TDS is a serious matter and it can impact so many areas of life.

Isn't it possible that the promotional rhetoric and the people promoting it are actually helping with the financial success of the movie? Sort of an any press is good press situation: make the conversation around the movie political, divisive, inflamed, and they at least excite the audience that is on the "movie's side" of the conversation to see it.

Word of mouth is how low budget films find success, and there's maybe not a quicker way to find lots of mouths to say lots of words than a good us vs them controversy.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

And I saw the movie yesterday. Your assertions are baseless and obviously agenda driven. You didn't offer any point of view that we couldn't deduce wouldn't come from a Hollywood "insider" such as you. You did exactly this in the Last of Us thread because of your adolescent behavior. You can't stand opposition to your view and you lash out at anyone who does with insults.

If anyone is concerned with an underlying message of faith, God or religion, it's just not there. Nothing political or faith based in the film. It does an outstanding job of presenting a difficult topic in a palatable light and I'd recommend anyone to go see it.

---

- Jim Caviezel has used QAnon rhetoric to promote this movie. That is an objective fact and not at all "baseless." Yesterday, I explained in detail why I have a problem with him doing so, and why him doing so negatively affects the reach of an otherwise non-political, apparently good /effective movie. Clearly, you ignored that post, like most everything else I've said.

- Re: the above, my "point of view" in that regard has absolutely nothing to do with me being a "Hollywood insider." I don't even know what that means or how it's at all relevant to the QAnon issue. My knowledge of Caviezel's QAnon peddling was gained from watching/hearing Caviezel's own words over the past few days/weeks/months, which I came across via various non-Hollywood news articles and posts.

- I have been called more names than I can count in this thread, have been the aim of multiple personal attacks, have literally been accused of child trafficking, of being a pedophile, and have been told I'm going to hell. Multiple times. Across two different threads, actually, on two different boards, one of them I'm not even participating in. Yet, not a single one of you has voiced your disapproval of those people lashing out at me. It's only my "lashing out" in response that's a problem and a derailment. How that's not the height of hypocrisy, I don't know.

- I have said absolutely nothing about "faith, God, or religion" being in this movie. And if it was in the movie, I wouldn't care one bit. That, and I have made it abundantly clear that I realize the movie takes no side politically. I've said as much at least three times on each of the last, say, five pages. I've said it so much that I can't believe I'm typing it yet again.

For the thousandth time, my issue is that because the PROMOTION of the movie - not the movie itself - has been so tied to QAnon and controversial figures like Gibson, Bannon, and Flynn, the potential audience reach of the movie and it's message has been severely limited. I'm arguing that the movie SHOULD be seen by more people, but that it's not because of its promoters' association with certain people and certain conspiracies that instantly turn away half the country. And yet, for some reason, that makes me a bad person worthy of some of the most insane vitriol I've ever seen in this board.

---

I think the QAnon stuff is bonkers.

Honest question. I think the entire Scientology "religion" and Tom Cruise's power and influence is just as if not more damaging as QAnon crap. I have no issues seeing his films that do not espouse those beliefs. Celebs say crazy stuff. For the most part, a lot of them are a little unhinged. Why is this the one you are crusading on?

The crazier posters on the board shouldn't rile you up. Ignore them. Don't stoop to their level. You fall into that trap too often.

---

For me, it's partly because Cruise doesn't use Scientology to promote his movies, nor is the promotion of his movies driven by any of his Scientology beliefs. As I said earlier, he used to talk Scientology all the damn time, and would even set up freaking recruitment tents. But then, 15ish years ago, he finally wised up to the fact that it was turning people away. It was limiting his audience, just as Caviezel's rhetoric is limiting his audience.

Another big difference is that Cruise's movies weren't tackling such important issues. If Cruise did use Scientology to promote a movie, and doing so turned people off, ultimately it was no big deal, morally speaking. But when QAnon rhetoric is dominating the headlines, all because of Caviezel and others spreading QAnon crap, their words are legitimately keeping the message of the movie from reaching a wider audience, and IMO, that *is* a big deal, morally speaking.

