MPAA Rating: PG-13
Reel Rating: 4 out of 5 reels
(Spoiler alert!)
The sex trafficking of children is not a subject any sane person wants to contemplate, but it is a growing calamity that deserves—even demands—our attention. It is a common strategy to create a movie that shines a spotlight on an injustice. But how could one possibly create a film on this topic that people would voluntarily watch?
Director Alejandro Monteverde has the answer in Sound of Freedom, a exceptional film based on true events that stands squarely on its own merits, although whether or not it finds its a wide audience remains to be seen.
Tim Ballard (Jim Caviezel) is a special agent for Homeland Security tasked with investigating online pedophile rings. It’s an important job but a difficult one as he must pour through endless hours of the most disturbing content imaginable, and it weighs on him heavily. After a successful raid one night, he is confronted by a fellow agent who – despite being a rookie – has had enough.
“How many perps have you caught?” he inquires. “Two hundred and eighty-two,” Ballard replies briskly.
“And how many kids have you saved?” Ballard goes quiet.
This confrontation causes him to switch tactics. Instead of simply catching offenders, he befriends them and goes undercover into their world. After successfully setting up a sting operation, he manages to rescue his first victim, a ten-year-old Hispanic boy. Despite his horrible ordeal, this kid seems more concerned about his older sister, who is still imprisoned in the sex trade. This sends Ballard on an Orphean journey to the most dangerous places on Earth in a race against time to save as many children as possible, but especially this one little girl.
Samuel Goldwyn, an early film executive, once quipped, “I want a story. If you want to send a message, use Western Union.” Yes, Sound of Freedom is a “message film” through and through, but Monteverde wisely frames the narrative as a thriller within the heist and espionage genres. Ballard is less Tom Hanks and more Tom Cruise. Monteverde has learned a lot about the art of cinema from his freshman effort Bella, which was wonderfully pro-life but somewhat dull. The pacing and acting are fantastic as Ballard quietly builds himself up as a multi-millionaire hosting a sex party for the perverted elite while dodging cartels, bureaucratic red tape, and the constant urge to just attack outright.
He is assisted by film’s most compelling character Batman (Bill Camp), a former criminal and sex offender who now buys children only to secretly set them free. He is a reminder that even the greatest sinner can become a saint. While ultimately successful in rescuing many children, Ballard still has not found the sister. This takes him deep into the Columbian jungle to confront a guerrilla warlord in a place even the US government won’t go. All this is done with a PG-13 rating. It is a master class in depicting and talking about a difficult concept without being graphic or overly sensational.
Sound of Freedom succeeds as a work of adventure, but the big takeaway is the sheer scale of the child sex trafficking industry. For the latter half of the 20th century, the assumption was that pedophiles were isolated perverts in trench coats who abducted victims from playgrounds. This image is dead wrong. The industry is intelligent, sophisticated, and enormous. And often protected by wealth, prestige, and political connections. The statistics are difficult to pinpoint, but there are at least 30 million slaves in the world today, perhaps as high as nearly 50 million. This is well above any other point in human history, including the slavery in the Americas in the 18th and 19th centuries.
There are many reasons for this increase, but the internet is ground zero. It has allowed users not only to view this material more privately but also to connect with like-minded individuals with greater ease. As pornography in general becomes more mainstream and society becomes more desensitized, it’s hard to see hope in this situation. Yet, there is hope. In the past year alone, there has been a greater push against the sexualization of children than any time since the 1980s, and it’s not just church ladies writing letters. It’s states banning gender surgeries for minors. It’s creating successful boycotts against stores with sexually themed clothes for babies. Parents are finally realizing they are not alone in their outrage.
Sound of Freedom is an excellent and timely film but, unfortunately, it ends in strange fashion. Once the credits start rolling, Jim Caviezel breaks the fourth wall and directly appeals to the audience to invite others to see the film. He even flashes a QR code on the screen for a coupon to bring a viewer free. It’s a bit desperate; no one must see a movie. Ever.
But, if you want a “message” movie that’s also a stellar piece of cinematic craftsmanship, look no further.
• Related at CWR: “Makers of Sound of Freedom emphasize faith, courage, fighting evil” (June 29, 2023) by Kathy Schiffer
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The only ones who should be forced to see this film are those whose consciences have been dulled with woke ideology.
Rubbish..
