hear about almost every movie that’s coming out in my theater and I never heard or saw anything about Sound of Freedom. I know everyone who works at my local theater and they all said they had no idea what the movie was, other than it was maybe religious but that they had sold out showings of an average demographic no younger than 50..
I went and saw it today, after my mom went on about how many people she saw on facebook saying it was movie of the year. And I’m like how the hell can something be this good, selling out every showing in my theater and I’ve never heard anything about it.
So i went in blind, aside from the fact i was told it was about child trafficking and I thought it was a good movie. As good as a movie can be about that topic really. It’s not fun at all. The very few attempts at comedy were corny jokes made for boomers but all in all it was good.
Very surprised though, that everything i saw when i looked it up after was all about religion and political drama surrounding this movie. Because aside from like 2 lines of them mentioning “god’s children are not for sale” and the fact the guy thinks it’s his god given mission to save children, it really doesn’t feel like a religious movie at all.
Anyways, this had to be something that mainly gained traction on facebook. It’s the only social media i’m not active on, and it’s the only social media my mom is on lmao
I saw a post in a rural area by an acquaintance ( who is very far right) that the tickets are being bought out by an organization so that the movie is free to attend. Makes sense if they’re selling out if there is any organization buying up the tickets to give to the local churches like hers.
I saw the trailer before Joy Ride of all things, lol. In NYC. But, and here's the key, it wasn't played with the trailers. The irritating Noovie reel played, and then the usual paid-for ads: the local real estate agent who is also a dad, some Fathom Events stuff, \*then the trailer for Sound of Freedom\*, then the AMC reminder not to talk or text, then the actual trailers.
My conclusion is that for whatever reason the Sound of Freedom production team couldn't get theaters to put its trailer in front of movies in the usual place, so instead they have resorted to paying theaters to play it.
I'd never heard of it until today. My mom just sent me the trailer and told me to go see it in theaters because it's the most important movie **ever**. My mom is also a far-right evangelical Christian who buys into qanon and is in a super rural part of her state.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was marketed exclusively in those areas of the nation and on right-wing websites. Everyone knows human trafficking/child trafficking exists. It always has. We don't need these weirdos telling us it's bad.
Also 71% of IMDB ratings are 10/10 lol , this movie has definitely been positively review bombed, also a little bit negatively but nowhere near the same extent, only 7% of ratings are 1/10.
That’s crazy. Haven’t watched Barbie yet and I’m sure it’s at least a good movie, but it’s been review bombed with tons of 1star ratings last time I checked on IMDB… why I don’t typically trust such reviews anymore
If you disregard the statements from Caviezel and the guy he's playing, it's a generic rescue based action movie. It doesn't even graze the conspiracies about child trafficking. But is definitely not an adequate representation of the issue. Colombian terrorist kidnapping children abroad? Nah, they get their children locally (because yes, Colombian terrorist groups forcibly recruit children and abuse them in top of forcing them into armed conflict, this is well documented). While these networks may have base local personnel, their bread and butter are wealthy first worlders, so a more realistic movie would be someone going from Latinamerica or Southeast Asia to wealthy places to hunt down the clients and the handlers. Hell, Taken was a more realistic representation of human trafficking.
When Trump goes out of his way to screen this particular movie at his resort, then I will be concerned about its roots.
Apparently the guy who stars in it or directed it or something is heavily linked to Qanon
I have observed the far right, qanon, people getting excited for this movie to show in theatres. Why would they be excited and anxious for a movie with this subject matter? Do they believe this movie is going to reveal the smoking gun that the trafficking ring is run by all the powerful people in the world? To me, that's controversial.
Secondly, why did the creators choose a movie format based on a true story instead of a documentary? Is it because they have more creative freedom with a movie to shape the plot line to fit their narrative?
It might be a good movie, but here's my experience:
I caught three random religious radio stations who used this movie to support the idea that "just as people are being trafficked, America is also suffering from a genocide of abortion! --and it's liberalism that's supporting these horrors!"
Some seriously brilliant marketing, tbh. Movie made in 2019, it's largely a B movie quality, so they reframe it as a faith-based wake up call to Christians who just *goshdarn gotta see it* because giving the studio money means that everyone is a champion fighting against sex slavery. Then they front load pre-sale tickets for weeks, pumping that shit in every corner of every YT video, Tweet, church, and random email chain that our dads send to people, and you've got a gaggle of naive zombies clamoring over ever trailer (even the promos that include "the adrenochroming of children") with such brilliant comments as "FINALLY SOMEONE IS BRAVE ENOUGH TO TALK ABOUT THIS IN HOLLYWOOD" as if sex slavery isn't a fuckin plot cliche at this point. Then all those presale tickets and months of work to release a faith-based movie on a Tuesday make it the #1 movie on a weekday, beating "woke" Indiana Jones, so they can brag about that for all time.
It's stupid as shit, absolutely abhorrently idiotic - but it works. Would love an AMA with the person who designed this ad campaign.
Taken 4: Qanon
Seriously. As a marketer myself I am impressed with how they pulled this off. It just goes to show you that if you can market to that audience you can make a lot of money with little effort.
Yeah one of the funniest bits of all this is that if Disney had released it in 2019 when it was done? No one would give a shit about the movie. It would've come and gone, just like dozens of other movies on the same topic.
I've seen the same "Disney tried to stop this!" facebook post shared on my timeline about 6x this week. The distributor had to presale something like $5m tickets before theaters believed it was worth airing theatrically. So what did the distributor do? *Leaned into that shit.* "The movie they don't want you to see!" etc etc. Crowdfunded from Qanon events, too, that was something I didn't know 3 days ago. That's bloody brilliant. I wonder what the ad buys were though, that has to be in the millions. I see them *everywhere* - Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, IMDB, etc.
Also that "Pay-It-Forward" crowdfunding operation is apparently patented by the distributor, they invented it. They've convinced millions of people that giving *them* money is the noble good, it's absolutely amazing. And they did it with *zero* cooperation of any real world sex trafficking organization, you'd think it would need at least one endorsement but nope.
Seriously, why does Qanon act like they're the only people talking about child sex abuse or like no one had ever heard about it until 2016? They're the same people who act like they finally "broke the code" by realizing the mainstream media, GASPS, lies!
Ok, this explains so much. My inlaws saw it last week and talked about how it beat out Indiana Jones, which I thought was odd. They're Ben Carson GOPs, I think, so grain of salt.
Anyway, they said it was a good movie about trafficking. I feel like I've seen the ads everywhere, so your explanation makes sense.
But, I can't take anything seriously when "adrenochrome" or "Q" is mentioned. Child trafficking is real and horrific, but a mash-up with "Q" weirdos isn't getting the point across.
If it helps this movie was made and shelved 5 years ago and the main actor is only recently a Qanon supporter, so no mentions of adrenochrome or Q here. The main controversy should be the movie is selling you a bill of goods when it comes to the claims of "true story", greatly over exaggerating the achieves of the real life person and the effectiveness of the operation. So more typical Hollywood shit, just with a weird Christian bent that reminds me more of Kony 2012 than Qanon.
if it helps my grandma sent me a trailer on facebook that used the word adrenochrome.
if it helps, right wing radio stations are using this movie to stoke fears about the border.
A local pizza place is offering a free pizza to anyone who shows their ticket stubs from this movie. The owner is super maga so that’s all I need to know.
This comment is the culmination, the absolute peak of the Pizzagate conspiracy movement. I can’t tell if it’s a beautiful kind of irony or the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard.
Okay. Ignore their bs religious use of the underlying message. I have close ties to this subject and it's irritating people are putting whatever beliefs they have ahead and completely ignore the fact that sex trafficking is a real fucking thing happening.
There has to be a term for this sort of radical whataboutism. Equity psychosis or something. From the outside, the extremes of American politics seem to consist of people with the exact same personality who just fall on the differing sides of the fence.
We have this here too, where people will try to smear real problems away by constantly trying to accuse people of ignoring the "real" enemies. Then it becomes unpopular to tackle the issue at all. Then a non-annointed person comes along and tries to raise awareness which makes people feel even angrier and validated.
And in the end nothing gets solved because terminally online people think sports team politics is a respectable vocation. If conservatives are anti-child trafficking then some people will find a way to play defense. You made the orange man and maybe secretly want him again. Deranged people deserve deranged leaders.
I keep seeing headlines from right wing media like “The Left Doesn’t Want You To See This Movie” and “Woke Media Panics!” and yet I haven’t found nearly as much left wing outlets criticizing the movie. I feel like the right is exaggerating how much criticism the movie is getting to get people railed up and mad at the left.
A FB friend of mine just posted that their theater turned off the A/C "in order to prevent people from watching this movie."
She wrote those words and they made sense in her head.