---

Morally speaking? I honestly don't know enough about Q to engage there but this movie seems to be doing pretty well considering it was released by a small outfit in Angel Studios. How would they have reached a larger audience than they are currently?

---

Yes, it's doing great numbers for an indie. But like I alluded to earlier, imagine the same movie, except with none of the countless reviews/headlines associating it with QAnon, all because Caviezel & co decided to go all Q in their promotion of it. If this was *just* a solid, heart-wrenching movie with an important message, without the Q stigma, I would argue that so many more on the left would have shown up for this thing, if only out of sheer curiosity after such a news-worthy opening day.

I mean, Spotlight - a movie that by its very title shined a light on an investigation into widespread and systemic child sex abuse - won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2016. In other words, Hollywood isn't afraid of this kind of subject matter. What turns them off/keeps them away is the QAnon stench that Caviezel & co gave this thing.

We'll never get it, but I'd love to hear from execs at Fox and Disney about why they shelved it.

Quote:

---

Jim Caviezel has used QAnon rhetoric to promote this movie.

---

Explain how rhetoric is a reason to not see this film?

You telling me you don't ever discern whether or not to watch something based on who's recommending it?

Sure feels like a lot of people are seeing or not seeing this movie because of who's recommending it. Would be great if it could stand on its own merits.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Caviezel has promoted QAnon garbage. The outlets playing up this movie the most are right wing outlets including QAnon outlets. The most recent "save our children" bit started with QAnon and was part of a conspiracy theory where essentially anyone they didn't like with any power or cultural presence was a pedophile or torturing kids for their own benefit. And the real life subject of the film has been accused of overhyping his accomplishments and causing problems for others working on the issue. So yes, these are real concerns around the movie.

---

How is that a concern? Is it causing damage or harm? It appears the only "harm" it's doing is ruffling the feathers of liberals.

IMO, this thread is a perfect example of the rhetoric this movie was banking on for word of mouth. It's free marketing.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

Jim Caviezel has used QAnon rhetoric to promote this movie.

---

Explain how rhetoric is a reason to not see this film?

---

I've seriously lost track of the amount of times I've explained this. I literally just explained it - again - a few posts above, while I went into much more detail in a post yesterday, and multiple times before that. I'm genuinely asking… do you skip a lot of posts? Do you skip a lot of *my* posts? That's fine if you do - I get that there's a ton to keep track of - but man, I just don't know if I have the stamina anymore to keep repeating myself over and over and over again. It's like everyone who's commenting lately is commenting as if they've hardly read a word of this thread, and especially as if they've hardly read a word I've said.

Dumb it down into one or two sentences. No need to elaborate.

Why are y'all forcing TC to play a game of monkey bars here? It's pretty screwed up

TCTTS said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

I guess I don't understand the animosity toward this film from some.

So the lead actor has personal views some consider fringe and odd? We could say that about a lot of actors. If I based my viewing on that, there's a lot of movies I'd have never seen.

I'll give this a shot because they're trying to bring awareness to a major issue, and it's based on a true story. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

---

I don't know how many more times I have to say this, but no one is knocking the movie itself. Rather, conspiratorial accusations were immediately made in this thread, re: certain people not talking about this movie, and then a number of us simply explained *why* it's not being talked about, outside of conservative/Christian circles.

---

At the end of the movie Jim has a "special message" where he brings up the difficulties in getting this film produced by Hollywood. The QAnon conspiracies are crazy, but let's not act like Hollywood and much of California in general push hard on their own fringe political agendas.

By the way, very well made movie that will have you thinking about the subject for days after. Hard to believe and sad that there are more slaves now than at anytime in the history of the world.

I have tried to focus on the movie, it's success, it's theme, it's power versus it's lack of theaters. I guess we gotta get in the mud now cause this is ridiculous.

The problem seems to me that Jim Caviezel is the wrong kind of crazy for Hollywood. I have seen the 1 minute video where he mentions adrenochrome. I have never heard the term until this discussion here, so I have zero thoughts on the veracity of such a statement. I don't know any facts or claims about adrenochrome, and I am not going down that rabbit hole.