And from a “deacon” no less
I saw the film yesterday and it was riveting. Faithful Catholics ought to encourage progressive “Catholics” and non-Catholics alike to see it.
As for Fr. Anonymous above, perhaps he misunderstood my comment about forcing people to see the film. As a believer in the free exercise of conscience, I obviously don’t believe anyone should be forced to do something against their will. I was just using hyperbole to make a point that the “wokes” among us have very disordered conscience formation. But since Father Anonymous didn’t bother to say much of anything other than an ‘ad hominem” and a dismissive, we’re left to wonder what he does think. Father, why not “man-up”, identify yourself and explicate your views so we might respond appropriately.
How can a civilized Society condone such Evil? We are all complicit for not condemning those who are involved in this horror .
Tim Ballard has ZERO antecedent fear. I admire that. St. Mother Teresa had the same grace. She was known to be willing to charge into “hell’s kitchen” at night to inspect buildings for her nuns. Many would refuse to go with her. “Confidence” = con fides / WITH FAITH.
My wife and I just returned from seeing this movie. Very powerful. The line that sticks with me is, “It will bring in more money than drugs. You can sell a drug once – you can sell a five year old 5 times a day for the next ten years.”
A solid review of a most important film, but at the end, Olszyk writes:
“Sound of Freedom is an excellent and timely film but, unfortunately, it ends in strange fashion. Once the credits start rolling, Jim Caviezel breaks the fourth wall and directly appeals to the audience to invite others to see the film. He even flashes a QR code on the screen for a coupon to bring a viewer free. It’s a bit desperate; no one must see a movie. Ever.”
Actually, unless there is a post-credits scene that is still more the exception than the rule, then once the credits start rolling, the movie is essentially over, so the appeal comes after the actual presentation, not at the end of it.
I have not yet seen the movie, but unless Caviezel categorically insists that people must see the movie, and his overture is not simply a dramatic appeal that “people must see this” that is in essence “people need to see this,” there is nothing “unfortunate” or wrong in making such an appeal because the situation is desperate. Moreover, such an appeal is similar to appeals that were included in some movies of the past that asked people to do certain things, like buy war bonds, and these appeals did not harm the movies or were “unfortunate” in any way. Olszyk appears to be reading something into the appeal that simply isn’t there, and as for “no one must see a movie. Ever”…….DUH!
I know that human trafficking and sexual exploitation are real global issues but I am concerned with some of the conspiracy-type worries about child trafficking. It happens but it happens more often in children’s own homes and in our own communities. And it can be conflated into Qanon sort of craziness.
I would be more concerned with the reverse. That the fact that there is child abuse in homes will stop people from being appropriately aware of what is going on in the world. As horrific as home abuse can be, it is unlikely to involve, organ harvesting, literal slavery, or prostitution at a level where the child gets sold every 30 minutes. And it probably doesn’t have 150 billion dollars behind it as reported by many respected international institutions.
No one goes to see a movie based on any type of appeal from anyone. Choose to go if it seems important or valuable to you in some way.thjnk and decide for yourself. Appeals are irrelevant.
Im happy that the Catholic church is backing this movie that is bringing to light this crime against our children yet the Catholic church has covered a lot of priests sins against our children…don’t figure.I know this comment will be taken off but that in of itself says a lot.
The only thing to say is that in the Catholic Church there are examples of genuine men who seek to safeguard the honor of women and the protection of vilnerable children while, at the same time, there are examples of faux men who take advantage of women and use them and children to satisfy their own carnal desires. What’s important for all Catholics is to discern the difference and promote the men who act like men ought to act.
What is your concept of the “Catholic Church”. How is it “backing this movie”, did they invest, have they endorsed it at the highest level? Some “Catholics” may abuse kids, some Catholics may have failed to do the right thing as regards that. You just lump it together as though it was one mind. The child abuse described in the movie is happening here, and now. How easy it is to repeat the failures of conscience you criticize. Now is the opportunity to act on harm that is taking place at the present. Or we can wait 20 years and report on earlier failures in a passive voice.
I didn’t have a problem with the statement at the end except I would have appreciated an advocacy opportunity. I agree that the movie is powerful way to communicate the truth of the problem. Following up with suggestions for contacting congress members with requests for more funding for enforcement or more better international coordination or other laws that would address the issue of human trafficking.