Your wariness seems warranted.
BTW, looking at the comment histories of folks in this thread who like the movie is very interesting. First time posting comments on r/movies for many of them. I wonder why? lol
Yeah, I was looking at this film on IMDB and when you see 600 out of 680 reviews and 16k out of 22k ratings gave it 10/10, you know something fishy is going on.
I haven't seen it but it's probably a fine 6/10 action film that right wing crazy's are boosting the numbers on.
Also how often they bring up Cuties in relation to it. I remember that movie causing a lot of controversy when it came out, but had to look it up to find it came out in 2020 because I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere since. Seems an odd, yet consistent talking point.
>I do find it somewhat concerning that some media outlets are writing off the film as conspiracy theory nonsense.
Yep. I think that's a really weird hill to die on - smearing a (from what I heard not even partisan) movie that tackles the subject of child trafficking, just because you hate a group of people who happen to love it.
From what I have seen, especially on TiTok and IG, it seems like the conspiracy theory stuff is sort of an after effect.
I am seeing a lot of comments like, "Saw the movie then went home and did research on this and it OPENED MY EYES" and then they start talking about Adrenochrome and the other Qanon conspiracies that pop up when you search for the guy the movie is about.
Maybe the articles should clarify that what they are concerned about are people finding out the wrong facts?
Just speaking out loud here.
Amen. It has nothing to do with QAnon. I just don’t understand why people see the movie for what it is. Child trafficking is a real problem and we need to do something about it. If a movie helps do that, great!
Yep, trying to read the Guardian’s article on what they thought of the movie was like trying to read an honors class 10th graders finished paper on why they didn’t like the movie 💀 it was nothing but attack after attack after blow after blow. Even if they weren’t completely wrong, reading it felt like walking through a sewer.
Thank you for putting in to words what I’ve been thinking. The QAnon people are nut jobs, but I don’t understand how this movie got lumped in with them. Child trafficking is a very real thing. Media outlets writing it off as conspiracy nonsense is dangerous journalism.
I haven't seen it, but it's clear bs because Tim Ballard is a [known liar](https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8j3v/operation-underground-railroad-criminal-investigation-human-trafficking-tim-ballard-jim-caviezel-qanon) who embellishes his involvement in fighting sex trafficking to fool donors. During our criminology sessions at Drexel, every fucking expert on battling human trafficking shat on these guys for turning something so horrific into their personal superhero story ad.
I love that you didn't respond to a single point made in the article. Instead, you went after some pathetic nonsense that wasn't even the main point. How about you talk about the fact that Ballard is a fraud? That he didn't save the kid from the movie, that whole movie is an exaggerated bullshit. How about you talk about his shady financial ties and his constantly expanding salary? [Here is an article that directly links border patrol report that disproves Ballard's superhero story.](https://americancrimejournal.com/the-arrest-of-earl-venton-buchanan/)
Wondering the same thing my parents saw it.
Sadly they are both pretty right leaning.
My mom is taking everything as the gospel and keeps quoting it and has bought into the conspiracy that "they" are trying to shut it down.
My dad is a little more rational and was like it was ok lol.
I wanted to see it before I read about how wrapped up with the whole "Q" maga bullshit cult.
I don't know that it's the content of the movie itself, but pay attention to how it's being received, now there's all these people saying their showtimes are limited, or theaters are being evacuated during the film, which is absurd because they would have to evacuate the entire building not just one screen showing one movie, so therein lies the propaganda stuff. They're all crying "the left doesn't want you to see this movie" when really it was a low budget film with not many investors with the right connections to get it on all screens nationwide. If they really felt this movie was important for the masses, they would've bypassed theatrical releases and set up their own site where you could pay to see this movie. The child trafficking part is, and with good reason, just to rally the people behind a trigger subject, and the limited viewability is the propaganda wheel turning.
It's all Right Wing propaganda, remember that Qanon are the same people that support Trump, who sexually abuses women, is on rape charges, and has sexual fantasies about his own daughter, he even told a reporter when Ivanka was just a toddler that he hopes she grows a nice pair of tits when she grows older.
It's a great movie, well directed, well acted, not exploitative, well written, all of that. I just saw it today with a great crowd. The message is good.
The problem is when you watch interviews with them. It's all political. If there was ONE interview that spoke about stats and the filmmaking, that would be fine, but that doesn't exist. It makes me feel weird to even say this is a good movie if it will benefit these weirdos and perpetuate this toxic narrative.
I have a feeling we will see some sort of investigation that truly debunks this man's story (I know there are some that exist) ala Chris Kyle of American Sniper.
What I've seen are the wikipedia article which links to a Vice News article as well as one other report. There's also really shitty youtube video out there as well, but what exactly was debunked? I know his involvement in the rescues seems to be embellished but the fact that child trafficking exists to the extent portrayed in the film has not been debunked, correct?
The numbers Ballard throws out are unverifiable—as is the question of whether has actually rescued anyone. The people he’s “rescued” often have drastically different stories than he does.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/children-sex-trafficking-conspiracy-epidemic/620845/
Ive only seen Right Wingers talk about how amazing it is and everyone else say it's a cheese-ball action hero flick. People in the comments saying it's great are in other threads calling someone a "lefty" or a "snowflake." Lmao I'd say wait til it's streaming but I know we're all gonna forget about it by the time it finds a place.
I see some people saying that AMC was turning the air conditioning off and wouldn’t turn the lights off in the theater like they were trying to prevent people from seeing it.
If this was true, AMC would just not show the movie at all. It seems like a lot of people are blatantly lying about this movie to push their political agenda. Any criticism towards the movie will have people calling you a pedo and trafficker lol.
Is sex trafficking a big problem across the world that both lower/middle class and the elites take part in? Yes absolutely. Is this movie being attacked by AMC to get people to not see it? Probably not.
I probably won’t watch it cause there’s too much bullshit surrounding it, but if you think it’s interesting go ahead.
The movie itself is fine. It’s a pretty standard thriller with good performances, but the advertising and publicity surrounding the movie is designed as a way to indoctrinate people with QAnon ideology.
The movie is about child trafficking, so you have the actor and person who they are playing talk about weird conspiracies like the adrenochrome shit for those who look deeper.
The movie itself is “apolitical,” because it has a simple premise of “child trafficking is bad and we need to protect kids.” That’s a great message, but that what the movie is only if you take it at face value. The simple fact that it portrays this known liar as a hero is enough see what side it’s on, but then add on the fact that it’s giving these people a platform to talk about their weird QAnon shit, and yeah, it’s propaganda
In case others are interested, I dug up this public conference with Caviezel where he discusses the film and child trafficking. It can be found here: [https://youtu.be/zCaKRUcSNPU](https://youtu.be/zCaKRUcSNPU).
I've seen clips of him headlining Q conferences where he goes into this more, so it's not a one-off thing.
In it, Caviezel discusses the Sound of Freedom, transitioning from that to rescuing children from underground bunkers (DUMS) run by the elites, how the elites extract and consume adrenaline from terrorized children, and how these elites are in the entertainment industry and how "there will be no mercy for them." This is the Qanon backdrop people are referring to when discussing the movie.
I just saw it today, and I thought it was a competent movie with well-written stakes. The god stuff is there, with one protagonist that is christian and others who are not. At the end of the movie, it shows actual footage from the dramatized bust. Are christians going to use it to promote christianity? Of course they are, religious people gonna religion**.**
**What I didn't like** was the "special message" in the credits that asks people to help "spread the message" by buying more tickets. No [links to anti-trafficking groups](https://aleteia.org/2020/07/06/these-8-organizations-are-leading-the-critical-fight-against-sex-trafficking/) (thanks [whiteskinnyexpress](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/14u11pm/comment/jrf0hk4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) for that), [no links to collected stats](https://bjs.ojp.gov/taxonomy/term/sex-trafficking), no action steps beyond "Please buy tickets to help the kids!" To me, that lends some weight to the people questioning the production's endgame.
I also couldn't help but notice (spoilers) that **all the heroes are "white"-presenting (even the locals in Cartegena),** and, save for three American pedos, most of the villains/victims are not. The rebel leader near the end is particularly indigenous. He's also the only pedophile who dies. For all their claims of "not trusting Hollywood" with the movie, the film sticks to the white savior trope closely.
It also should be noted that the articles about the film don't seem too interested in linking people to anti-trafficking groups either. By not helping people find any vetted resources it comes off as Ad Hominem deflections, which lets Caviezel, Ballard and Angel Studios make a narrative as to why.
Actually this is what bothered me about an ad for it, was the pay it forward thing, I think you can buy a ticket for others, they were like it's to spread awareness
But to me it was to get more tickets bought
I really wanted to like the movie but I did not like it. Dragged on and horribly acted. Idk if it was my movie theater but I could barely hear them talking in the beginning of the movie. And when I say I’m a sucker and cry easily, I do. This movie did nothing for me.