Are children killed for adrenochrome? I don't care, because I am positive that children are trafficked and their lives are ruined and ended because of the trafficking. Their families are destroyed because of the trafficking. That is enough for me. I don't care if they are killed for some unplausible scientific theory or if they are killed because they are considered used up and worthless. Their lives essentially ended when they were first kidnapped. Their innocence lost and they will never recover, forever scarred physically, emotionally, and mentally.

As far as Caviezel is concerned, he is someone that the entertainment industry in general does not want to have a platform. I am confident that religious or conservatives are personas non grata in Hollywood. For all the talk about diversity in Hollywood, it is not diversity of thought, that is not allowed. If you don't toe the line of progressivism in Hollywood, you will be shunned. Hollywood is an elitist bubble. People of faith or conservative values need not apply. It doesn't matter if your subject content is apolitical or non religious, it will be attacked because of the messenger, not the message.

This is a great film, a great message, and people should be inspired to see it, but here we are, 5 years later and they still fighting roadblocks. I have 2 local theaters that are sold out, everyday, every show. There was an 8:45AMshowing today with 4 of 16 seats in the front row not sold, every seat is purchased except those 4 very crappy seats. 12 showings today between Cinemark and Star Cinema fully booked save a few seats from 8:45 AM to 9:50 PM.

But the problem is Jim Caviezel. That is the problem. That is what is wrong with the world? Open your GD eyes. Every person in Hollywood is certifiably crazy. They are great actors because they are malleable. His adrenochrome opinion might be crazy, I honestly don't know. Sure, it is fringe and seems pretty crazy. But those kids are being trafficked and killed. Do I care if they are set on fire or just shot? Nope. I also don't care if some theoretical chemicals are taken from them during their death or not. I don't care if they only taken for some sick MFer's sexual fantasy alone or taken for some other sick MFer's adrenal rush in conjunction with the first sick MFer's sexual fantasy. I don't care if the person using them is liberal or conservative. I don't care if they are black white or green. I don't care if they are an actor, a politician, a teacher, a priest, or a truck driver. I don't care if they are in a pizza parlor or hamburger joint. I dont f/cking care.

More importantly, why do you? Why do you care so much about some actors opinion on some topic?

Proper rant right there. I feel like I saw your soul. 10/10. If a movie was made about that rant I would definitely watch it no matter what your political or religious opinions were

TCTTS said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

And I saw the movie yesterday. Your assertions are baseless and obviously agenda driven. You didn't offer any point of view that we couldn't deduce wouldn't come from a Hollywood "insider" such as you. You did exactly this in the Last of Us thread because of your adolescent behavior. You can't stand opposition to your view and you lash out at anyone who does with insults.

If anyone is concerned with an underlying message of faith, God or religion, it's just not there. Nothing political or faith based in the film. It does an outstanding job of presenting a difficult topic in a palatable light and I'd recommend anyone to go see it.

---

- Jim Caviezel has used QAnon rhetoric to promote this movie. That is an objective fact and not at all "baseless." Yesterday, I explained in detail why I have a problem with him doing so, and why him doing so negatively affects the reach of an otherwise non-political, apparently good /effective movie. Clearly, you ignored that post, like most everything else I've said.

- Re: the above, my "point of view" in that regard has absolutely nothing to do with me being a "Hollywood insider." I don't even know what that means or how it's at all relevant to the QAnon issue. My knowledge of Caviezel's QAnon peddling was gained from watching/hearing Caviezel's own words over the past few days/weeks/months, which I came across via various non-Hollywood news articles and posts.

- I have been called more names than I can count in this thread, have been the aim of multiple personal attacks, have literally been accused of child trafficking, of being a pedophile, and have been told I'm going to hell. Multiple times. Across two different threads, actually, on two different boards, one of them I'm not even participating in. Yet, not a single one of you has voiced your disapproval of those people lashing out at me. It's only my "lashing out" in response that's a problem and a derailment. How that's not the height of hypocrisy, I don't know.

- I have said absolutely nothing about "faith, God, or religion" being in this movie. And if it was in the movie, I wouldn't care one bit. That, and I have made it abundantly clear that I realize the movie takes no side politically. I've said as much at least three times on each of the last, say, five pages. I've said it so much that I can't believe I'm typing it yet again.

