Go see Sound Of Freedom

[flockofseagulls104]

Whatever your political views, you need to see it. If you don't want to spend any money on it you can go to

https://www.angel.com/tickets/sound-of- ... 2023-07-15

I have paid for your ticket, so that nothing goes to Dennis Prager or anyone like that.

Ignore the MSM attacks on it. If this was a regular Hollywood movie, which it could have been, there would not be this attack on it. Just watch it and judge for yourself, unless you're scared that you'll be brainwashed or something.

100% audience on Rotten Tomato, 79% critics. (take a guess why the difference.)

[BackInTex]

Mrs BiT and I saw it last night. It is a good film on its own. The acting, editing, sound, cinematography, etc. are first rate. The story is important as well.

[tlynn78]

Kind of breath-taking

[Spock]

Got the last 2 seats in the theater last night.

[Bob Juch]

All of you remember that my daughter worked for an anti-human trafficking organization, right?

One of the last things she did was take four little children who had been trafficked to Mexico to make porn back to the U.S. They had been rescued by the Mexican police with the FBI and DHS. She was never in danger; she just escorted them to San Diago from Tijuana.

The actual rescuing she did was with prostitutes.

[BackInTex]

All of you remember that my daughter worked for an anti-human trafficking organization, right?

One of the last things she did was take four little children who had been trafficked to Mexico to make porn back to the U.S. They had been rescued by the Mexican police with the FBI and DHS. She was never in danger; she just escorted them to San Diago from Tijuana.

The actual rescuing she did was with prostitutes.

I thought about you, and Heather, during the movie. Have you seen it?

[silverscreenselect]

Mrs BiT and I saw it last night. It is a good film on its own. The acting, editing, sound, cinematography, etc. are first rate. The story is important as well.

I liked it. It was actually a Fox property originally (the studio, not the network), but when they merged with Disney, Disney decided this wasn't the type of property they wanted to release. So it sat on the shelf for several years until the independent studio bought the distribution rights (probably very cheaply).

Unlike a lot of projects that get promoted through the faith-based community, it's not an overly preachy, religious movie, so that will appeal more to mainstream audiences as well. As BiT said, the production values are very good.

[BackInTex]

It was actually a Fox property originally (the studio, not the network), but when they merged with Disney, Disney decided this wasn't the type of property they wanted to release.

I didn't know this. Further turning in his grave is Walt.

[flockofseagulls104]

It beat out Indiana Jones on its release date, and It has been extended past its originally intended theater run.

[Bob Juch]

All of you remember that my daughter worked for an anti-human trafficking organization, right?

One of the last things she did was take four little children who had been trafficked to Mexico to make porn back to the U.S. They had been rescued by the Mexican police with the FBI and DHS. She was never in danger; she just escorted them to San Diago from Tijuana.

The actual rescuing she did was with prostitutes.

I thought about you, and Heather, during the movie. Have you seen it?

No, I've been rather busy.

[jarnon]

I saw Sound of Freedom this afternoon. Thank you, Flock, for making it possible for me to watch it for free.

As with American Sniper and Zero Dark Thirty, peripheral controversies are grabbing press coverage, drawing attention away from the quality of the film.

[flockofseagulls104]

I saw Sound of Freedom this afternoon. Thank you, Flock, for making it possible for me to watch it for free.

As with American Sniper and Zero Dark Thirty, peripheral controversies are grabbing press coverage, drawing attention away from the quality of the film.

There should be nothing controversial about this film, except that we are turning a blind eye to a very real and tragic problem. It is based on a true story. The only thing controversial about it was made up by the people that thrive on making things controversial that have any ties to anything that might be deemed conservative.

And BJ, I did not know that about your daughter. God bless her for that. I'm so sorry for your loss.

[silverscreenselect]

There should be nothing controversial about this film, except that we are turning a blind eye to a very real and tragic problem. It is based on a true story.