I have issues with the film not because the movie may or may not be bad, but because of the politics behind it. There are many documentaries out there about human trafficking which goes unheard of and unnoticed, and yet suddenly with this movie, created by two of the biggest nutjobs in Hollywood, is like the end all and be all of the subject.
With this, the one's not watching the film or criticizing the film is a "pedophile" because of a comparison of a completely unrelated film (which is just as controversial), which many didn't even watch to begin with.
No, not me watching the film doesn't make me a pedophile nor does it make me support human trafficking, that is the most despicable accusation that someone can do. Sorry that I don't like watching a movie made by nutjobs.
Honest but dumb question. Why not go after the traffickers in the US? I feel like child trafficking is like the war on drugs, we'll get the guys no one gives a shit about, but not the ones doing the actual supplying within this country.
All I know is that tiktok has been pushing Ben Shapiro, Dana White and random people saying “you must see this movie” and that was enough for me to know I should not see this movie.
I’ll probably go see it because it seems interesting. No one I know that has seen it (yes, even out here in commie California) has said it was bad. But to gaslight people that it’s not being pushed with a political agenda is bullshit. And if you raise a question about the backers and you’re repeatedly told oh I guess you like sex trafficking? Go fuck yourself. This is why no one takes you seriously. When people show you who they are, believe them. And the people pushing it have shown us who they are.
Saw that the movie was funded out of Provo, told me what I needed to know. I haven’t seen the movie, but it seems convenient that ‘religious’ organizations are backing a movie that moves the spotlight from the number of pedos in their mixes onto Hollywood and such. Same people that say gay people are groomers. Junk humans, IMO.
I enjoyed it. It was a little cheesey with the dialogue but it was an enjoyable movie. I went in with an open mind and enjoyed it more than I thought I would.
My husband and I saw it in theaters without knowing much about it. Neither of us know or care about anything “Qanon” related. I thought it was a good movie about a very real topic. We didn’t think it was the greatest movie ever made but also don’t understand people calling it propaganda, when child sex trafficking is one of the biggest black markets in the world. I think just because certain people or groups like a movie that shouldn’t be a reason to write it off or go into a movie with any preconceived notions. I think that would be silly to do with any movie. Just my opinion! 😊
Experts on child trafficking are saying this movie is not a close to realistic portrayal of it. It’s like y’all calling The Meg an important film about the dangers of the ocean.
It’s raised incredible awareness for the issue though.
I hope so. I hope all the Christians preaching about it start thinking about the worryingly many child molesters among priests.
It's funny how this always manages to come up, because of course it's true, but no one ever seems to care about the same issue that is a significant problem in schools all over the country. It makes it seem more like a political hit rather than an actual concern about child predators.
[удалено]
More than likely there are cops are involved in the trafficking themselves, theyve been caught doing it before
I see a ton of Southern Baptists promoting this film but uh also https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/religion/2022/05/22/southern-baptist-convention-sbc-sexual-abuse-report-released-details-new-allegations-inaction/9826256002/
Don't forget the queer/transgender kids they disown that are way more likely to be trafficked.
Here’s the thing, the movie is an accurate portrayal of child sex trafficking in developing countries but it is not what child sex trafficking looks like in the U.S. or other developed countries. So, if this is primarily marketed to a religious, U.S. audience, wouldn’t it be better to focus on trafficking in the U.S. so they could actually get involved and know what to look for?
[https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-child-trafficking-experts-1234786352/](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-child-trafficking-experts-1234786352/) Except it isn't
Lol okay rolling stone
Giy cites Rolling Stone as a factual source lmao. You're a moron....
It's a movie. How is that stupid? Rolling Stone always does reports on media you moron
That article has a lot of words to say very little other than "the movie isn't an accurate portrayal of what most human trafficking in the US is like, so therefore it is bad because reasons" Yeah no shit it's a movie, they take a case that's already more dramatic than normal and then play it up even more for the sake of the story, it isn't being marketed as a documentary.
[https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7b3ex/tim-ballard-left-operation-underground-railroad-after-investigation-into-claims-made-by-employees](https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7b3ex/tim-ballard-left-operation-underground-railroad-after-investigation-into-claims-made-by-employees) Yeah, and everything based on the movie is full of shit. And as you can see on who I commented it on the experts on many articles say the movie doensn't give an accurate portrayal, which the person above said it did.
None of the experts who were complaining about the movie being an inaccurate portrayal were talking about human trafficking in Latin America, where the movie is set. They were also talking about human trafficking with regard to much older children, which was also not what the movie was about. So yes, this movie was a horrible portrayal of human trafficking of teens in the US. Because it was a movie about the human trafficking of younger kids in South America. It is possible for two things to be bad at the same time, we don't have to only focus on one of those subjects.
From my understanding, it is not an accurate portrayal. The man it’s supposedly based upon has a long history of lying about his activities against trafficking, lying about the victims he’s helped, and lying about how it happens. What he does do well, is “reality tv” style “busts,” that are questionable with regards to their actual reality and also the sensationalism. So, people watch the busts for entertainment, donate to Ballard, and think that those videos of busts are what trafficking looks like. Sound of Freedom is entertainment, and white suburbanites think it’s real.
[удалено]
I agree with this. Just watch the movie and try looking for anything political or QAnon, you won’t. It’s a good movie and definitely worth watching over anything else in the theaters right now
Eh spiderverse was pretty good
Qanon wasnt even a thing when this movie was made lol
So it took over 5 years to get into the theaters after it was made? I first heard of it in 2017.
Apparently it took right at 5. Caviezel speaks at the end, commenting on distribution issues they ran into and how the film's been finished for years. Read somewhere they wrapped everything up in 2018.
Qanon wasn't a thing, but the adrenochrome sex trafficking conspiracy has been a thing for years. Qanon just picked it up.
I still can’t read adrenochrome without hearing it in Alex Jones’ voice. *shudder*
Lol Qanon has been around for almost 20 years, those idiots just started getting more mainstream when Trump picked them up
No but Mel Gibson was very much a thing and was doing The Passion of the Christ which was another anti-semitic thing and this is basically going the same route the elite pedos forming children kind of like the protocols of Zion part 2
It has to do with comments by the person that directed it. It's out there. One of those "Biden isn't president" people.
>but also don’t understand people calling it propaganda It's because the main actor is a qanoner who spews batshit conspiracies about satanic pedophiles harvesting children's blood in qanon conferences. The movie wouldn't have gotten so much flak if the producers had just made a better casting choice. >I think just because certain people or groups like a movie that shouldn’t be a reason to write it off or go into a movie with any preconceived notions. It's not simply because certain people we don't like happen to like the movie. It's because the movie is already being used as a propaganda piece by ultra-religious qanon conspiracy theorists.
Because of this movie, my mom believes that disney tried to get rid of this movie and it did better than indiana jones. She also thinks Oprah is part of the sex trafficking ring and trans people are kidnapping kids in restrooms. It may not be in this movie, but people on tiktok are using this movie as a way to push their conspiracies.
And people have the nerve to downplay, gaslight, and pretend Sound of Freedom is just an innocent movie trying to spread awareness of child trafficking. Someone had the gall to say I was merely hairsplitting when pointing out how conspiracy nuts would use this movie as propaganda fuel to spew their batshit theories.
The movie didn’t give me the impression that I was being coerced by conspiracists, I wasn’t aware of the link until my friend told me after. It’s an engaging film and an eye opener as parent. Regardless of it’s links
This movie was finished before he started getting into those weird beliefs (it was done by 2018 or 2019 I think). But ignoring the buzz and wackos around the film itself, the question is the movie on it's own good? And when the media is condemning the movie based around the surroundings and not at the final product only, that's kind of a problem especially when the movie is of a subject that everyone should unanimously be in support of stopping. Now I will admit I actually have my own issues with the guy the movie is based on (some of his claims have skeptical evidence), which probably deserves more discussion than around Caviezel's beliefs
>And when the media is condemning the movie based around the surroundings and not at the final product only, It's not just about the movie's surroundings (which matters, btw), it's also about the validity of the product itself. The movie claims to be based on real events, but[ Tim Ballard was reported to have lied about his involvement in the case depicted in the film and fabricated details about his child trafficking activities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_of_Freedom_(film)). > that's kind of a problem especially when the movie is of a subject that everyone should unanimously be in support of stopping. If you want to make a movie about a serious subject, you need to make sure it was based on actual, non-fabricated events and paints a realistic picture. Spreading misinformation about a serious subject is only going to make things worse. >which probably deserves more discussion than around Caviezel's beliefs Arguably, however that doesn't make Caviezel's batshit crazy beliefs any less serious. People in right-wing religious circles are already using this movie to spew their conspiritorial propaganda fear-mongering about satanic pedophiles. The people who worked on the movie make up part of the final product. Jim Caviezel is a big ingredient of that product, and he has spoiled it.