For the thousandth time, my issue is that because the PROMOTION of the movie - not the movie itself - has been so tied to QAnon and controversial figures like Gibson, Bannon, and Flynn, the potential audience reach of the movie and it's message has been severely limited. I'm arguing that the movie SHOULD be seen by more people, but that it's not because of its promoters' association with certain people and certain conspiracies that instantly turn away half the country. And yet, for some reason, that makes me a bad person worthy of some of the most insane vitriol I've ever seen in this board.

---

I think the QAnon stuff is bonkers.

Honest question. I think the entire Scientology "religion" and Tom Cruise's power and influence is just as if not more damaging as QAnon crap. I have no issues seeing his films that do not espouse those beliefs. Celebs say crazy stuff. For the most part, a lot of them are a little unhinged. Why is this the one you are crusading on?

The crazier posters on the board shouldn't rile you up. Ignore them. Don't stoop to their level. You fall into that trap too often.

---

For me, it's partly because Cruise doesn't use Scientology to promote his movies, nor is the promotion of his movies driven by any of his Scientology beliefs. As I said earlier, he used to talk Scientology all the damn time, and would even set up freaking recruitment tents. But then, 15ish years ago, he finally wised up to the fact that it was turning people away. It was limiting his audience, just as Caviezel's rhetoric is limiting his audience.

Another big difference is that Cruise's movies weren't tackling such important issues. If Cruise did use Scientology to promote a movie, and doing so turned people off, ultimately it was no big deal, morally speaking. But when QAnon rhetoric is dominating the headlines, all because of Caviezel and others spreading QAnon crap, their words are legitimately keeping the message of the movie from reaching a wider audience, and IMO, that *is* a big deal, morally speaking.

---

Morally speaking? I honestly don't know enough about Q to engage there but this movie seems to be doing pretty well considering it was released by a small outfit in Angel Studios. How would they have reached a larger audience than they are currently?

---

Yes, it's doing great numbers for an indie. But like I alluded to earlier, imagine the same movie, except with none of the countless reviews/headlines associating it with QAnon, all because Caviezel & co decided to go all Q in their promotion of it. If this was *just* a solid, heart-wrenching movie with an important message, without the Q stigma, I would argue that so many more on the left would have shown up for this thing, if only out of sheer curiosity after such a news-worthy opening day.

I mean, Spotlight - a movie that by its very title shined a light on an investigation into widespread and systemic child sex abuse - won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2016. In other words, Hollywood isn't afraid of this kind of subject matter. What turns them off/keeps them away is the QAnon stench that Caviezel & co gave this thing.

---

Spotlight is one of my favorite pictures over the past 10 years. That film deserves a lot of praise. But it did have the Catholic Church angle which made is a more compelling Hollywood narrative.

Quote:

---

They aren't "talking points."

---

The talking points have gone out pic.twitter.com/2wPPzrnrLk

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) July 8, 2023

Repeating media propaganda isn't talking points

Albatross Necklace said:

---

Quote:

---

They aren't "talking points."

---

The talking points have gone out pic.twitter.com/2wPPzrnrLk

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) July 8, 2023

Repeating media propaganda isn't talking points

---

The Rolling Stone guy looks exactly like you think he would.

English degree and has spent the better part of the last 15 years as a copy editor.

tomtomdrumdrum said:

---

Isn't it possible that the promotional rhetoric and the people promoting it are actually helping with the financial success of the movie? Sort of an any press is good press situation: make the conversation around the movie political, divisive, inflamed, and they at least excite the audience that is on the "movie's side" of the conversation to see it.

Word of mouth is how low budget films find success, and there's maybe not a quicker way to find lots of mouths to say lots of words than a good us vs them controversy.

---

The fact that this movie did incredible numbers on the 4th of July is not a coincidence, they marketed hard to a certain demographic and got results (a la Tribes by Seth Godin if anyone is familiar).

But I'd say that's both a positive and a negative. It'll do great numbers within that demo but could struggle outside that due to being labeled a right wing Christian film (even if that's not a fair characterization their promotion tactics have encouraged that). If you watch the video review posted earlier in the thread Jeremy Jahns (who's a huge YouTuber for movies) hadn't even heard of it (nor had I).