While Sound of Freedom is well made, shocking, and entertaining, it presents an unrealistic picture of how the vast majority of underage sex trafficking actually works. You don't have Jeffrey Epstein-like elites making big bucks and satisfying their own desires by peddling and swapping little kids who are lured away by the promise of modeling contracts (a popular QAnon conspiracy theory). It's runaways and abandoned kids and kids whose parents sell them for drugs. That picture is more shocking and more realistic, but it doesn't make for a compelling movie with raids on exotic island hideaways and clandestine extractions in the middle of a hostile war zone. The reality is that these trafficked kids are rescued (or more often, just show up in hospitals and shelters) one or two at a time instead of fifty at a time. as in this movie.

The film makers acknowledge the movie's lack of accuracy, as the linked article in Rolling Stone indicates. "in a blog post on its website, [Angel Studios] acknowledges altering some of Ballard’s biographical details and that the film “took creative liberties in depicting the different methods of child trafficking.”

Again, I liked the movie for what it was, action entertainment. But it wasn't realistic. And criticisms of that fact are not an attempt by "liberals" to tear down a film that religious-based conservatives are distributing, actively promoting, and widely attending.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... 234786352/

[flockofseagulls104]

There should be nothing controversial about this film, except that we are turning a blind eye to a very real and tragic problem. It is based on a true story.

While Sound of Freedom is well made, shocking, and entertaining, it presents an unrealistic picture of how the vast majority of underage sex trafficking actually works. You don't have Jeffrey Epstein-like elites making big bucks and satisfying their own desires by peddling and swapping little kids who are lured away by the promise of modeling contracts (a popular QAnon conspiracy theory). It's runaways and abandoned kids and kids whose parents sell them for drugs. That picture is more shocking and more realistic, but it doesn't make for a compelling movie with raids on exotic island hideaways and clandestine extractions in the middle of a hostile war zone. The reality is that these trafficked kids are rescued (or more often, just show up in hospitals and shelters) one or two at a time instead of fifty at a time. as in this movie.

The film makers acknowledge the movie's lack of accuracy, as the linked article in Rolling Stone indicates. "in a blog post on its website, [Angel Studios] acknowledges altering some of Ballard’s biographical details and that the film “took creative liberties in depicting the different methods of child trafficking.”

Again, I liked the movie for what it was, action entertainment. But it wasn't realistic. And criticisms of that fact are not an attempt by "liberals" to tear down a film that religious-based conservatives are distributing, actively promoting, and widely attending.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... 234786352/

I had to see what trollboy trolled me with on this subject.



It really galls me to see that trollboy even has to chime in on this subject. His politics are his religion, and nothing else matters. He will parrot anything the MSM tells him to.

Just google Tim Ballard and you will see the smear campaign that the MSM has, for some reason, manufactured against him. I don't know, maybe it was because Glenn Beck was really involved with the true story as well as in the movie. Maybe they don't want another reason and outcry to finally secure our southern border. They can't have that. The story is real, with some minor modifications, but Ballard really did actually rescue more people than were depicted in the movie.

https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reel ... f-freedom/

I will parrot a left wing mantra: If even ONE CHILD is sex trafficked, it is ONE too many. In this case, I believe that is true. How many does it take, MSM and trollboy, for Sound of Freedom to be acceptable to you? And for you to use your power to help stop it, instead of, once again, using it as an excuse to advance your political agenda.

[silverscreenselect]

I will parrot a left wing mantra: If even ONE CHILD is sex trafficked, it is ONE too many. In this case, I believe that is true.

No one is denying the problem is real. But by and large, it's not a case of a group of wealthy pedophiles making money while hosting underage orgies at island resorts. (The other rescue portrayed in the movie, in which Ballard sneaks into a rebel camp to rescue a young girl who was sold to the rebel leader, is fictional.)
My point wasn't that the problem wasn't real; it was that the problem is usually a lot less glitzy and a lot tougher to combat than what took place in the movie. And that movies like this that paint a false perception of the problem make the real problem more difficult to deal with. That's not liberal or conservative. That's fact. From the Rolling Stone article I linked to:

Contrary to urban legends about kids getting abducted in Target parking lots by strangers, or anonymous figures snatching children from alleyways, the majority of child trafficking victims know and trust their traffickers, explains Teresa Huizar, CEO of the National Children’s Alliance (Huizar has not seen the film yet, but was able to provide context about the myths and realities of child trafficking). “Some are throwaway kids. They are kicked out of their homes and trade sex for food and a place to stay, and end up being trafficked by a pimp,” she says. “In a lot of these cases, the trafficker starts out calling themselves their boyfriend or girlfriend.” Indeed, a large body of research shows that many child trafficking victims are LGBTQ or gender nonconforming youth who have been kicked out of their homes and forced into the sex trade by someone close to them.

