Meet the movie that’s dividing us. Is ‘Sound of Freedom’ a masterpiece or a mess? | Opinion

I expected to hate “Sound of Freedom.”

That’s the anti-human-trafficking movie that’s been described as a “blandly competent thriller” (Rotten Tomatoes); “a compelling movie that shines an authentic light on one of the crucial criminal horrors of our time’’ (Variety); “the most important film you see this year” (Focus on the Family); and “the QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America” (The Guardian).

It’s also been called the latest “battleground in the culture war,” and it’s surpassing expectations at the box office.

I saw it to see what all the fuss was about. I wound up not hating it — but not enjoying it, either.

It was too long; too formulaic; and spent too much time with the protagonist and not enough with the victims.

Plus, other films have tackled similar subject matter and done a much better job. (If you haven’t already, check out the Academy Award-winning documentary “Born Into Brothels.”)

Please don’t take my criticism the wrong way.

I’m not part of some alleged media conspiracy that’s discouraging people from seeing the movie. (If there is such a thing, it hasn’t been effective; the movie has grossed over $100 million, which points to a very savvy marketing campaign.)

Nor does my lack of enthusiasm have anything to do with the controversy surrounding its star, Jim Caviezel — not consciously, anyway.

It’s no secret that Caviezel has embraced some bizarre QAnon conspiracy theories though thankfully, those aren’t mentioned in the film.

So what is ‘Freedom’ about?

The movie is based on the experiences of Tim Ballard — a former Homeland Security agent who left his job to devote himself to rescuing child victims.

The truth, though, has been stretched wafer-thin to include almost everything we expect from an action-adventure film: chases, beatings, a sidekick who did time in prison, a gruff boss, one-dimensional villains, a daring trek into forbidden territory and several rescues — including one that requires the hero to kill a Colombian rebel/pedophile.

In reality, Ballard has never killed anyone, according to the film’s distributor, Angel Studios, which also lists several other ways the film does “not align with the real events.”

But so what?

All films based on true stories take some dramatic license. Otherwise, at least half of them would put us to sleep.

A modern-day ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’?

“Freedom” is pretty standard stuff, though it’s touted as the film that’s opening our eyes to the horrors of child sex trafficking.

The movie’s supporters — who include many conservative Christians and Republican Party members (the San Luis Obispo County GOP sent out an email to its members that lists “Freedom” showtimes at various local theaters) — are of the mind that this is a life-changing film everyone must see.

Caviezel drives that home in an appeal to viewers that runs after the final credits roll.

“I think that we can make “Sound of Freedom” the “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” of 21st-century slavery,” he says, referring to Harriet Beecher Stowe’s anti-slavery novel of the 19th century, which is credited with changing American attitudes toward Black people just before the Civil War.

How, exactly, are we moviegoers going to demonstrate that “Sound of Freedom,” is as culturally important as Caviezel seems to think it is?

By supporting anti-trafficking legislation?

Donating to reputable nonprofits aiding the victims of trafficking? For instance, Polaris, which operates a national human trafficking hotline; International Justice Mission, which has projects in 17 countries to end sex and labor slavery; or PACT, whose projects include working with the hospitality and travel industries to train workers to recognize signs of trafficking.

Or by further educating ourselves on the issue?

As it turns out, none of the above.

Being ‘aware’ is not enough

Caviezel’s big call to action in his postscript only urges us to buy movie tickets for people who can’t afford them — and helpfully provides with QR code to make it easier.

Angel Studios does offer some further suggestions on its website, but its main focus is on the self-serving “Pay It Forward” ticket-buying campaign.

Yet simply being “aware” of a problem isn’t enough. We can be “aware” of climate change or gun violence or homelessness but, like “thoughts and prayers,” awareness alone does nothing to set things right, even in a small way.

The movie’s producers squandered an opportunity to further harness all that collective goodwill by telling us to run out and buy more tickets.

Even worse, many on the far right are using the success of the movie as an opportunity to “own the libs” by insinuating — or coming right out and saying — that liberals don’t want you to see the movie and don’t care about child trafficking.

Take a look at some of the stuff floating around on Google:

• “Why Hollywood Elites Don’t Want You To Watch Sound of Freedom” (YouTube)

• “Paranoid Media Attacks on ‘Sound of Freedom’ Driven By Bigotry and Fear” (Breitbart)

• “We’re now living in a time when BigMedia is upset about the fight against child abduction and human trafficking.” (YouTube comment)

This holier-than-thou idea that conservatives are the only ones committed to protecting children from sex trafficking is beyond ludicrous.

People of goodwill abhor slavery and abuse in all its forms — no matter their political affiliation, religion, or race. (Liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, for instance, has practically devoted his entire career to uncovering sex trafficking.)

“Sound of Freedom” is an effective wake-up call for some viewers.

That’s a saving grace — especially if it inspires moviegoers to explore ways to get involved in the anti-trafficking movement.

In the end, “Sound of Freedom” is a reasonably entertaining, financially successful film that takes itself a little too seriously.

Like the majority of movies, it falls somewhere in between masterpiece and mess — and that’s a win.