Somehow the issue of child trafficking and pedophilia became a political issue. Pretty much the only press I'm seeing from this is from my spouse and somewhat "alternative" media.

Rotten Maters seems to like it.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sound_of_freedom

I haven't but plan on seeing it

The fact this thread is dead just shows the refusal of most to even acknowledge this topic. The suppression of this movie by Hollywood for the last 2 years tying to keep it out of theaters is beyond telling. Many on this site has mocked and ridiculed those with the courage to bring this satanic topic to the mainstream to be stamped out. Father Yah is watching. All will have to answer for this.

Actual child sex trafficking is not a political issue. QAnon conspiracies about trafficking are, and conflating medical care for trans teens with "grooming," certainly is. This film is being marketed specifically to Christian and conservative audiences through Christian and conservative channels. I don't think it's a surprise that it's being ignored by the rest of the population. The choice of subject is also controversial. His organization is not always well regarded by others working on trafficking.

You wouldn't say that the large number of sex traffickers bringing children and women into the country illegally isn't a political issue?

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

You wouldn't say that the large number of sex traffickers bringing children and women into the country illegally isn't a political issue?

---

No. But using it to advocate beyond trafficking to get points for a political agenda on immigrants and immigration is.

it's too bad that every American doesn't see this movie

just like with Sicario

Hollywood doesn't want some issues to be discussed or known.

Hopefully all the people angry about the lack of press this movie is getting will go and find an aid organization or non-profit that works to address human trafficking to support financially.

https://www.a21.org/

https://mercyproject.org

Sapper Redux said:

---

Actual child sex trafficking is not a political issue. QAnon conspiracies about trafficking are, and conflating medical care for trans teens with "grooming," certainly is. This film is being marketed specifically to Christian and conservative audiences through Christian and conservative channels. I don't think it's a surprise that it's being ignored by the rest of the population. The choice of subject is also controversial. His organization is not always well regarded by others working on trafficking.

---

The movie is based on true events and the usual suspects in this thread have shown themselves. Good luck with judgement.

I honestly didn't know much about this movie. But I know that Jim has gone a little screwy after the Passion of the Christ. Nevertheless, I heard that Hollywood has tried to suppress this.

Pretty much already sold out in college station. While movies like The Little Mermaid and Dial of Destiny are largely ignored.

I guess I don't understand the animosity toward this film from some.

So the lead actor has personal views some consider fringe and odd? We could say that about a lot of actors. If I based my viewing on that, there's a lot of movies I'd have never seen.

I'll give this a shot because they're trying to bring awareness to a major issue, and it's based on a true story. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

The Green Dragon said:

---

I honestly didn't know much about this movie. But I know that Jim has gone a little screwy after the Passion of the Christ. Nevertheless, I heard that Hollywood has tried to suppress this.

Pretty much already sold out in college station. While movies like The Little Mermaid and Dial of Destiny are largely ignored.

---

"Hollywood" isn't a monolith, nor does it share a hive mind. And while I'm sure there are a few truly despicable people in the industry who might have connections to child trafficking, there simply aren't enough of those people to form a powerful shadow alliance that would somehow have the means, funding, and influence to suppress a movie, whatever that would entail. Logistically, that doesn't even make sense, nor do I have any idea how it would even work.

Truly, I don't know how some of you either believe or come up with this crap.

The simplest answer is usually the right one, and again, it's that this movie is from two obscure companies who simply don't have the infrastructure to market the movie traditionally, on any kind of a scale comparable to traditional releases.

Gigem314 said:

---

I guess I don't understand the animosity toward this film from some.

So the lead actor has personal views some consider fringe and odd? We could say that about a lot of actors. If I based my viewing on that, there's a lot of movies I'd have never seen.

I'll give this a shot because they're trying to bring awareness to a major issue, and it's based on a true story. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

---

I don't know how many more times I have to say this, but no one is knocking the movie itself. Rather, conspiratorial accusations were immediately made in this thread, re: certain people not talking about this movie, and then a number of us simply explained *why* it's not being talked about, outside of conservative/Christian circles.

