The Sound of Freedom calls to QAnon sort of

Chill out about the movie and the criticism.

Film critic Charles Bramesco wrote an opinion piece, which was published in The Guardian, regarding the surprise box-office hit Sound of Freedom.

Bramesco describes the film as “QAnon-adjacent”. Those with similar views as Bramesco are being ridiculed for criticizing the film’s narrative and for attempting to insert QAnon undertones. To their credit, the producers have stated the movie is not representative of QAnon whatsoever.

Sound of Freedom has become a bastion for conservatives. The QAnon crowd have straightforward beliefs and concerns regarding the subject matter: Hollywood elites, sinners who reject God, depraved individuals, sex traffickers, and their apologists have all influenced society for the worst. They are either facilitating sex trafficking as willing participants, or they are attempting to protect the powers that be.

Having criticism for Sound of Freedom lands people like Bramesco in the sex trafficking sympathizer bin.

But having read Bramesco’s opinion piece: I just don’t see the hype. If I had to summarize the article, Bramesco criticizes the movie, but the criticisms aren’t all about QAnon. His summary is reminiscent to that of reviews of American purist propaganda films such as American Sniper.

• Bramesco questions Tom Ballard experience while working for Homeland Security. Ballard is portrayed by Jim Caviezel who believes in QAnon conspiracies.

[Tom Ballard] really did work for the state busting up child-trafficking rings for more a decade. (Or so he claims — the DHS can neither confirm nor deny the real Ballard’s employment history.)

• Bramesco questions who the “rebels” are other than being anonymous foreigners and surmises the film is making a connection to the Clinton’s (or Clinton Crime family to QAnoner’s) and a title card at the end which “points back to America as a hub for the ‘$150bn business’ of exploitation.”
• He criticizes the movie for being nothing more than scaremongering and states, “the disappointingly un-juicy Sound of Freedom pretends to be a real movie, like a ‘pregnancy crisis center’ masquerading as a bona fide health clinic.”
• He then ends the article by essentially calling Caveizel a hypocrite for saying the movie wasn’t about him.

“Directly after establishing that he’s not the center of attention here, he betrays an evident messianic complex by announcing that his movie could very well be the most important ever made, going so far as to compare it to Uncle Tom’s Cabin in its campaign to shine a light on 21st-century slavery. This is all for the children, we’re told, but they can’t do much to save themselves, can they?

I fail too see why it’s wrong to say that a certain group of people will attach themselves to a message if they feel like it’s a part of their identity, mantra, code, mission statement, or whatever you’d like to call it.

A critic, who felt the movie was masquerading as a Taken film, bridged connections between a group of people who truly believe in a cabal of elites kidnap and sacrifice children.

The movie is more than likely fine as fiction, but groups who actually fight against sex trafficking would also probably find the people who attach themselves to the movie to be frustrating.

Conservatives seem to ignore that sentiment, because they don’t actually know what it’s like to fight sex trafficking or they think they know better.

Is the movie captivating, thrilling, and inspiring? It probably is; I don’t care to watch it.

But if it rejuvenates a group of people who don’t know how to actually combat [child] sex trafficking and the main character of your movie identifies with those people in real life — it’s no surprise opinion pieces like Bramesco’s gets written.