While Sound of Freedom almost exclusively focuses on very young children, the majority of child trafficking victims are adolescents or teenagers, says Huizar. (A report from the Counter-Trafficking Data Collaborative states that 67 percent of children trafficked are between the ages of 15 and 17). While there are, of course, cases where child trafficking victims are much younger than that, they overwhelmingly — and heartbreakingly — tend to involve parents with substance abuse issues selling their children for drugs, Huizar says.

“We want to believe that people trafficking children are unknown, nefarious strangers,” she says. “[It] makes people uncomfortable to think some of these things happen in their own communities, in their own schools, with people they might run into at the grocery store.” The lack of focus on tragic cases like these, in favor of more dramatic narratives about international rescue missions and shadowy strangers abducting kids, has resulted in a skewed perception of child trafficking. By ignoring the realities of what victims and traffickers look like, and the larger structural issues that prevent at-risk children from getting help — like, say, widely available, government-funded substance abuse treatment programs for families struggling with addiction, says Huizar — anti-trafficking movies like Sound of Freedom and the 2006 blockbuster Taken may have the unintended effect of not shedding light on a very serious and real problem, but obscuring it.

Another unintended consequence of sensationalist anti-trafficking narratives is that they can obscure juries’ perception of what trafficking looks like when these cases are actually brought to court. “When you have a case of really subtle coercion that’s hard to prove, and the jury is expecting Taken, you’re not gonna get a conviction… and it makes that much harder for survivors,” says Albright. Juror bias is a well-documented phenomenon, and misunderstandings about what trafficking and trafficking victims look like — compounded with preexisting biases about race, sexual orientation, or gender — can have devastating consequences for those brave enough to testify against their traffickers. Huizar recounted an instance in which two young men, both of whom were 15, testified in court against their abuser. One of them, who had been abused longer, had a criminal record and a history of drug use due to the trauma of his abuse, while the other did not. The jury found the abuser guilty — but only on the charges associated with the latter case. “We need to keep in mind when jurors don’t believe these kids, those jurors go home and go about their lives. But it is devastating to the victims,” she says.

[silverscreenselect]

The only thing controversial about it was made up by the people that thrive on making things controversial that have any ties to anything that might be deemed conservative.

When Flock posted his usual anti-liberal rant, I was unaware of any backlash against the movie. I wondered whether or not there was anything to his rant. So I did some research and found that the criticisms of the movie, by and large, were well-founded. Rather than acknowledge that, he launched into his usual tirade against me. My original point was and remains that the criticisms of the movie were well-founded. It presents a typical Hollywood approach to a serious issue rather than an accurate picture of the problem. And that if people believe the Hollywood version, it makes reality that much tougher to combat.

[flockofseagulls104]

Why do trollboy, Rolling Stone and all the other left-wing media assume that everyone is as stupid as they are? That thing that trollboy posted is pure BS from someone who wanted to find something, anything, to criticize and tear down this particular movie, which showed the basic true story of one particular incident. But the MSM is like trollboy. They HAVE to manufacture an answer to anything the least bit conservative. They can't just think about it and maybe adjust their thinking. The narrative has to be protected at all costs.

That basic rolling stone (The epitome of non biased content) argument can be used to criticize ANY Hollywood movie, book or story that deals with a social issue. But it isn't used when it is a storyline that follows the established narrative, is it? Any storyline that deals with racism or LBGABC+ etc, is a full blown masterpiece, no matter how much fiction is inserted into it. Get real trollboy.

I asked that everyone ignore the media attack blitz and see it and judge it by its own worth and then think about it, but if course, trollboy couldn't control himself. He has to defend the narrative of the left by whatever means possible.