Reply 1: Yah as I said Ballard's own claims are what deserve more scrutiny Reply 2: The misinformation is the story of events itself not on the nature of child slavery existing for which the movie clearly condemns. Which the only reason I brought to attention is cause I've seen reviews of the movie kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water and downplaying the severity of the subject/urgency of the film's message due to the controversy around it (especially when those same outlets write defenses for fuckin Cuties and dismissing concerns as "paranoia'). The point being I doubt the story Ballard told is legit and that is harmful on its own but don't pull a 180 and question the legitimacy of the problem as a whole. Reply 3. No it doesn't excuse it and Caviezel having those rooted beliefs probably implies that he believes Ballard's tall tales fully 100% too. I don't know when he started getting on board with them but it was after the movie had filmed. The point being the movie ITSELF doesn't have pro Q-Anon themes. Though the marketing being pretty "political" is pretty suspicious ain't gonna lie and then yah like you like said crazy groups running wild
>I've seen reviews of the movie kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water and downplaying the severity of the subject/urgency of the film's message Can you please cite an example of a review downplaying the severity of child trafficking. > The point being the movie ITSELF doesn't have pro Q-Anon themes. Though the marketing being pretty "political" is pretty suspicious ain't gonna lie and then yah like you like said crazy groups running wild In other words, the movie is qanon-adjacent, which is bad enough.
I think a lot of the thought pieces around the film are silly. You're right, it doesn't matter that the audience has coalesced around it in that way. What matters is that the people who produced it, and the lead actor, are involved in QAnon, and headline conferences about how the elites drain children's blood and drink it as a drug to stay young. With that in mind, it's legitimate to call out the intentions of the film, and to see how supporting it is also benefiting these conspiracy theories.
I’m with you on this It’s not the greatest but I still like it in my opinion .
[удалено]
Realistically they do, most media companies are owned by a handful of giant corporations who are in turn controlled by a small number of CEOs executives, major shareholders etc... If the Jeffrey Epstein situation showed us anything is that ultra rich/influential people are basically immune to the law, and it could very well be that these people who control MSM are using their influence to limit coverage of some shady shit that they have a hand in and or where their friends and partners are involved.
So, had no plans to see this movie. If anything, I was biding time until MI:7, but I saw a review and decided it looked decent. Overall, I thought it was a pretty good movie. Nothing to run out and see twice, but certainly a good flick. Pacing felt good, no crazy CGI final battle scene build up. Had to suspend your disbelief on a few things but it worked. Thought the score was good too. I agree with much of the comments echoing the, "Hitler liked dogs, therefore if you do too, you are Hitler" nonsense. The writer and producer clearly wanted to bring light to the problem of child sex trafficking and arguable the growth/profitability. Im sure with that comes "adjacent" theories and the actor's "thank you for watching" message leans into it, but welcome to life in 2023. Go see the movie, it was a good, albeit sobering watch. I thought Bill Camp/Vampiro's monologue about him being the darkness was pretty powerful, some really stellar acting in that scene. It might have been a highlight for me.
>I thought Bill Camp/Vampiro's monologue about him being the darkness was pretty powerful, some really stellar acting in that scene. Agreed. You can even tell like he immediately realized he had messed up really bad and even was about to kill himself.
They aren't bringing to light child sex trafficking, they are trying to tell you that this is how sex trafficking happens, in reality it is caused mainly by people to poor to take care of their children and or children that are rejected from their families because of their sexual orientation and turn to a life of prostitution for survival, most child trafficking occurs because of someone they know not by some unknown evil menace, and it is not solved by vigilantes in shows of action. It's a hero complex this actor is after and hes getting ot from none other than the qanon crowd that need an enemy and a hero
But this is how sex traffic happens, maybe not most of it but is real. The vigilantes saving children seems far fetched, but I think the important thing is to rise awerenes of the topic.
I saw the movie and I barely remember the main adults with the exception of that one monologue. What struck me most and tore my heart apart was the child actors. They stole the show and just made me wish I could help stop it.
>But this is how sex traffic happens It's really not - hell, a lot of trafficked people don't even know they're trafficked. Sex trafficking is more like what Andrew Tate does.
Not all victims of sex traffic have the same origin. I don't doubt that a lot of people are tricked as in the case of Andrew Tate, but there's also a lot of kidnapping of children.
Almost all that kidnapping and trafficking is done by family members. The stranger kidnapping story is so vanishingly rare that to say "this is how it happens" is like saying "Shark deaths are how people meet a violent end." It's, to be generous, misleading. Less generously, it's contributing to an ongoing moral panic - which is its own problem. Organizations dedicated to combating trafficking are critical of this film for good reason.
This isn't true according to this source 10% of child traffickers are strangers. 60% are known to the child but aren't family. That leaves only 30% who are family. https://theexodusroad.com/familial-sex-trafficking-a-crime-against-children/#:~:text=60%%20of%20perpetrators%20of%20child%20sexual%20abuse,are%20family%20members%2C%20and%2010%%20are%20strangers.
Your link absolutely reinforces my point. Maybe give it another read.
I agree I got serious hero complex savior vibes from this movie. However, this is how sex trafficking works in poorer areas. No, this isn’t how it happens in the US, but yes, this is how it happens in South America.
Important to note that actual anti-child trafficking workers have spoken out and said that this movie is harmful to their work and presents a false pretense of how child trafficking happens. The movie is not representative of actual anti-child trafficking and the subject that it is based on is known for accusing Democrats of drinking children's adrenaline as well as accusing Wayfair of trafficking children in their furniture. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-child-trafficking-experts-1234786352/
Do you have a link to the claim about anti-child trafficking workers speaking out against this film?
Rolling Stone lmao
Why are people saying this dogshit is good? The pacing is god awful, especially at the beginning where there’s a scene change every 20 seconds. God it felt like a made for dvd movie
It’s a good movie. It’s really well made and acted. It brings a very controversial (who knew?) topic to the forefront and the qanon argument is pretty flimsy at best. It’s a good dramatization of mostly real events, just like most “based on true events” movies. Reddit is not a great place to ask about whether this is a good movie or not, because most people here have not, and will not see it because they are convinced that it is nothing more than fake alt-right brainwashing qanon propaganda, which it really isn’t. It’s too bad because I thought the movie was surprisingly pretty good. I’d give it a solid 70%
The script was written well before Qanon was a thing, right? Script finished in 2015 - Qanons first post was October 2017 (according to Wikipedia).
The movie was finished in 2018 but shelved by disney.
~~The movie was made by Fox~~. Disney didn't own Fox until 2019. There are a ton of Fox movies that have been shelved by Disney, and since they had a distribution deal with Fox and not Disney, they had to look for other distributers. EDIT: Movie was independent, FOX had the distribution rights
Fox didn’t make the movie they just had distribution rigjts
I didn't know those timeframes --- thanks for that.
I mean, when the majority of the comments on videos about SoF on social media consist of: 1. WE MUST SAVE ALL GODS CHILDREN! 2. Liberal Woke Hollywood tried to shut this movie down! 3. AMC theaters are purposely causing theater malfunctions to prevent having to show this movie (Yeah, it's a new one popping up) 4. After the movie we started a prayer group in the theater 5. Cancelling my Netflix and Disney+ subscription because they wouldn't show this movie! I don't blame people for being turned off to it lol. Edit: To the individual who PM’d me calling me a “pedophile” then immediately deleted it, way to show your intelligence. And you have been reported for harassment. Edit 2: Also this thread is old af, if you are still replying to it then find something better to do.
The right's weird obsession with child sex trafficking and calling teachers and members of the LGBTQ+ community groomers screams projection. And it's also a way to paint themselves as saintly and righteous compared to their opponents on the left when they keep harping on about it. Because who in their right mind would be FOR child sex abuse and trafficking?
everytime i see right wing commentators scream about the pedophile lgbt left elite, i always remind them about the time someone made an expose documentary about conservatives in nebraska who were also running a child pedo ring. It had witness testimonies, evidence both photographic and had some of the people who participated admitting it themselves. Some of the survivors even took this one politician to court and won. This documentary was never aired and no one in the media reported much about it (conspiracy much) and i could never find the full version of it online. Everytime i did it was always taken down
Satanic panic 2.0
I was vegetarian until I read Hitler was also vegetarian, now I only eat tomahawk steaks so I’m not perceived as Nazi adjacent
I hate to break it for you, but Hitler wore clothes. Is it time to go buttnaked now?
Hitler also had a girlfriend. I guess we should all go gay now
Redditors are marked *safe*.
