Human-trafficking film 'Sound of Freedom' trashed by liberal outlets as 'QAnon-adjacent'

Video

Multiple liberal outlets have trashed the new film "Sound of Freedom" as "QAnon-adjacent" and "fit for QAnon" in recent days, descriptions that relegate the film about human trafficking to fodder for conspiracy theorists.

Both U.K. publication The Guardian and website Jezebel claimed that the film starring Jim Caviezel, which was based on the true story of a U.S. Homeland Security agent rescuing two young children from human traffickers in South America, was attached to QAnon, a right-wing community that has been accused of buying into fringe conspiracy theories.

Although the film, produced by Angel Studios and released over the July 4 holiday, never engages in such conspiracy theories while exposing the underbelly of the real underground sex slave trade, both outlets linked the film to fringe right-wing extremists in an attempt to discredit it and its box-office success….
…Mentioning Caviezel’s post-credits message about the reality of human trafficking, the piece added, "But of course, this is tailored to go down easy. That’s how propaganda works, and Caviezel’s shameless begging at the end of the movie underlines a desperation to disseminate."

Video…







https://www.foxnews.com/media/media...edom-qanon-adjacent-mock-films-july-4-success








The big question is why? Why are liberal media outlets attacking an anti child sex slave trade movie based on real events, a true story? Do they oppose everything religious conservatives say just because it’s us that said it?

 

It seems that Biden, congressional democrats, and the mainstream media are willing to live with women sex slave trade, child trafficking, and fentanyl exploding here if that’s what it costs to have the immigration policy they want. They will discredit anti fentanyl smuggling and anti trafficking efforts if ending human suffering in those areas means controlling the border.

 

Have to let us know what you think of the movie.

 

My wife liked it.

 

What's a liberal outlet?

P.S. I'm calling fake news. See if I'm right.

 

What? A movie has never been criticised before?
Here is the piece in the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/06/sound-of-freedom-movie-qanon-jim-caviezel

Only in the RWNJ bubble is it suddenly a sin to criticise a film

 

Jezebel and Guardian are well left of center media outlets. What was your point?
Are you denying that they said what’s attributed to them?

 

What exactly is there to criticize regarding the movie telling the true story of a federal agent and his rescue of trafficked kids?

 

Lots! Google “west movie of all time”. Mind you for me that is Steven Kings “The Mist” but some of the others can challenge that. Conversely google “Best movies of all time” and every response will have a different top ten

 

Well the tales of the former agent are not actually verified and some have been outright fabrications. But alas it’s a movie and should not matter since it’s “based” on a true story which allows for it to be 100% fiction.

 

As to this specific movie and the specific criticism from Jezebel and The Guardian, what is the basis for theirs, specifically the conspiracy and q-anon allegations?

 

So you are accusing the federal agent of making it up? Or that the kids weren’t victims here?

 

First, he is formerly a federal agent. And yes he has been caught in a multitude of false stories. The e example was when OUR said the had entered a partnership with American Airlines, which was a lie. There are many more. Let’s just agree Tim Ballard has an issue with embellishment and tall tales.


But, it’s perfectly acceptable to embellish for a movie. 100%. Real life doesn’t make good movies, and a story about fighting trafficking is a good topic. But telling people this movie is a true story is laughable. I would watch the movie for sure, except the lead actor can’t act for ****.

 

You might want to find a more credible source than Vice. The reality: Operation Underground Railroad was advised by its PR firm that it had made a deal with American Airlines, in which the airline would run an OUR video on its commercial flights for a month. The deal fell through & the PR firm failed to notify OUR. The firm apologized, and OUR fired them. Curiously, Vice failed even to mention the PR firm's role in any of its "reporting." I'm sure it was just an oversight. Vice has run a handful of hit pieces against Ballard, which the gullible are all too eager to swallow hook, line & sinker. Interesting how Vice has just filed Chapter 11. Karma's a bitch.

I met Tim Ballard (the man portrayed by Jim Caveizel in the film) when I interviewed him in 2017, and have contributed to his organization ever since. My wife & I saw the movie last night, and there is nothing fictional about the rescue of those kids on the island. Ballard went into great detail about it when I sat down with him, and the film's depiction lines up 100% with what Ballard disclosed to me 6 years ago.

There's another rescue depicted in the 2nd half of the film that Ballard did not discuss with me, and that I've not seen covered elsewhere. I suppose it could be a fabrication, but my impression is that Ballard wouldn't sign off on a lie. The realities & the cockroaches his organization confronts are stranger and more horrific than any tall tale any novelist could ever contrive.

Here's how CBS reported on the island rescue in 2014.

 

This seems pretty cut and dry regardless whether or not the movie is good/bad true/part true/false.....

If you come out against child trafficking you are labeled as qanon right wing extremist.

This is not a good look for the left.

It's fitting with their anti children positions overall though.

 

Is that what these LWNJ's did? they just criticized the movie or was there something more?

Looking forward to Hollywood making a movie about Epstein, many actors will be able to play themselves.

 

Bunkum! The criticism has nothing to do with that - pity you did not spend 5 minutes actually reading the piece in the guardian

 

Except my information isn’t from Vice. It comes from firsthand knowledge into the ongoings at AA. There was NEVER any deal. Not at anytime.

 

That's a lie and you know it.

 

They're trashing the film because it outperformed Indiana Jones. In fact Indiana Jones is an embarrassing flop by Disney.

I think one of the reasons why it's an embarrassing flop is because the female main character. This is something Disney has done over and over and over again and it's failed every single time I don't know why they insist on continuing. Maybe they have to lose 40 billion before they get the hint.

Men who are the main audience of movies like Indiana Jones don't want to watch Indiana Jones get performed by a girl boss women who are the second largest audience don't want to see this either.

So the reason why they're trashing it is because people are rejecting their progressive horseshit and this shows that to be true.

I don't know why they don't write good parts for women anymore particularly female main characters. Particularly heroic female main characters I remember growing up with the movies with heroic female main characters that were much better.

The absolute worst female main character I've seen is galadriel in rings of power. Because in order to be heroic female the moron that wrote the story thinks that they have to be absolutely Superior to men in every way. The term for this is Mary Sue.

This film is being used as a bludgeoned against these progressive ideas. Indiana Jones was fun back in the 80s. A heartbreaking drama which normally doesn't perform good against a fun adventure film is utterly smashing this piece of crap.

What's interesting about it is it's a Disney movie too. It's just that Kathleen Kennedy is so ****ing terrible she can't outperform some obscure movie they acquired in purchasing a fox a couple years back with a movie that should have been a money printing machine.

Long way anyway so I guess we know that Spielberg and George Lucas were the talent cuz that's what's missing.

 

They also bash the film because the lead actor played Jesus in the Passion of The Christ.

 

No, it’s not.

https://stream.org/sunny-side-of-the-stream-sound-of-freedom-opens-big-and-opens-eyes-and-hearts/

https://www.foxnews.com/media/media...edom-qanon-adjacent-mock-films-july-4-success

 

Really you think that's why? Maybe it is because I never saw Russell Crowe in the movie after he played Noah.

Do you really think it's that petty I think it's because this movie is utterly smashing of movie by all metrics that should be doing better.

I think it's because the sound of freedom expresses masculinity and men in their traditional gender roles and the people are for that imagine that.

I don't think it's about the movie at all or even the actors I think it's that nobody is buying the false progressive BS

 

Link?

 

So, he played parts in two fictions……..so what?