Sound of Freedom is made by Angel Studios. They're a independent upstart studio best known for producing The Chosen. They crowd fund their projects to ensure that they are making entertainment that audiences want to see.

This is in direct contrast with big studios that often insert narratives that audience are not interested in. Obviously, some in Hollywood are not happy about this.

If you're interested in Sound of Freedom or The Chosen, I recommend checking out other Angel Studio projects to see if there are any others that interest you.

So Angel Studios' response to "big studios that often insert narratives" that only certain people want to see… is to be a little studio that often inserts narratives that only certain people want to see?

Truly, more power to them, and I'm legit glad that all audiences are being served here, but you have to recognize the hypocrisy in looking down on one system for "inserting narratives" while promoting another for doing the exact same thing. Yes, the latter is obviously far more targeted/bespoke, but that's all the more reason not to come up with wild conspiracy theories as to why the mainstream isn't aware of their product.

Albatross Necklace said:

---

Sound of Freedom is made by Angel Studios. They're a independent upstart studio best known for producing The Chosen. They crowd fund their projects to ensure that they are making entertainment that audiences want to see.

This is in direct contrast with big studios that often insert narratives that audience are not interested in. Obviously, some in Hollywood are not happy about this.

If you're interested in Sound of Freedom or The Chosen, I recommend checking out other Angel Studio projects to see if there are any others that interest you.

---

That's not entirely true. Angel Studios didn't make the film, it was produced by 21st Century Fox pre-pandemic. Angel just bought the rights to distribute the film and then crowdsourced the funds to market it to the Christian right audiences they thought it would appeal to.

The fact that this was originally made by a "big studio," and not in "direct contrast" to the Hollywood system, makes some of the arguments here all the more hilarious.

TCTTS said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

I guess I don't understand the animosity toward this film from some.

So the lead actor has personal views some consider fringe and odd? We could say that about a lot of actors. If I based my viewing on that, there's a lot of movies I'd have never seen.

I'll give this a shot because they're trying to bring awareness to a major issue, and it's based on a true story. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

---

I don't know how many more times I have to say this, but no one is knocking the movie itself. Rather, conspiratorial accusations were immediately made in this thread, re: certain people not talking about this movie, and then a number of us simply explained *why* it's not being talked about, outside of conservative/Christian circles.

---

No, I get that. Some don't like Caviezel personally.

And no doubt a film like this under a smaller production company is going to get little to no mainstream marketing. I've mostly just seen in on social media.

But I hope people give it a chance and look at the bigger picture. They're trying to tell a story that most aren't willing to put money behind.

TCTTS said:

---

The fact that this was originally made by a "big studio," and not in "direct contrast" to the Hollywood system, makes some of the arguments here all the more hilarious.

---

Would you consider founding a boutique studio that specializes in making movies (or TV, I'm not picky) for a certain audience that thinks they're ignored by the media? It doesn't have to be good. It just has to be marketable in one very slim way and you'd be set for life if you could keep churning out The Movies That Hollywood Woke Liberals Don't Want You to See.

TCTTS said:

---

The fact that this was originally made by a "big studio," and not in "direct contrast" to the Hollywood system, makes some of the arguments here all the more hilarious.

---

A few things.

1. Maybe not directed towards me, but if it was, I wasn't making an argument. I was merely pointing out what I've heard at my megachurch. Oh wait…I'm not a Christian. My wife is one of those evangelical Roman Catholic nuts, so I've seen the Chosen. I really wasn't making an argument, just wondering why this movie is getting pushback. For all I know, it's because of theater contracts or the pushback idea was conceived as a marketing plan.

2. No, we've never had an outspoken and politically charged actor or actress who people nonetheless watch their movies. I can't stand Jane Fonda, but On Golden Pond is wonderful. I'm not allowed to watch Michael Imperioli anymore, but I love everything he's been in. And Jeff Spicoli? Come on! Point being: the reaction to Jim C. is a little weird…just a little.