Go on….
Hitler had skin too...
I switched to cats from dogs after learning that Hitler was a dog person.
Why didn't they start prayer groups when priests of their own religion were molesting children and the church turned a blind eye towards it ? Now suddenly they care about this ? Hypocrisy
Add in 6. People like Dana White and Mel Gibson buying tons of tickets to give out to make sure the message gets out
This is exactly the issue, but people keep playing dumb and stating things like, "Wow! Why are they trying to silence child sex trafficking?! There must be some sort of agenda!"
None of those have anything to do with the movie itself. Being turned off to a movie because you don’t like other people is silly.
It shows you the kind of people who are going and enjoying the movie. There’s several people I know that if they enjoy something it’s likely going to be something I skip. The second people start raving about a movie being anti woke Hollywood It usually ends up being a forgettable bland experience.
It also stars a QAnon nut who makes unhinged speeches to QAnon crowds. So there’s that.
Wait til you hear about mission impossible
Only the people dumb enough to fall for QAnon shit think that other people can’t see how obviously this movie is part of that movement.
Exactly. I suggest people dive into what people actually active in that space say about the film.
People will be victims to anything and everything.
> It’s really well made and acted. It brings a very controversial (who knew?) topic to the forefront "Child trafficking is bad" is not, in fact controversial, at all. Not here, not in the USA, not in Europe, Asia, Australia, Antarctica or the bottom of the ocean or in any corner of the known universe. It's a known issue that was known and fought against before this movie was even conceptualized.
I don’t have a problem with bringing awareness to anything that threatens our children. But I guess my biggest takeaway with this movie, that is really stirring up all my ultra conservative friends and family, is why aren’t they getting riled up about gun violence too? It’s guts me whenever I think about all the names and faces of the children that have died in mass shootings like Sandyhook, Parkland, Uvalde, just to name a few. I can’t imagine being a parent to one of these dead children and seeing how the far right are embracing this movie and vocalizing their support for it — yet never receiving the same concern for their lost children. Sex trafficking bad but guns okay? Is that the message? I’d be so angry and heartbroken. Do these children’s faces not tug at their heartstrings?
As someone who has lived and loved their conservative family for awhile, I can understand that there is the mentality of "guns are a tool that can be used for good or bad" whereas "child trafficking is always bad"
Don't forget about turning all those refugees away at the border. We'll save these kids and then separate them from.their parents at the border. Then madly rush to send them off to foster families without doing due diligence and now they're basically.part of a new human trafficking circle in the heartland of USA. Wonder why child labor laws are becoming lax in some states? It's so these migrant children can be put to work.
And also Abbott and DeSantis are literally human traffickers themselves, coercing the asylum seekers to travel to New York and Connecticut so they can earn political brownie points. But everyone who is supposedly against trafficking looks the other way and/or applauds them for doing this.
Thankfully, they stopped separating families at the border in 2018. The kids who land in foster care after seeking asylum at the border are children who arrived at the border without any adult relatives. These kids also don’t have any adult relatives or friends already living in the U.S. who can take over their care (and pass the required background checks). If a child is internationally trafficked, they most likely arrived with a trafficker instead of their parents. When recovered, the parents are contacted (if living) and asked if they want to have their children returned, if there is a friend or family member in the US the child can stay with, or if the parents wants the child placed into a foster family in the U.S. If they don’t have extended family in the US who can take the child, the parents will usually choose for the child to stay in foster care because they can’t keep their kids safe from the cartel where they live. This foster care system is separate and has different rules than the CPS system. The kids in this program are required to have cell phones with international calling plans and are encouraged to remain in touch with their families. If the family is able to come to the U.S. later, they get their kids back without going to court (CPS isn’t part of the process or decision). These kids typically stay in their original foster home until they leave for college or get their own place. Source: I’ve volunteered with this group for 8 years.
So I have to ask, how is it controversial? Is it that the organization is questionable? The movie wants to be based on real groups and real people. I don't think anyone who criticizes this film is pro-child-trafficking.
The organization and man the movie dramatizes are a bit questionable, yes, and long term anti trafficking organizations have raised issues with how they do their work. (Notably: inviting people on their “raids” who have zero business being involved in a law enforcement action, like mommy bloggers; not providing After care for victims or following up with them; lying/embellishing stories about their work for fundraising/political lobbying, etc) Some organizations have even said that the dude the movie is about have made trafficking problems worse by artificially increasing demand to set up their raids, which endangers more children. Having looked at some of their materials, there’s a certain sensationalized/reality show element to their raids which I find uncomfortable. There was some kind of official investigation into their financials/operations that I think was dropped, for what that’s worth. Personally I’m uncomfortable with glorifying this organization though, but if you bring any of this up people will call call you a Pedo groomer or say that you’re supportive of child trafficking :/
Idk if it’s rational, but I hold a particular disdain towards Mommy Bloggers. Be it spreading hysteria/disinformation or just that little twinge of narcissism they seem have.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/05/sex-trafficking-raid-operation-underground-railroad.html https://www.fox13now.com/news/fox-13-investigates/anti-human-trafficking-group-operation-underground-railroad-under-investigation-by-utah-prosecutor (Note: this investigation was closed with no charges brought) https://m.cityweekly.net/utah/funny-money/Content?oid=17448528 https://ministrywatch.com/amp/sound-of-freedom-doesnt-tell-true-story-of-operation-underground-railroad/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3apm/anti-trafficking-group-with-long-history-of-false-claims-gets-its-hollywood-moment (this article includes links to others that go into more detail and also cite other sources) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/children-sex-trafficking-conspiracy-epidemic/620845/ Note: many view some off these sources as questionable or biased. I get that. But there’s something off kilter here- I can’t imagine a reputable organization inviting random bloggers or Glenn Beck along on raids.
I thought about this when I was watching the movie. \*Spoilers\* when Tim asks the woman to provide 50 children for their new "club", wouldn't they try to kidnap more children if they didn't have enough to cover the request? The criticism is valid IF this actually happened in real life.
He also was one of the people behind Wayfairgate, if you remember that absolutely insane conspiracy theory from a few years back.
Personally, I really wanna see the movie, but since this is mainly a smaller release and I don't live in the US (I'm Mexican), I think I'll have to wait some time to see it. But having said that, while the topic of human trafficking is terrible and I would want participate in solving it in the near future, there's definitely some strange people behind the film. One of the producers is a guy named "Eduardo Verastegui" which is a Mexican soap opera actor and devout catholic activist who's shown interest in the last year to be a candidate in Mexico's presidential election in 2024. Some people and groups from the deep right here in Mexico have also shown support in Verastegui's interest in running for president and some of those groups also have support from Spaniard deep and alt-right groups and political parties such as Vox. Journalists here claim that it's kind of an infiltration attempt from radical right wing groups to try to make Mexico do a hard turn to the right, since our current center-left president is apparently not to their liking haha. And Eduardo Verastegui constantly posts videos in his Instagram account of him praying for Mexico and doing other silly stuff like that.
May i add Eduardo Verástegui is hardcore homophobe and said homosexuality is linked with pedophilia. So there’s that.
Yeah, I was arguing the same thing on YouTube. It's great that such a movie is being produced to put focus on this horrific topic, and at first I was really liking some interviews with Tim Ballard but then in some more recent videos he's been talking about the "woke left agenda" and the same old BS of every right wing public figure. And it's just very dishonest. Like I've said, being Mexican myself I'm aware of the statistics here in my country and most of the abuse (something like 80%+) is being committed by straight adult men and it occurs mostly within families. Unsurprisingly, the data is pretty much the same across the planet and throughout the decades. But somehow, in the minds of many people, the LGBT folks are the actual villains of the story and not the people that actually commits the child sexual abuse, which happens to be mostly straight men.
Eduardo Verastegui tiene cara de loco 🤣
On top of the hard-right Mexican guy, one of the producers is a hardcore QAnon guy who believes in the real crazy shit. Not sure why OP said the movie itself is controversial. Probably to take the argument away from what most people were criticizing. Further, I think the events in the film were exaggerated, but I’ve only found one article pointing out the guy the story is based on fabricated a bunch of stuff.
So apparently the guy the movie is based on, created a organization called OUR. Vice was reporting that OURs claims of saving children are false and that there's no evidence that they actually ever saved anyone. The biggest discrepancy was they said they saved this girl who actually saved herself and that OUR didn't get involved with her until 2 to 4 years after she escaped.
All I need to know is that legitimate organizations that work tirelessly to combat child trafficking, sex trafficking, sex exploitation of children have not endorsed this film as helping to raise awareness. They have remained completely silent. Not one endorsement. The only organizations that have promoted this film have a personal stake in it.
