Rolling Stone (which, of course, is a pillar of journalistic integrity and tireless fact-checking), CNN, The Guardian, pretty much all the left-wing media has some headline about the movie being some kind of multimillion dollar QAnon contribution. One dude on CNN probably referred to QAnon fifteen times in three minutes talking about the movie.
Now, first off, the actual QAnon conspiracy regarding child trafficking, which South Park masterfully lampooned in the Vaccination Special, isn't in the movie at all. Trump isn't in the movie at all. There's no rich people ritualistically drinking children's blood or any bullshit like that.
The trafficking dealt with in the movie does happen. Most of the articles and segments with QAnon in the headlines eventually admit that this stuff happens. They still tend to try to play a game of insisting that the movie isn't perfectly accurate, and that Ballard's tactics are controversial, and that some people think that what Ballard did was counterproductive. Okay, even if I were to grant all of that, it's a big fucking leap to go full QAnon.
When was the last time any "based on a true story" movie was entirely accurate?
Really, I think that there are two things at play here.
One is that I wouldn't be surprised if half of the rich people at Disney and these major media outlets were customers of Jeffrey Epstien.
The second is this dumb obsession with what people believe in their personal lives to the point that it clouds people's judgment in assessing an actual product.
This isn't completely relegated to one side of the political spectrum. Most people I know who subscribe to People, and have interest in which celebrity is dating whom and such lean to the right. Obsession over people's personal lives in assessing what they produce has swung to the left.
Yeah, Jim Caviezel has some whacky ideas. Being against child sex trafficking isn't a whacky idea. This bores down to this bullshit that insists that the rightness or wrongness of a statement depends on who's saying it. In this case, it's not even really Jim Caviezel saying it -- he's just an actor.
Basically, the attacks on this movie are built around Jim Caviezel saying something outside of being in the movie that was never said in the movie.
I don't know the political or philosophical leanings of the director, or the writers, or anyone else involved -- and I don't care.
I know that Cillian Murphy has played a communist twice now and I still don't care what his personal beliefs are. Why should I? Is that gonna cause me to knock The Wind the Shakes the Barley out of my "best movies you've probably never seen list" all the way down to a "useless, bloated, communist propaganda film" tomorrow if I found out the Murphy really is a communist? Of course not. Who in his or her right mind cares?
The movie is far from perfect. It's good. Jim Caviezel is good in it. You want the best man for the job, and Caviezel was probably the best man that they could get within their budget.
An assessment of the movie itself should not be controversial to a good person. It's wrong to kidnap kids so rich people can have sex with them. What a fucking controversial statement. If the one line, "God's children are not for sale." has you freaking out that this is some kind of religious propaganda, you need help.
I'm not telling you that you have to love the movie. I liked it. I didn't love it. Still, when it comes to the people who are attacking the movie baselessly as some kind of QAnon thing, I have to question their motivations.