Movie Review & Discussion: Sound of Freedom

Paying it Forward, and Discussing the Manufactured Controversy

“Sound of Freedom” has had an interesting history - principal filming originally began in 2018, but according to people involved with the movie, it was essentially bottled up by Disney Studios in “development hell” after they acquired the rights to it, which Caviezel and others in the movie allege may have been for editorial, if not political reasons. Plausible, particularly given the rather obviously culturally left-wing (if not culturally Marxist) leanings of Disney’s current management team - but I’m fully aware there are plenty of movies that end up in “development hell” for other reasons.

The upstart indie film production company, Angel Studios (who specializes in stories that “amplify light”) eventually acquired the rights to the film and recently, the movie debuted in theatres in the United States, on July 4th, to apparently an unusually impressive 20 million dollar opening day.

I’m going to review the movie - and I’m going to do it as a *movie*, nothing more, nothing less. Then I’ll chat a bit about the politics of it, to conclude.

Movie Review

A few weeks ago I recall doom-scrolling Twitter as I often enjoy doing, and saw an ad offering “free tickets” to see this new film with Jim Caviezel.

The two big movies I remembered seeing him in were Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ from 2004 (which was well-made, but grueling to watch) and The Count of Monte Christo from 2002 - which was just plain good.

Jim Caviezel - An openly devout Catholic Hollywood: more than a bit of a unicorn.

Regarding Caviezel’s portrayal of Jesus in 2004: again, people know this about me, I’m not a religious guy. Was raised protestant, generally not into the religion stuff, but I definitely respect religious people of all faiths and consider that respect for formal religion part of my general moral philosophy.

My experience of Caviezel is that he combines the kind of understated yet haunted-behind-the-eyes gravity that leading actors like Keanu Reeves specializes in, with an additional layer of gritty, masculine gravitas that makes him just a little extra compelling to watch.

But basically - I got a free ticket, and I had a positive experience of watching Jim Caviezel in a couple of his earlier films, so I was ready to go.

Movie Synopsis

The movie is based on a true story, apparently about the life of a former Homeland Security Special Agent Tim Ballard, who built a career working in their Internet Crimes division, basically prosecuting people (overwhelmingly men) who traffic in oftentimes graphic and violent images and videos of child pornography.

The movie opens with Ballard (who in real life looks not much like Caviezel) successfully working a case against such a man (see below), who plays the part perfectly, creepily.

I can’t seem to find the excellent actor who played this guy. Understandable, perhaps, to not want to advertise this as your “claim to fame.”

At the conclusion of the case, whereby Ballard not only busts the guy on computer (child porn) crimes, but gets him to actually commit the crime of delivering a child, a young boy named Miguel (played perfectly and by a young Lucás Ávila) in a brazen act of child sex trafficking.

Ballard has a chat with one of his colleagues in a parking lot, with his colleague telling him he’s going to quit his job because, understandably, it’s too harrowing and emotionally taxing.

Ballard is confused, explains it feels good to bust criminals who abuse children, and in fact, he has a lot to be proud of. His friend responds, “but how many actual children have you saved”?

This, of course, gives Ballard pause and then starts him on a journey to start actually rescuing the children that have been captured and enslaved in sex trafficking rings, focusing in particular on Miguel’s sister, who was kidnapped early in the film along with her brother.

Bill Camp as “Vampiro”

The movie then follows Ballard as he quits his job at Homeland Security in order to pursue the job of rescuing kids south of the border, partnering with various characters like the reformed cartel accountant, “Vampiro” (played in superb fashion by Bill Camp), and the reluctant billionaire and reluctant Ballard financier, played by Eduardo Verástegui (who also produced the movie).

The movie has a dramatic and satisfying crescendo with Ballard forging through the rainforests of rebel-controlled Columbia in order to save Miguel’s sister. The movie ends as it begins, with his sister, Rocio, singing in her father’s home, by herself, a sorrowful yet sweet tune, as the camera pans out:

My Review - and getting into the Politics

Caviezel does what he’s good at in this film. He’s a man that wears the world on his shoulders, with a haunted, understated demeanor and delivery that works well for the material.

