The incredible true story of a former government agent turned vigilante who embarks on a dangerous mission to rescue hundreds of children from sex traffickers.

After rescuing a boy from ruthless child traffickers, a federal agent learns the boy's sister is still captive and decides to embark on a dangerous mission to save her.
With time running out, he quits his job and journeys deep into the Colombian jungle, putting his life on the line to free her from a fate worse than death.

Sound of Freedom is a film that depicts the true story of Tim Ballard, a former Homeland Security agent who founded an organization to rescue children from human trafficking.

Tough subject for sure. They use real abduction footage as well.

This film is doing pretty well at the box office. Won't be an easy watch for me but I'm definitely going to check out.

Edit to add: If you would like to discuss the political aspects of this film there is a thread over in the Politics Forum you can participate in. - Goldberg74

https://forum.dvdtalk.com/political-...iscussion.html

Even Tim Ballard himself said that not all of the details in the film are correct. They portray the island rescue as entirely with children, when in reality there were many that were over 18. It doesn't make the situation any less disturbing, but it does move the movie more to a propaganda piece than it needed to be.

Good timing.

I watched the film last night and checked a little while ago to see if a thread had been created. Powerful message and reminder of the evil taking place in this world.

Correct but I'm not sure why you posted that as it's a movie but everything that is shown is largely accurate. Also, there were things very underreported in the film as well like it was actually 120 kids he rescued not 54.

You can read all of the facts here which include what you said in your reply:

Link

There's a lot of nonsense online about this movie, with people claiming that there is a conspiracy to keep it out of the mainstream discussions/reviews. It's all over Twitter. Seems to be Q-Anon-adjacent with the "Dems are really pedophiles who support trafficking kids". So I have no desire to support the film.

It's the film the right-wingers/conspiracy nuts have latched on to, but never mind women's rights, book banning, etc. Now they care? Riiiiiiiight. Also, There are reports of people and organizations buying out screenings, and either it plays to empty theaters, or they give away the tickets to people that may want to watch it.


/rant

There is literally no link between the film and that political nonsense. I knew someone was going to bring this up and I'm pretty sure that's why a thread was never started for this film. Pretty sad how corrupt, political nonsense has to spill into everything.

Well, there IS a link because the movie and the politics have been linked by a ton of people. It's literally all over the place. You might not agree with it, but you can't deny it exists.

So what is it? Do you have any detail?

What's the link? Here you go

Both star Jim Caviezel and Ballard himself are fully tied into QAnon (Caiezel having spoken at multiple QAnon conferences, with video existing online).

Not supporting them with my money.

Yes. There are connections to the politics and Qanon (which was originally a 4/8chan creation to laugh at people who believe it). They have been promoting heavily through the goofy-right news and podcasts. The star is on Charlie Kirk's podcast talking about harvesting adrenochrome. They're definitely promoting to those people, the way a fell-good Christian-produced film promotes through churches to sell tickets.

The original production may have not had that stuff in mind. But the marketers are doing it to sell tickets. And the main star is definitely on board.

The movie is fiction, but based on truth. Kids definitely get groomed and kidnapped and pushed through that system of slavery. It sucks that the goofy conspiracy theory people are the ones getting the attention.

I did see a fact checker on the "800k kids go missing yearly". She explained that the majority of those claims are lost and found kids (ie someone runs away for the evening).

A much better, truer thriller could be made about this exact story.

Where is the link to Qanon in the movie? I havent seen it yet....does it get political? Does it bash democrats??

I don't care what Caviezel's political views are. Is he using the film to go after liberals and that's why you're upset??

If it's a film about child trafficking and close to accurate on the events it portrays and sticks to that for the entire runtime without getting sidetracked.....what's the issue?? If it doesn't, pleae use spoiler tags to explain.

It's a true story, how is it fiction?

The star is promoting the movie on right-wing podcasts and dog-whistling QAnon throughout. You asked what the link was - that's the link.

Also, to be clear, I'm not upset. I nothing this film.

Ok then, who cares....if the movie is true to what happened and doesn't try to shove political garbage down my throat, then that's all I care about.

Great - the people who worked on the film (and profit from it) are pushing these political positions to generate ticket sales. I care about that.

But is it a good movie? Did you see it? Why are you bringing politics into this? I haven't seen it but to the extent of my knowledge it doesn't try to force anything whatsoever. Do you care to see it or did you just want to express your liberal anger when you saw the thread?

What political positions are they pushing? Are they going around to multiple political rallies or something to promote the film?

I saw the movie on July 4th. I actually posted a few thoughts in the Last Movie you watched thread. But, since you made this thread I will post some thoughts here. This movie was not on my radar at all. I saw it listed on Fandango, but had no interest. But, I saw a YouTube review from John Flickinger. He's a tough and sometimes quite cynical reviewer. I think he's good friends with Chris Stuckmann and they have done some collabs in the past. He gave it a positive review and said it was a compelling thriller and a good one-time watch. Did not talk about any politics and such. But, he openly admitted that Angel studios, who released this movie, contacted him about doing a sponsored review and he was only willing to do it if he could say what he wanted even if it sucked.

As for me, I agreed with Flickinger. I thought it was a pretty tense and compelling thriller. I was a big fan of Caviezel from Person of Interest. Even though he's fallen off from mainstream studios, I thought he was pretty good in this movie. It's a tough subject and I thought they handled the material well without getting too graphic. Did the movie go into politics? Not really. Maybe the politics of dealing with a different government in handling this? Did it go into faith based preachy crap? No. There was maybe one line where the Ballard mentions protecting God's children from these people. When I saw it, the auditorium was completely sold out. I overheard a Hispanic woman in the concessions line talking saying she heard this was a really good movie and was surprised how many were coming to see it.

Jeremy Jahns also reviewed it and he also said he barely heard of it, but he also gave it a positive review. He's a pretty well known YouTube critic.

The movie was entertaining and left me with things to think about it. It did it's job and was a good 1-time watch. That's all I'll say.

You can separate the press junkets and the filmmakers' politics and beliefs from the piece. That's totally cool and more power to you.

Many people 1. Know the intent of the filmmakers in their promotions of the film and their underlying motives/dogwhistle for making the piece and/or 2. Don't want to support the filmmakers because they disagree with them.

That's all that's being said. One's "death of the author" style criticism, one's criticism incorporating authorial intent.

Like the Hillary documentary that was in theaters a few years back? THAT was political. If you want to make everything political, it's pretty fucking easy these days.

I want to see this movie for the message about trafficking... definitely not more fucking politics. I wonder of those bashing it for Qanon conspiracy shit if any of you have actually even seen this? Or you just don't like it because a right-winger was lead? I don't give a fuck for Scientology (and I'll bet most of you agree it's a bullshit "religion") but you'll sure as shit go see Tom Cruise in Top Gun or Mission Impossible.

And you have every right to protest the film in this thread as well (even if I'm questioning why) but I keep asking questions because I see a lot of accusations without proof. For example, you just said: "Know the intent of the filmmakers in their promotions of the film and their underlying motives....for making the piece" What do you mean by that??? Are you saying the film was made to just cater to a certain crowd because without even having seen it, I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

That's fine. I also think it's only fair for a critic to be able to say whatever they want as well. Your review of it definitely makes me want to check it all the more as well.

I just said it doesn't go into politics or weird conspiracy theories. I actually saw the movie. There are no underlying messages. It's focus is about this scummy multi billion dollar industry that exploits children.

And the story also focused on Ballard trying to help reunite a family after a brother and sister were kidnapped by a fake children's modeling agency.