I'm curious to see how it all turns out.

Just going to leave this here from a successful media empire, unlike Vice, coincidentally called The Blaze. Congrats, TCCTS, you're on the same side as Rolling Stone and Jezebel. LMFAO.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/sound-of-freedom-movie-reviews-qanon-trafficking?utm_source=theblaze-7DayTrendingTest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Afternoon%20Auto%20Trending%207%20Day%20Engaged%202023-07-08&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%207%20Day%20Engagement

Quote:

---

Rolling Stone published an article with title: "'Sound Of Freedom' Is a Superhero Movie for Dads With Brainworms." The sub-headline reads: "The QAnon-tinged thriller about child-trafficking is designed to appeal to the conscience of a conspiracy-addled boomer."

The author accuses the movie of "fomenting moral panic for years over this grossly exaggerated 'epidemic' of child sex-trafficking, much of it funneling people into conspiracist rabbit holes and QAnon communities."

"There is visible suffering all around us in America. There are poor and unhoused, and people brutalized or killed by police," the Rolling Stone piece reads. "There are mass shootings, lack of healthcare, climate disasters. And yet, over and over, the far right turns to these sordid fantasies about godless monsters hurting children."

---

Quote:

---

Jezebel, the leftist website for women, ran with the headline: "'Sound of Freedom' Is an Anti-Child Trafficking Fantasy Fit for QAnon."

The article states, "At last, QAnon's camp appeal gets the cinematic exploration it demands."

---

Quote:

---

"There is visible suffering all around us in America. There are poor and unhoused, and people brutalized or killed by police," the Rolling Stone piece reads. "There are mass shootings, lack of healthcare, climate disasters. And yet, over and over, the far right turns to these sordid fantasies about godless monsters hurting children."

---

Complete liberal word salad gibberish followed by downplaying the sex trafficking of children.

Disgusting.

Pretty ironic to argue child trafficking is overhyped and then cite police killings as a more worthy cause.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

Just going to leave this here from a successful media empire, unlike Vice, coincidentally called The Blaze. Congrats, TCCTS, you're on the same side as Rolling Stone and Jezebel. LMFAO.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/sound-of-freedom-movie-reviews-qanon-trafficking?utm_source=theblaze-7DayTrendingTest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Afternoon%20Auto%20Trending%207%20Day%20Engaged%202023-07-08&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%207%20Day%20Engagement

Quote:

---

Rolling Stone published an article with title: "'Sound Of Freedom' Is a Superhero Movie for Dads With Brainworms." The sub-headline reads: "The QAnon-tinged thriller about child-trafficking is designed to appeal to the conscience of a conspiracy-addled boomer."

The author accuses the movie of "fomenting moral panic for years over this grossly exaggerated 'epidemic' of child sex-trafficking, much of it funneling people into conspiracist rabbit holes and QAnon communities."

"There is visible suffering all around us in America. There are poor and unhoused, and people brutalized or killed by police," the Rolling Stone piece reads. "There are mass shootings, lack of healthcare, climate disasters. And yet, over and over, the far right turns to these sordid fantasies about godless monsters hurting children."

---

Quote:

---

Jezebel, the leftist website for women, ran with the headline: "'Sound of Freedom' Is an Anti-Child Trafficking Fantasy Fit for QAnon."

The article states, "At last, QAnon's camp appeal gets the cinematic exploration it demands."

---

---

Seeing the source material that is used as gospel for some is starting to make a few posters here make more sense.

If you read that and nodded your head along you are a f'ing dolt.

---

V
V
V
V

amercer said:

---

Thanks for posting the Rolling Stone article. I think that sums it up nicely.

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Caviezel has promoted QAnon garbage. The outlets playing up this movie the most are right wing outlets including QAnon outlets. The most recent "save our children" bit started with QAnon and was part of a conspiracy theory where essentially anyone they didn't like with any power or cultural presence was a pedophile or torturing kids for their own benefit. And the real life subject of the film has been accused of overhyping his accomplishments and causing problems for others working on the issue. So yes, these are real concerns around the movie.