One of the things I was a bit wary about when seeing this film was the possibility of being prosthelytized to - preached at. I am aware that Caviezel is a devout Catholic, and while I respect that immensely, my interest was in the material of this film, not whatever religious devotion there is of the lead actor, cast, or producers. There’s only one line in the movie that even gets into religion, and it’s said (if I remember correctly), perhaps only two or three times:

“God’s children are not for sale.”

It’s a very effective line. Moreover, the fact that this movie wasn’t somehow an attempt to smuggle religion or politics into viewers’ heads was greatly appreciated by me as I watched.

According to the nonprofit, UK-based NGO Save The Children (which has been around since 1918), nearly 1/3 of of all human trafficking victims worldwide are children, and depending on which statistics you believe, potentially hundreds of thousands to millions of children are bought, sold, and traded in the child sex trafficking business every year (obviously, this is not an easy business to keep reliable statistics on).

Home page from Ourrecue.org - Jim Ballard’s nonprofit. Obviously trying to capitalize on the success of the movie!

But how did I *like* the movie?

Overall Review - 3.5 / 5 stars

Objectively - this was not the best movie I’ve ever seen - but very solid, held my interest for sure, the entire time I saw the film. I’d say 3.5 out of 5 stars overall, on the basis of production value, acting, directing, and pacing.

A clear strength - it was generally solidly acted by all involved, all the kids did a fantastic job, with the brother-and-sister pair being superstars. Of the adults, Bill Camp is probably the best in the film. Caviezel does a good job as well, although at times I’d say his “haunted” presentation, while completely appropriate, is a bit one-dimensional at times. There were a few moments in the film where Caviezel’s character smiles (such as when he’s bagging his first criminal), and I honestly wished I had seen a few more moments of levity in the film to balance out the (appropriately) weighty subject matter.

At times the pacing, I think, struggles because the movie has a bit of an identity crisis in the sense of not being sure whether it’s an action movie or a character drama. Given the fact of Caviezel’s character being a current-and-former Homeland Security agent, we do get some satisfying moments of police raids and arrests, and the dramatic finale at the end certainly offers some nail-biting and suspense, but I do have a sense that the film could have been improved in terms of pacing by some additional editing… the movie runs a bit long at two hours and fifteen minutes, honestly.

The biggest strength of this film? THE STORY.

The “Qanon Controversy”

Apparently a memo has gone out:

What’s so funny about “QAnon” is that I learn more about this apparently fringe conspiracy movement from the left-wing-narrative amplifier simpletons in the media than I actually have ever bothered to learn about it myself (they seem to really love talking about it).

I originally thought “Qanon” was based around the idea that the world is ruled by politicians like Hillary Clinton (who might also be lizard people, DK) who base their operations at the infamous downtown DC pizza parlor, “Comet Ping Pong.” Now I understand that it also involves the idea of children being trafficked in order to drain their glands of adrenochrome, which these people use to do… something nefarious.

Regardless, Jim Caviezel personally has some interesting views on the subject. He was interviewed once or twice (DK) about the subject of child sex trafficking, and apparently he believes in the adrenochrome thing.

According to Rolling Stone and others, he’s therefore “Qanon.”

So, you shouldn’t watch the film.

Or believe that child sex trafficking is a problem.

Yes, this is the logic.

Yes, You Should Watch this Film

Obviously, this is stupid, and basically vile reasoning.

Having watched the film, there’s nothing “Qanon” or conspiratorial, or “paranoid,” about it. The movie simply is highlighting in dramatic fashion an issue that people in polite society are apparently too afraid to talk about - the child sex trade.

Moreover, not only does the movie not propound any conspiracy theories (Qanon or otherwise), it barely even talks about religion.

You don’t need to believe in a conspiracy to understand that child sex slavery is an enormous, and apparently growing problem.

I understand the logic of the political-propaganda industry, which has infected Rolling Stone, Jezebel, The Guardian, and elsewhere - if it’s something that conservatives are for (fighting sex trafficking in kids) then it must be something we should be against.

This is their third-grader logic, apparently.

At the end of the film, the movie has a brief commentary from Jim Caviezel and then a QR code linking to the “Pay It Forward” site on Angel Films is offered.

I immediately bought a block of seven tickets (about a 100 bucks worth).

Why?

I want alternative voices heard in the media, probably first and foremost. So I did my part.

Go watch the film.