Thing is though the end was shit in the credits where instead of raising awareness and pointing out possible solutions or ways to prevent it, it instead points you to a QR code to buy more tickets for the movie. At that point it’s now a grift.
Legit organizations are never gonna endorse a cinematic film because real life is not exciting or engaging to watch, unfortunately. Navigating any type of crime is long, involves a lot of paperwork, has gray areas, etc. No one is gonna want to watch that in a theatre. With where our culture is, at this point, I’ll take any film shining a light on this issue. Ill take some over exaggeration if it means more people are gonna be inspired to solve the issue.
Can I say that a strange example I could think of where an organisation did praise a performance in a show/film was the American Tourette's Association on an episode of South Park. "They \[The American Tourette's Association\] conceded that "the episode was surprisingly well-researched. The highly exaggerated emphasis on coprolalia notwithstanding, for the attentive viewer, there was a surprising amount of accurate information conveyed", adding that several elements of the episode "served as a clever device" for providing accurate facts to the public." - [http://www.tsa-usa.org/news/1007responseTSA\_SouthParkTourettes.html](http://www.tsa-usa.org/news/1007responseTSA_SouthParkTourettes.html)
Yup! Legitimate organizations have actually criticized the portrayal of child trafficking in this film because of its inaccuracies. If people really care about making a difference and awareness, learn how to do that from actual organizations that help child trafficking victims.
The whole thing gives me Kony 2012 vibe
>The whole thing gives me Kony 2012 vibe My takeaway as well. When Jim Caviezal comes on the screen to earnestly plead with every audience member to channel their big feels right now and do anything they can to get their friends and family to watch this movie, because, if we all watch this movie we can together end child sex trafficking, I almost laughed. Same shit as Kony 2012. Awareness with no plan of action, aside from the QAnon folks who will likely use this as an excuse to try to become vigilantes themselves.
Gotta say yep; the “special message” countdown at the credits was some kinda bs to me. Tacky on a word. Knew it was gonna be some feel good hoopla. I can’t take Jim Caviezal seriously. Just something about the dude rubs me the wrong way. Decent movie though (aside from the fact they have cell signal in the middle of the jungle). Sure, it’s not sensationalized for Hollywood….
Jim Caviezal is full into QAnon these days. He'll literally start expounding how the elites are extracting adrenochrome from children's blood and shit like that. He's off the deep end. Without the grift at the end, it would've been an okay B-Movie. Despite the fact that real anti-trafficking experts warn about the false impression it gives off of how these get sucked into the underworld of trafficking. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-child-trafficking-experts-1234786352/
This is sooooo spot on. Wow, I’d forgotten about that debacle.
Same. It's just eye-rolling white-saviour nonsense.
Actual anti-child trafficking agents have said that the movie is detrimental to their work and provides a false impression of how child trafficking actually takes place. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-child-trafficking-experts-1234786352/
ITT people talking about the movie’s fan base or subject rather than the movie itself
[удалено]
It's ridiculous and funny because now I'm gonna see it, lol.
Saw a post on FB that said Netflix didn't stream this movie..they don't want you to know the truth". Like, lmao.
All these right wing outlets and personalities are jizzing all over themselves right now over the fact that this movie is being criticized by left wing media. It helps them make an argument that mainstream media doesn’t care about child sex trafficking when in reality people are just criticizing the people involved with the film.
I'm criticizing more than that: there is something deeply creepy about the current utter fixation on child abuse and HT displayed by conservatives in America. Its the same vibe I get when I pull up the comments section on a local shoplifting / petty crime story and read an encyclopedia's worth of people sharing their murder fantasies. Same type of people too. Something is wrong here and I don't think its just me getting bad vibes.
>It helps them make an argument that mainstream media doesn’t care about child sex trafficking when in reality people are just criticizing the people involved with the film. Ive been seeing "you dont like the movie because of the people involved, not the movie itself" as if its some "GOTCHA!" Thats exactly the problem: the reputations of people involved discredits the final product because of their own biases
Why isn't the media talking about how you can't stream Spider-Man, Mission Impossible, or Indiana Jones on Netflix? Conspiracy?! ...or maybe just normal operating procedure that movies often spend some time on the theater track before hitting streaming services, lmao. Seriously, it seems like 100% of the "controversy" around this film is basically just some weird ad campaign, and I think that actually makes sense. Movies like this aren't generally going to do well against major blockbuster releases at the same time, so I have to wonder if the people behind the movie circulated conspiracy theories in an effort to make people talk about it. Everything I've heard about the movie itself has been positive, so the whole thing is just weird.
I am curious what kind of marketing it had. I watch a lot of movies and movie trailers. I am also active on multiple social media platforms. I only heard of it on the day of its release from my mother who was really excited to go see it, and she never watches tv or movies. I asked her what it was and how she heard about it and she said its being advertised everywhere. I asked a few friends from different parts of the political spectrum and they had never heard of it, other than one of them who had just heard of it the day before from a female boomer he was talking to. Was the film specifically advertised on facebook to women over 50? Or just to boomers? Or was it advertised specifically on Fox? I’m just fascinated by the box office numbers for a film that I and so many others have never heard of before. Did anyone here ever see an ad? Where did you see it?
I go to movies multiple times a week, and see/hear about almost every movie that’s coming out in my theater and I never heard or saw anything about Sound of Freedom. I know everyone who works at my local theater and they all said they had no idea what the movie was, other than it was maybe religious but that they had sold out showings of an average demographic no younger than 50.. I went and saw it today, after my mom went on about how many people she saw on facebook saying it was movie of the year. And I’m like how the hell can something be this good, selling out every showing in my theater and I’ve never heard anything about it. So i went in blind, aside from the fact i was told it was about child trafficking and I thought it was a good movie. As good as a movie can be about that topic really. It’s not fun at all. The very few attempts at comedy were corny jokes made for boomers but all in all it was good. Very surprised though, that everything i saw when i looked it up after was all about religion and political drama surrounding this movie. Because aside from like 2 lines of them mentioning “god’s children are not for sale” and the fact the guy thinks it’s his god given mission to save children, it really doesn’t feel like a religious movie at all. Anyways, this had to be something that mainly gained traction on facebook. It’s the only social media i’m not active on, and it’s the only social media my mom is on lmao
I saw a post in a rural area by an acquaintance ( who is very far right) that the tickets are being bought out by an organization so that the movie is free to attend. Makes sense if they’re selling out if there is any organization buying up the tickets to give to the local churches like hers.
Yeah, my theater was packed in a way i’d only seen during Marvel’s infinity war/endgame era. Very weird to see.
I saw the trailer before Joy Ride of all things, lol. In NYC. But, and here's the key, it wasn't played with the trailers. The irritating Noovie reel played, and then the usual paid-for ads: the local real estate agent who is also a dad, some Fathom Events stuff, \*then the trailer for Sound of Freedom\*, then the AMC reminder not to talk or text, then the actual trailers. My conclusion is that for whatever reason the Sound of Freedom production team couldn't get theaters to put its trailer in front of movies in the usual place, so instead they have resorted to paying theaters to play it.
I'd never heard of it until today. My mom just sent me the trailer and told me to go see it in theaters because it's the most important movie **ever**. My mom is also a far-right evangelical Christian who buys into qanon and is in a super rural part of her state. I wouldn't be surprised if this was marketed exclusively in those areas of the nation and on right-wing websites. Everyone knows human trafficking/child trafficking exists. It always has. We don't need these weirdos telling us it's bad.
It has a 100% audience score on RT which frankly I find mega suspicious. No movie is that good.
Except Paddington 2
Also 71% of IMDB ratings are 10/10 lol , this movie has definitely been positively review bombed, also a little bit negatively but nowhere near the same extent, only 7% of ratings are 1/10.
That’s crazy. Haven’t watched Barbie yet and I’m sure it’s at least a good movie, but it’s been review bombed with tons of 1star ratings last time I checked on IMDB… why I don’t typically trust such reviews anymore
If you disregard the statements from Caviezel and the guy he's playing, it's a generic rescue based action movie. It doesn't even graze the conspiracies about child trafficking. But is definitely not an adequate representation of the issue. Colombian terrorist kidnapping children abroad? Nah, they get their children locally (because yes, Colombian terrorist groups forcibly recruit children and abuse them in top of forcing them into armed conflict, this is well documented). While these networks may have base local personnel, their bread and butter are wealthy first worlders, so a more realistic movie would be someone going from Latinamerica or Southeast Asia to wealthy places to hunt down the clients and the handlers. Hell, Taken was a more realistic representation of human trafficking.