3. I love your posts and you are a fantastic resource on this board. But you seem a bit zealous about this issue.

No one asked but I thought your OP was fine. And honestly the true story this movie is based on seems compelling. But the follow up posts by some other folks that insinuate that there's some liberal Hollywood conspiracy at work to quash any film that addresses trafficking comes across as bonkers.

It seems to me (a Christian) that this film got made by Fox, but for some reason they didn't think it was worth putting into theaters. Nor did Disney who purchased 21st Century Fox. Angel saw something in it and worked out a way to buy the rights and then market it to the audience they thought would be most receptive to seeing it.

Personally, I'll probably catch it on video at some point as I don't make it to theaters very often. I do hope it's well-received by those who have an opportunity to see it though. I've done some work with a couple of international groups involved in ending the trafficking of minors in foreign countries and helping reunite them with their families. It's definitely an important issue.

I think it's funny that this has been characterized as a Christian filmand to have Qanon leanings. Are Christians somehow related to QAnon? It's just weird that human trafficking is considered a fringe issue.

The Green Dragon said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

The fact that this was originally made by a "big studio," and not in "direct contrast" to the Hollywood system, makes some of the arguments here all the more hilarious.

---

A few things.

1. Maybe not directed towards me, but if it was, I wasn't making an argument. I was merely pointing out what I've heard at my megachurch. Oh wait…I'm not a Christian. My wife is one of those evangelical Roman Catholic nuts, so I've seen the Chosen. I really wasn't making an argument, just wondering why this movie is getting pushback. For all I know, it's because of theater contracts or the pushback idea was conceived as a marketing plan.

2. No, we've never had an outspoken and politically charged actor or actress who people nonetheless watch their movies. I can't stand Jane Fonda, but On Golden Pond is wonderful. I'm not allowed to watch Michael Imperioli anymore, but I love everything he's been in. And Jeff Spicoli? Come on! Point being: the reaction to Jim C. is a little weird…just a little.

3. I love your posts (except for that passengers teaser ) and you are a fantastic resource on this board. But you seem a bit zealous about this issue.

---

If Caviezel was in a drama that had nothing to do with child trafficking, or he was in a sci-fi movie, or romantic comedy, or whatever, the "pushback" almost assuredly wouldn't be the same (I use "pushback" in quotes because I have no idea what the pushback truly is, or if it really even exists). It's the fact that Caviezel has gone on rant after rant about child trafficking, in particular, injecting his crusade with all kinds of nonsense about, say, "the adrenochroming of children," a fringe QAnon conspiracy that suggests adrenaline is being harvested from children by liberals, while he's associating with nut jobs like Lin Wood in the process. So when people see him dabbling in all this fringe child trafficking insanity, and then, suddenly, he's starring in a movie about child trafficking, targeted solely at conservatives, it's not a leap to assume that this movie might be injected with some of Caviezel's crazy ass views, thus the hesitation/"pushback."

As for what makes me "zealous," it's posts like this, that show up on this board with more and more frequency, in their instantly accusatory/paranoid/conspiratorial nature, based on nothing but batsh*t partisan insanity...

Quote:

---

The fact this thread is dead just shows the refusal of most to even acknowledge this topic. The suppression of this movie by Hollywood for the last 2 years tying to keep it out of theaters is beyond telling. Many on this site has mocked and ridiculed those with the courage to bring this satanic topic to the mainstream to be stamped out. Father Yah is watching. All will have to answer for this.

---

Again, my response was to why this thread, and interest in the movie from certain people, were "dead." Not to the movie itself. Without having seen it yet, I have absolutely no opinion of it and nothing against it (though, that could change if turns out there's any QAnon nonsense in it, or it happens to paints the left or the gay community as "groomers" or "adrenochromers" or whatever).

jeffk said:

---

No one asked but I thought your OP was fine. And honestly the true story this movie is based on seems compelling. But the follow up posts by some other folks that insinuate that there's some liberal Hollywood conspiracy at work to quash any film that addresses trafficking comes across as bonkers.