But that is what trollboy is made of.

[silverscreenselect]

That thing that trollboy posted is pure BS from someone who wanted to find something, anything, to criticize and tear down this particular movie, which showed the basic true story of one particular incident.

If you read the article (and a quick google search revealed about a dozen more similar articles), you would note that they took issue with movie Taken, starring that well-known right-wing activist Liam Neeson, which came out a few years ago for basically the same reason. That it presented an unrealistic picture of sex trafficking and that failing to put movies like Sound of Freedom and Taken in their proper perspective makes combatting the problem more difficult. The sources for the Rolling Stone article were people who spend their lives and careers combatting sex trafficking, not people with a liberal agenda.

But what you can't stand is that criticism of a darling of the right wing can't possibly be valid but that it must be a product of the usual left wing media fanaticism against anyone who agrees with your point of view. And there are plenty of movies made with a liberal perspective that are criticized either for inaccuracy or inept moviemaking or both.

[flockofseagulls104]

That thing that trollboy posted is pure BS from someone who wanted to find something, anything, to criticize and tear down this particular movie, which showed the basic true story of one particular incident.

If you read the article (and a quick google search revealed about a dozen more similar articles), you would note that they took issue with movie Taken, starring that well-known right-wing activist Liam Neeson, which came out a few years ago for basically the same reason. That it presented an unrealistic picture of sex trafficking and that failing to put movies like Sound of Freedom and Taken in their proper perspective makes combatting the problem more difficult. The sources for the Rolling Stone article were people who spend their lives and careers combatting sex trafficking, not people with a liberal agenda.

But what you can't stand is that criticism of a darling of the right wing can't possibly be valid but that it must be a product of the usual left wing media fanaticism against anyone who agrees with your point of view. And there are plenty of movies made with a liberal perspective that are criticized either for inaccuracy or inept moviemaking or both.

Yeah, right. I remember that media blitz and the rolling stone article about Taken, and how they skewered Liam Neeson over his political associations. NOT.

Get real for once, trollboy.

[Beebs52]

Guys. Get a room

[silverscreenselect]

Yeah, right. I remember that media blitz and the rolling stone article about Taken, and how they skewered Liam Neeson over his political associations. NOT.

There have been articles written over the years about the unrealistic portrayal of trafficking in Taken. It's not surprising you didn't choose to read them. I doubt any of them were highlighted on your usual media outlets. And I thought you would recognize my sarcastic reference to Liam Neeson. I guess I gave you too much credit for some degree of common sense.

[jarnon]

That basic rolling stone (The epitome of non biased content) argument can be used to criticize ANY Hollywood movie, book or story that deals with a social issue. But it isn't used when it is a storyline that follows the established narrative, is it? Any storyline that deals with racism or LBGABC+ etc, is a full blown masterpiece, no matter how much fiction is inserted into it. Get real trollboy.

The same sort of criticism could apply to Philadelphia, the first major movie to deal with AIDS, and one that I watched intently since it takes place in my city. Tom Hanks's journey is not at all typical of most gay men stricken with AIDS. I told myself that it's called Philadelphia, not The AIDS Movie, and it's not meant to be the first and last word on the topic. Looking back, the reviews of Philadelphia are much gentler than those of Sound of Freedom.

[flockofseagulls104]

Guys. Get a room

Having a personal troll does that to you. I will try to ignore him. One glance at one of his trolling posts gets it going. My bad. I wish he would get a troll of his own telling him to think about what he posts.

[Beebs52]

Guys. Get a room

Having a personal troll does that to you. I will try to ignore him. One glance at one of his trolling posts gets it going. My bad. I wish he would get a troll of his own telling him to think about what he posts.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss for a bit.

[kroxquo]

Some reviews. I am not commenting ore agreeing or disagreeing. Just posting for information's sake.

Nick Allen at Rogerebert.com https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/soun ... eview-2023

Glenn Kenny, NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/12/movi ... eview.html

Miles Klee, Rolling Stone https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/ ... 234783837/

Charles Bramesco, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/j ... m-caviezel

Owen Glieberman, Variety https://variety.com/2023/film/reviews/s ... 235660035/