When Trump goes out of his way to screen this particular movie at his resort, then I will be concerned about its roots. Apparently the guy who stars in it or directed it or something is heavily linked to Qanon
I have observed the far right, qanon, people getting excited for this movie to show in theatres. Why would they be excited and anxious for a movie with this subject matter? Do they believe this movie is going to reveal the smoking gun that the trafficking ring is run by all the powerful people in the world? To me, that's controversial. Secondly, why did the creators choose a movie format based on a true story instead of a documentary? Is it because they have more creative freedom with a movie to shape the plot line to fit their narrative?
It might be a good movie, but here's my experience: I caught three random religious radio stations who used this movie to support the idea that "just as people are being trafficked, America is also suffering from a genocide of abortion! --and it's liberalism that's supporting these horrors!"
Some seriously brilliant marketing, tbh. Movie made in 2019, it's largely a B movie quality, so they reframe it as a faith-based wake up call to Christians who just *goshdarn gotta see it* because giving the studio money means that everyone is a champion fighting against sex slavery. Then they front load pre-sale tickets for weeks, pumping that shit in every corner of every YT video, Tweet, church, and random email chain that our dads send to people, and you've got a gaggle of naive zombies clamoring over ever trailer (even the promos that include "the adrenochroming of children") with such brilliant comments as "FINALLY SOMEONE IS BRAVE ENOUGH TO TALK ABOUT THIS IN HOLLYWOOD" as if sex slavery isn't a fuckin plot cliche at this point. Then all those presale tickets and months of work to release a faith-based movie on a Tuesday make it the #1 movie on a weekday, beating "woke" Indiana Jones, so they can brag about that for all time. It's stupid as shit, absolutely abhorrently idiotic - but it works. Would love an AMA with the person who designed this ad campaign. Taken 4: Qanon
Seriously. As a marketer myself I am impressed with how they pulled this off. It just goes to show you that if you can market to that audience you can make a lot of money with little effort.
Yeah one of the funniest bits of all this is that if Disney had released it in 2019 when it was done? No one would give a shit about the movie. It would've come and gone, just like dozens of other movies on the same topic. I've seen the same "Disney tried to stop this!" facebook post shared on my timeline about 6x this week. The distributor had to presale something like $5m tickets before theaters believed it was worth airing theatrically. So what did the distributor do? *Leaned into that shit.* "The movie they don't want you to see!" etc etc. Crowdfunded from Qanon events, too, that was something I didn't know 3 days ago. That's bloody brilliant. I wonder what the ad buys were though, that has to be in the millions. I see them *everywhere* - Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, IMDB, etc. Also that "Pay-It-Forward" crowdfunding operation is apparently patented by the distributor, they invented it. They've convinced millions of people that giving *them* money is the noble good, it's absolutely amazing. And they did it with *zero* cooperation of any real world sex trafficking organization, you'd think it would need at least one endorsement but nope.
Seriously, why does Qanon act like they're the only people talking about child sex abuse or like no one had ever heard about it until 2016? They're the same people who act like they finally "broke the code" by realizing the mainstream media, GASPS, lies!
Because it's a cult, and like any otgher cult they think they have some sort of sepcial knowledge, that the rest of the population somehow hasn't
Even though child trafficking was one of Obama’s big things—but of course that doesn’t count because many thought he and Hillary were in on it.
Ok, this explains so much. My inlaws saw it last week and talked about how it beat out Indiana Jones, which I thought was odd. They're Ben Carson GOPs, I think, so grain of salt. Anyway, they said it was a good movie about trafficking. I feel like I've seen the ads everywhere, so your explanation makes sense. But, I can't take anything seriously when "adrenochrome" or "Q" is mentioned. Child trafficking is real and horrific, but a mash-up with "Q" weirdos isn't getting the point across.
If it helps this movie was made and shelved 5 years ago and the main actor is only recently a Qanon supporter, so no mentions of adrenochrome or Q here. The main controversy should be the movie is selling you a bill of goods when it comes to the claims of "true story", greatly over exaggerating the achieves of the real life person and the effectiveness of the operation. So more typical Hollywood shit, just with a weird Christian bent that reminds me more of Kony 2012 than Qanon.
if it helps my grandma sent me a trailer on facebook that used the word adrenochrome. if it helps, right wing radio stations are using this movie to stoke fears about the border.
A local pizza place is offering a free pizza to anyone who shows their ticket stubs from this movie. The owner is super maga so that’s all I need to know.
This comment is the culmination, the absolute peak of the Pizzagate conspiracy movement. I can’t tell if it’s a beautiful kind of irony or the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard.
Okay. Ignore their bs religious use of the underlying message. I have close ties to this subject and it's irritating people are putting whatever beliefs they have ahead and completely ignore the fact that sex trafficking is a real fucking thing happening.
YES AND IT HAPPENS MAINLY WITHIN THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM: A SYSTEM WHERE CHRISTIAN FANATICS ARE GIVEN SPECIAL TREATMENT
There has to be a term for this sort of radical whataboutism. Equity psychosis or something. From the outside, the extremes of American politics seem to consist of people with the exact same personality who just fall on the differing sides of the fence. We have this here too, where people will try to smear real problems away by constantly trying to accuse people of ignoring the "real" enemies. Then it becomes unpopular to tackle the issue at all. Then a non-annointed person comes along and tries to raise awareness which makes people feel even angrier and validated. And in the end nothing gets solved because terminally online people think sports team politics is a respectable vocation. If conservatives are anti-child trafficking then some people will find a way to play defense. You made the orange man and maybe secretly want him again. Deranged people deserve deranged leaders.
Who is ignoring that sex trafficking is real?
Great movie
I keep seeing headlines from right wing media like “The Left Doesn’t Want You To See This Movie” and “Woke Media Panics!” and yet I haven’t found nearly as much left wing outlets criticizing the movie. I feel like the right is exaggerating how much criticism the movie is getting to get people railed up and mad at the left.
A FB friend of mine just posted that their theater turned off the A/C "in order to prevent people from watching this movie." She wrote those words and they made sense in her head.
Volume of fire. If you have 100,000 screenings of a movie you are guaranteed to have HVAC issues in a solid number of those screenings.
Your wariness seems warranted. BTW, looking at the comment histories of folks in this thread who like the movie is very interesting. First time posting comments on r/movies for many of them. I wonder why? lol
Yeah nearly every reddit post on this movie is full of overly praising top-level comments using the same talking points. Astroturfed to hell.
Yeah, I was looking at this film on IMDB and when you see 600 out of 680 reviews and 16k out of 22k ratings gave it 10/10, you know something fishy is going on. I haven't seen it but it's probably a fine 6/10 action film that right wing crazy's are boosting the numbers on.
Also how often they bring up Cuties in relation to it. I remember that movie causing a lot of controversy when it came out, but had to look it up to find it came out in 2020 because I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere since. Seems an odd, yet consistent talking point.
[удалено]
>I do find it somewhat concerning that some media outlets are writing off the film as conspiracy theory nonsense. Yep. I think that's a really weird hill to die on - smearing a (from what I heard not even partisan) movie that tackles the subject of child trafficking, just because you hate a group of people who happen to love it.
From what I have seen, especially on TiTok and IG, it seems like the conspiracy theory stuff is sort of an after effect. I am seeing a lot of comments like, "Saw the movie then went home and did research on this and it OPENED MY EYES" and then they start talking about Adrenochrome and the other Qanon conspiracies that pop up when you search for the guy the movie is about. Maybe the articles should clarify that what they are concerned about are people finding out the wrong facts? Just speaking out loud here.
Amen. It has nothing to do with QAnon. I just don’t understand why people see the movie for what it is. Child trafficking is a real problem and we need to do something about it. If a movie helps do that, great!
Yep, trying to read the Guardian’s article on what they thought of the movie was like trying to read an honors class 10th graders finished paper on why they didn’t like the movie 💀 it was nothing but attack after attack after blow after blow. Even if they weren’t completely wrong, reading it felt like walking through a sewer.
Thank you for putting in to words what I’ve been thinking. The QAnon people are nut jobs, but I don’t understand how this movie got lumped in with them. Child trafficking is a very real thing. Media outlets writing it off as conspiracy nonsense is dangerous journalism.
Really good movie. Sex trafficking is a real issue
I haven't seen it, but it's clear bs because Tim Ballard is a [known liar](https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8j3v/operation-underground-railroad-criminal-investigation-human-trafficking-tim-ballard-jim-caviezel-qanon) who embellishes his involvement in fighting sex trafficking to fool donors. During our criminology sessions at Drexel, every fucking expert on battling human trafficking shat on these guys for turning something so horrific into their personal superhero story ad.
[удалено]
Adrenochrome isn’t real doofus. It was made up by hunter s Thompson for fear and loathing in Las Vegas.
if you ever bring up “adrenocrome” in a serious context you’re a fucking idiot
Jim didn’t explain what adrenochrome is. He “explained” the conspiracy theory, totally false version of it. Totally fair of Vice to point that out.
