The Sound of Freedom is a real-life story of a brave American hero who rescues over 50 sexually trafficked children in Latin America. It is a beautiful story of love, pain and courage. And the movie honestly covers this horrible reality in our world today.
You would think that in today’s polarized world child sexual trafficking would be something we could all unanimously condemn.
That may not be the case.
The Guardian movie-reviewer Charles Bramesco described this powerful movie event as “Q-Anon-adjacent thriller seducing America.”
Did he even watch the film? Bramesco goes straight to the sewer hoping his words will dissuade a curious public from seeing the film. Why is that?
Bramesco goes on in his hit piece on the film to describe the film as “disappointingly un-juicy>” What the hell does that mean? Was he hoping for sex scenes?
And Bramesco then described the sexually trafficked children as “dirty faced moppets.”
I came across an infathmable article by movie critic Charles Bramesco on #SoundofFreedomMovie in which he described the film as “disappointingly un-juicy” and made reference to the trafficked children as ” dirty faced moppets”
— ZOEBEKAH LAWREKA (@zoebekha) July 7, 2023
Bramesco says this about the abused children:
Even if he did not literally have the face of Christ, Ballard would still exude an angelic aura as he gently hoists dirty-faced moppets out of peril with the gravely uttered catchphrase: “God’s children are not for sale.”
And Bramesco was hoping for a more “juicy” movie experience.
These zestier strains of scaremongering are absent in the text itself, but they lurk in the shadows around a film outwardly non-insane enough to lure in the persuadable; 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.
Bramesco hopes this flick will be ignored. It’s unfathomable how he reached this point after experiencing this beautiful film on a deeply disturbing topic.