It seems to me (a Christian) that this film got made by Fox, but for some reason they didn't think it was worth putting into theaters. Nor did Disney who purchased 21st Century Fox. Angel saw something in it and worked out a way to buy the rights and then market it to the audience they thought would be most receptive to seeing it.

Personally, I'll probably catch it on video at some point as I don't make it to theaters very often. I do hope it's well-received by those who have an opportunity to see it though. I've done some work with a couple of international groups involved in ending the trafficking of minors in foreign countries and helping reunite them with their families. It's definitely an important issue.

---

This. It's the follow-up posts that set me off.

Also, good on you for volunteering and actually putting in the work toward trying to end something so horrible (as opposed to being a keyboard warrior who only deals in conspiracies and baseless accusations).

That's awesome.

The Green Dragon said:

---

I think it's funny that this has been characterized as a Christian filmand to have Qanon leanings. Are Christians somehow related to QAnon? It's just weird that human trafficking is considered a fringe issue.

---

Quoting to help keep my response specific.

The targeted marketing was a choice Angel made. They see it as a film appealing to that particular audience. I've gotten emailed ads for it and seen it pop up on a couple of religious news sites and online shops I visit.

It's sad that trafficking has become a partisan or fringe issue, but that's kind of what happens when politicians and celebrities depart from facts when discussing it or even making allegations. And this film was made right around the same time as the whole pizzagate thing and the lead actor has, again, departed from facts when talking about the issue the film is centered on. Which is sad because it erases a lot of needed enthusiasm for seeing it among a lot of people who don't want to be seen as supporting beliefs or philosophies that aren't supported.

Just 2 months ago, I was at IAH in a store and an 11year old girl came running into it and hid behind the register shaking in fear. Come to find out, two men were trying to fly her out of the country for sex trafficking. Thankfully we saved the girl and the two men were apprehended by police. Such a scary and REAL situation.

Who cares who made the movie if it's legit and brings light on a serious topic.

Some of you people need to get over yourselves

PlanoAggie said:

---

Just 2 months ago, I was at IAH in a store and an 11year old girl came running into it and hid behind the register shaking in fear. Come to find out, two men were trying to fly her out of the country for sex trafficking. Thankfully we saved the girl and the two men weee apprehended by police. Such a scary and REAL situation.

Who cares who made the movie if it's legit and brimgs light on a serious topic.

Some of you people need to get over yourselves

---

Because if it's something that blames only liberals as the sex traffickers, like Caviezel does, or paints the gay community as "groomers" in the process, that's *also* dangerous in that it only further enrages the right to hate the left, in ways that can lead to situations like the nut job who showed up at the pizza parlor with a gun.

To be crystal clear, I'm not at all saying this movie does that. But when its star publicly peddles in those kinds of accusations, it's perfectly natural for certain people to be hesitant about the movie itself, sight unseen.

Maybe direct some of your anger at Caviezel for muddying the message, and tell him to get over himself.

Someone is defensive…

There are literally hundreds with inside information coming forward exposing this right now.

Mel Gibson. Richie the barber. And yet you still deflect it.

So weird.

I'm not angry at all. The only anger I have is towards sex trafficking.

I don't follow any actors real lives, if I did, I'd probably stay away from the majority of the movies out these days.

I'd like to give this movie a watch and critic for myself. Politics aside.

LMCane said:

---

it's too bad that every American doesn't see this movie

just like with Sicario

Hollywood doesn't want some issues to be discussed or known.

---

Sicario made $85 million and had a sequel against a budget of $30 million. What the hell are you talking about?

redsquirrelAG said:

---

There are literally hundreds with inside information coming forward exposing this right now.

Mel Gibson. Richie the barber. And yet you still deflect it.

So weird.

---

Mel Gibson, huh? Can't imagine why anyone would question what Mel Gibson says and believes.