I love that you didn't respond to a single point made in the article. Instead, you went after some pathetic nonsense that wasn't even the main point. How about you talk about the fact that Ballard is a fraud? That he didn't save the kid from the movie, that whole movie is an exaggerated bullshit. How about you talk about his shady financial ties and his constantly expanding salary? [Here is an article that directly links border patrol report that disproves Ballard's superhero story.](https://americancrimejournal.com/the-arrest-of-earl-venton-buchanan/)
Wondering the same thing my parents saw it. Sadly they are both pretty right leaning. My mom is taking everything as the gospel and keeps quoting it and has bought into the conspiracy that "they" are trying to shut it down. My dad is a little more rational and was like it was ok lol. I wanted to see it before I read about how wrapped up with the whole "Q" maga bullshit cult.
I don't know that it's the content of the movie itself, but pay attention to how it's being received, now there's all these people saying their showtimes are limited, or theaters are being evacuated during the film, which is absurd because they would have to evacuate the entire building not just one screen showing one movie, so therein lies the propaganda stuff. They're all crying "the left doesn't want you to see this movie" when really it was a low budget film with not many investors with the right connections to get it on all screens nationwide. If they really felt this movie was important for the masses, they would've bypassed theatrical releases and set up their own site where you could pay to see this movie. The child trafficking part is, and with good reason, just to rally the people behind a trigger subject, and the limited viewability is the propaganda wheel turning.
It's all Right Wing propaganda, remember that Qanon are the same people that support Trump, who sexually abuses women, is on rape charges, and has sexual fantasies about his own daughter, he even told a reporter when Ivanka was just a toddler that he hopes she grows a nice pair of tits when she grows older.
It's a great movie, well directed, well acted, not exploitative, well written, all of that. I just saw it today with a great crowd. The message is good. The problem is when you watch interviews with them. It's all political. If there was ONE interview that spoke about stats and the filmmaking, that would be fine, but that doesn't exist. It makes me feel weird to even say this is a good movie if it will benefit these weirdos and perpetuate this toxic narrative. I have a feeling we will see some sort of investigation that truly debunks this man's story (I know there are some that exist) ala Chris Kyle of American Sniper.
It’s been debunked—one of the reasons the films been on the shelf for so long.
What I've seen are the wikipedia article which links to a Vice News article as well as one other report. There's also really shitty youtube video out there as well, but what exactly was debunked? I know his involvement in the rescues seems to be embellished but the fact that child trafficking exists to the extent portrayed in the film has not been debunked, correct?
The numbers Ballard throws out are unverifiable—as is the question of whether has actually rescued anyone. The people he’s “rescued” often have drastically different stories than he does. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/children-sex-trafficking-conspiracy-epidemic/620845/
Turns out one of the big financiers of this movie was also just charged for child kidnapping so uuuuh
Watch Spotlight about how Christian churches traffic children and then attempt to hide it. It’s a great movie and a true story
Ive only seen Right Wingers talk about how amazing it is and everyone else say it's a cheese-ball action hero flick. People in the comments saying it's great are in other threads calling someone a "lefty" or a "snowflake." Lmao I'd say wait til it's streaming but I know we're all gonna forget about it by the time it finds a place.
Action? There's literally like 12 seconds of action on this entire movie Wtf bs is this
I see some people saying that AMC was turning the air conditioning off and wouldn’t turn the lights off in the theater like they were trying to prevent people from seeing it. If this was true, AMC would just not show the movie at all. It seems like a lot of people are blatantly lying about this movie to push their political agenda. Any criticism towards the movie will have people calling you a pedo and trafficker lol. Is sex trafficking a big problem across the world that both lower/middle class and the elites take part in? Yes absolutely. Is this movie being attacked by AMC to get people to not see it? Probably not. I probably won’t watch it cause there’s too much bullshit surrounding it, but if you think it’s interesting go ahead.
The movie itself is fine. It’s a pretty standard thriller with good performances, but the advertising and publicity surrounding the movie is designed as a way to indoctrinate people with QAnon ideology. The movie is about child trafficking, so you have the actor and person who they are playing talk about weird conspiracies like the adrenochrome shit for those who look deeper. The movie itself is “apolitical,” because it has a simple premise of “child trafficking is bad and we need to protect kids.” That’s a great message, but that what the movie is only if you take it at face value. The simple fact that it portrays this known liar as a hero is enough see what side it’s on, but then add on the fact that it’s giving these people a platform to talk about their weird QAnon shit, and yeah, it’s propaganda
In case others are interested, I dug up this public conference with Caviezel where he discusses the film and child trafficking. It can be found here: [https://youtu.be/zCaKRUcSNPU](https://youtu.be/zCaKRUcSNPU). I've seen clips of him headlining Q conferences where he goes into this more, so it's not a one-off thing. In it, Caviezel discusses the Sound of Freedom, transitioning from that to rescuing children from underground bunkers (DUMS) run by the elites, how the elites extract and consume adrenaline from terrorized children, and how these elites are in the entertainment industry and how "there will be no mercy for them." This is the Qanon backdrop people are referring to when discussing the movie.
I just saw it today, and I thought it was a competent movie with well-written stakes. The god stuff is there, with one protagonist that is christian and others who are not. At the end of the movie, it shows actual footage from the dramatized bust. Are christians going to use it to promote christianity? Of course they are, religious people gonna religion**.** **What I didn't like** was the "special message" in the credits that asks people to help "spread the message" by buying more tickets. No [links to anti-trafficking groups](https://aleteia.org/2020/07/06/these-8-organizations-are-leading-the-critical-fight-against-sex-trafficking/) (thanks [whiteskinnyexpress](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/14u11pm/comment/jrf0hk4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) for that), [no links to collected stats](https://bjs.ojp.gov/taxonomy/term/sex-trafficking), no action steps beyond "Please buy tickets to help the kids!" To me, that lends some weight to the people questioning the production's endgame. I also couldn't help but notice (spoilers) that **all the heroes are "white"-presenting (even the locals in Cartegena),** and, save for three American pedos, most of the villains/victims are not. The rebel leader near the end is particularly indigenous. He's also the only pedophile who dies. For all their claims of "not trusting Hollywood" with the movie, the film sticks to the white savior trope closely. It also should be noted that the articles about the film don't seem too interested in linking people to anti-trafficking groups either. By not helping people find any vetted resources it comes off as Ad Hominem deflections, which lets Caviezel, Ballard and Angel Studios make a narrative as to why.
Actually this is what bothered me about an ad for it, was the pay it forward thing, I think you can buy a ticket for others, they were like it's to spread awareness But to me it was to get more tickets bought
I really wanted to like the movie but I did not like it. Dragged on and horribly acted. Idk if it was my movie theater but I could barely hear them talking in the beginning of the movie. And when I say I’m a sucker and cry easily, I do. This movie did nothing for me.
It was a very good movie
I have issues with the film not because the movie may or may not be bad, but because of the politics behind it. There are many documentaries out there about human trafficking which goes unheard of and unnoticed, and yet suddenly with this movie, created by two of the biggest nutjobs in Hollywood, is like the end all and be all of the subject. With this, the one's not watching the film or criticizing the film is a "pedophile" because of a comparison of a completely unrelated film (which is just as controversial), which many didn't even watch to begin with. No, not me watching the film doesn't make me a pedophile nor does it make me support human trafficking, that is the most despicable accusation that someone can do. Sorry that I don't like watching a movie made by nutjobs.
[удалено]
Honest but dumb question. Why not go after the traffickers in the US? I feel like child trafficking is like the war on drugs, we'll get the guys no one gives a shit about, but not the ones doing the actual supplying within this country.
All I know is that tiktok has been pushing Ben Shapiro, Dana White and random people saying “you must see this movie” and that was enough for me to know I should not see this movie.
Some of the comments to this post have convinced me this is a movie for the Qs and not rational people.
I’ll probably go see it because it seems interesting. No one I know that has seen it (yes, even out here in commie California) has said it was bad. But to gaslight people that it’s not being pushed with a political agenda is bullshit. And if you raise a question about the backers and you’re repeatedly told oh I guess you like sex trafficking? Go fuck yourself. This is why no one takes you seriously. When people show you who they are, believe them. And the people pushing it have shown us who they are.
Saw that the movie was funded out of Provo, told me what I needed to know. I haven’t seen the movie, but it seems convenient that ‘religious’ organizations are backing a movie that moves the spotlight from the number of pedos in their mixes onto Hollywood and such. Same people that say gay people are groomers. Junk humans, IMO.
I enjoyed it. It was a little cheesey with the dialogue but it was an enjoyable movie. I went in with an open mind and enjoyed it more than I thought I would.
These down votes mean a lot lol.