In short, it’s about human trafficking and enslavement of children, and the press about it seems to be evenly divided between “Do not see this movie under any circumstances” and “This movie is a must-see, and is not graphic.”
The controversy seems to center around the fact that it stars Jim Caviezel, who has some rather unorthodox (esp. for the entertainment industry) political views. Is that relevant to any of the movie’s content, if you’ve seen it?
I only read a BBC News article about it. (TLDR: the organization it lionizes is accused of exaggerating its success in breaking up child trafficking rings and Jim Caviezel is a nut.)
I dove in a little deeper, and it appears that the movie is actually fairly good, even if it isn’t factual. Of course it’s not streaming yet, because it’s still in theaters, and highly ranked at the box office, not because of any kind of anti-Christian conspiracies.
That’s also a good description of Oliver Stone’s JFK. That movie helped to spread misinformation into the public sphere. Whether or not Sound of Freedom does so as well will remain to be seen.
It is doing well, but not quite as well as its box office looks. It includes a plea to pay-it-forward and buy tickets for future viewers who can’t afford it. So basically, people are buying tickets that may or not be claimed at the theater.
Anyway, it is from the Qanon supporting type of people, so I avoid. Maybe a stream or a library borrow.
I saw the movie on opening weekend. It was very good, and while it probably wasn’t factual either, it got people thinking.
(My father has always told me and my sibs to not believe the party line about the assassination, and in the meantime, Jim Garrison turned out to be a pedophile.)
I took a peek online and did not see anything about this. He certainly seems to have done some legally sketchy things during his investigation, so that does make him less than trustworthy.
I’m fond of the director’s cut myself.
This link is gated, but it was the only one I could find (so far). This commentary appeared in my local newspaper, and appears to be quite unbiased.
TL : DR - Adrenochrome can be manufactured in a lab, so draining it from young children isn’t necessary. Anyway, she said it was a very powerful movie regardless of the actors’ politics.
It’s not just the actor and his views. The person he is portraying is a lying Quidiot too.
Qanon isn’t politics. It’s a batshit crazy cult. Since one of their basic tenets is that everyone with any sort of power or fame is part of a pedofile cult it’s easy to get support from those that don’t look too deep into it. If you are against them it must mean you support pedophiles. The Ven diagram between them and hardcore MAGA is basically a circle and they are trying to destroy the country. But if you are against it you must be a pedo.
My daughter saw SoF tonight because Oppenheimer was sold out and she said it was an amazing movie, one of the best she’d seen in a while. She knew nothing about the subject matter going in, has heard nothing of the controversy…so it must be a pretty good flick, even if you don’t really care about its message or the QAnon stuff or whatever.
I’ll definitely see it now, based on her rave. Also, she said the screening was nearly sold out and the theater was packed.
Leni Riefenstahl was a really good director.
That’s the insidious part of it. Tim Ballard is leading the fight against human trafficking. What can be wrong with that? Well yeah, that’s how propaganda works. Tim Ballard isn’t leading the fight against human trafficking. Buying into the propaganda supports the movement that thinks Tom Hanks and the Hollywood elite are stealing children and Ballard and Trump are fighting them. It’s Qanon propaganda packaged in a form that’s palatable to people who don’t look deeper.
My wife & I went to see sound of freedom on a seniors special at a nearby theatre. We both loved the movie. Like another poster stated if it’s not factual it at least gets you thinking. But it wasn’t until I read on here that Jim Caviezel is a crackpot Qanon type. (I’ve followed up with some other websites that seem to say the same thing) Too bad, I’ve always enjoyed his work.
Whatever though, it was a great movie and don’t for a moment regret seeing it.
That troubles me, if only because Person of Interest may be my favorite TV show of all time. Oh well - at least I’ve never heard anything bad about Michael Emerson.
Same about person with interest. And Frequency is my favourite “feel good” movie too.
I don’t know anything about the real guy, but the movie just smells like one of those “God is not Dead” RWNJ propaganda films. I’ll pass.
I don’t need a fictional film to tell me sex trafficking is bad. The Qbullshit just reinforces it that I’ll pass.
I put pedophiles away for 5 years of my career. I’ve been to high level conferences on sex trafficking. I’ve spoken to real victims of sex trafficking. I know what it really is. I know it’s bad. I also know it’s not a worldwide conspiracy by Hilary Clinton and Bill Gates (and the Jews natch) in order for them to suck the adrenochrome out of babies. Anything that helps push that agenda I will stay away from. At least I’ll stay away until JFK Jr comes back and tells me to watch it.
Is that what the film is about? Sheesh! Double-pass here. I won’t support that agenda.
I guess that means I’m “part of the conspiracy”. Oh well.