---

How is that a concern? Is it causing damage or harm? It appears the only "harm" it's doing is ruffling the feathers of liberals.

---

They complain about QAnon but ignore BlueAnon


Saw it today, very good film.

Sapper Redux said:

---

QAnon outlets

---

Can I get a list of these QAnon outlets?

I'm so shocked TCTTS is all over this thread with the standard ad hominem and garbage takes hidden in walls of text that no one reads.

Eso si, Que es said:

---

I have tried to focus on the movie, it's success, it's theme, it's power versus it's lack of theaters. I guess we gotta get in the mud now cause this is ridiculous.

The problem seems to me that Jim Caviezel is the wrong kind of crazy for Hollywood. I have seen the 1 minute video where he mentions adrenochrome. I have never heard the term until this discussion here, so I have zero thoughts on the veracity of such a statement. I don't know any facts or claims about adrenochrome, and I am not going down that rabbit hole.

Are children killed for adrenochrome? I don't care, because I am positive that children are trafficked and their lives are ruined and ended because of the trafficking. Their families are destroyed because of the trafficking. That is enough for me. I don't care if they are killed for some unplausible scientific theory or if they are killed because they are considered used up and worthless. Their lives essentially ended when they were first kidnapped. Their innocence lost and they will never recover, forever scarred physically, emotionally, and mentally.

As far as Caviezel is concerned, he is someone that the entertainment industry in general does not want to have a platform. I am confident that religious or conservatives are personas non grata in Hollywood. For all the talk about diversity in Hollywood, it is not diversity of thought, that is not allowed. If you don't toe the line of progressivism in Hollywood, you will be shunned. Hollywood is an elitist bubble. People of faith or conservative values need not apply. It doesn't matter if your subject content is apolitical or non religious, it will be attacked because of the messenger, not the message.

This is a great film, a great message, and people should be inspired to see it, but here we are, 5 years later and they still fighting roadblocks. I have 2 local theaters that are sold out, everyday, every show. There was an 8:45AMshowing today with 4 of 16 seats in the front row not sold, every seat is purchased except those 4 very crappy seats. 12 showings today between Cinemark and Star Cinema fully booked save a few seats from 8:45 AM to 9:50 PM.

But the problem is Jim Caviezel. That is the problem. That is what is wrong with the world? Open your GD eyes. Every person in Hollywood is certifiably crazy. They are great actors because they are malleable. His adrenochrome opinion might be crazy, I honestly don't know. Sure, it is fringe and seems pretty crazy. But those kids are being trafficked and killed. Do I care if they are set on fire or just shot? Nope. I also don't care if some theoretical chemicals are taken from them during their death or not. I don't care if they only taken for some sick MFer's sexual fantasy alone or taken for some other sick MFer's adrenal rush in conjunction with the first sick MFer's sexual fantasy. I don't care if the person using them is liberal or conservative. I don't care if they are black white or green. I don't care if they are an actor, a politician, a teacher, a priest, or a truck driver. I don't care if they are in a pizza parlor or hamburger joint. I dont f/cking care.

More importantly, why do you? Why do you care so much about some actors opinion on some topic?

---

TCTTS said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

Jim Caviezel has used QAnon rhetoric to promote this movie.

---

Explain how rhetoric is a reason to not see this film?

---

I've seriously lost track of the amount of times I've explained this. I literally just explained it - again - a few posts above, while I went into much more detail in a post yesterday, and multiple times before that. I'm genuinely asking… do you skip a lot of posts? Do you skip a lot of *my* posts? That's fine if you do - I get that there's a ton to keep track of - but man, I just don't know if I have the stamina anymore to keep repeating myself over and over and over again. It's like everyone who's commenting lately is commenting as if they've hardly read a word of this thread, and especially as if they've hardly read a word I've said.

---

I apologize in advance if you've already been over this… I did actually go back through the thread trying to find your feedback, but if you have given it, I simply missed it amidst the pages and pages of posts, so please forgive me if I'm asking you to repeat yourself, but as someone who makes their living in the craft, all the tangential conversation aside, I'd like to know what you thought of the film?