Kermode and Mayo's rant - Sound of Freedom 'review'

 

Kermode and Mayo's rant 'review' of the

Sound of Freedom

Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo are two ex-BBC film reviewers now on social media; they used to have a large following when on the BBC 5 Live film review slot on Friday afternoon, but now, after having left the BBC, they languish as one of the least popular of the 'known' YouTube movie reviewers. And you can see why they tend to be quite mean-spirited, especially when it comes to films that portray Christian and moral values - their Sound of Freedom review is a case in point. Below is my reaction to it.

Wow, a film review is somewhere in the middle of this 'rant'! This mini-review was done during the top ten films countdown for the week's box office. However, it's 99% rant and 1% review. Kermode's hatred for this film and Jim Caviezsel is palpable. He gets in a QAnon dig within the first 30 seconds, trying to discredit the film and Caviezsel immediately; however, Mr. Kermode, QAnon, and the right are not illegal, just as your brand of loony leftism isn't. When this film was made, QAnon did not even exist. It was acquired by Disney (another form of child abuse, according to many) when it bought Fox and then tried to bury it.

He also seems upset that the film has been endorsed 'by the likes of Donald Trump,' he rants and he raves on that it wouldn't have been successful 'if a bunch of nutball right-wingers hadn't come out and said that this is such an important film,' and rather than actually talk about the film Kermode blusters on:

 'Trump has spent a lot of his time dog whistling to the nut-ball right wing lunatic fringe who "believe" in inverted comers that he is involved in a fight against a cabal of Satanic Paedophiles ...' stutters as he has run out of rant words and says ... 'blaugh'...

Then, he mentions QAnon again. Kermonde then admits that the film has nothing to do with QAnon, but he keeps mentioning it and continues to do his best to discredit the film. Then again, he mentions Trump doing a screening and repeats himself, 'he's dog whistling to the QAnon lot.'

Kermode then again knocks the film without actually saying why, just a blatant assertion that the film is 'completely unremarkable and not very good exploitation thriller.' He says the only reason it's shown is that 'Trump did a screening, and when your leading man is Jim Cavisel ... Jim Cavisel played Jesus in the Passion of the Christ, it seems he's become convinced that he really is the Messiah.'

           Talk about hyperbole! Kermode is throwing everything at this film except the proverbial kitchen sink! Mayo then twerps in with 'he's an idiot' then after those words of wisdom from the every present but seldom heard sidekick. Kermode continues his tirade with another assertion: 'he's also a very bad actor.' Kermode's hatred of Cavisel is so unprofessional, so personal it would seem, that he has no qualms about calling him an idiot again and rants on to say 'when someone's personal behavior is so rampagingly  stupid!'... -  just because he addressed a so-called right-wing gathering who are concerned about child sex traffic (pity the left/liberals don't do more).

Perhaps the real reason the left/liberal legacy media are so appalled at the success of this film is because it's taking up media space with a Christian values narrative, intruding on their world, and they know it's actually exposing the corruption and abuse that is inherent in the mainstream media? God is actually mentioned as inspiring people in the film against child sex trafficking. Why are the left/liberal types in the mainstream media so scared of this film? Is it because their MSM world is implicated? I suggest that Kermode and Mayo calm down and go to the nearest cocktail bar and have a nice glass each of bitter and twisted,

BBC to Verify the news

 

BBC Verify

Can it be trusted?

 First of all, BBC Verify is supposed to be a group of 60 BBC journalists who form a highly specialised operation and have the investigative skill to verify if any piece of news, whether on social media or the mainstream media, is true. With clever manipulation of images and computer graphics and AI, any image can be manipulated to say what every image provider wants. People are constantly bombarded with news, and it's difficult to tell what is happening. The Ukraine-Russia war is a case in point. If you watch one set of You Tubers, Russia has lost all her tanks and then some, and if you watch another set, Ukraine hasn't any troops left. So, this could (in the right hands) be a good thing?

            The big problem is the mainstream media also seem to be guilty of loading the news to suit the liberal Western viewpoint. And as the BBC is part of the Main Stream Media, it is difficult to see them in a verifying role. The BBC has a set of secularist left/liberal values, and it has been evident in the past that they have loaded the news and current affairs programmes to suit this left/liberal viewpoint. Therefore, while it would be fantastic if there was an organisation to get to the bottom of the truth in an objective way, the BBC are not the organisation to do this. They often market themselves as honest and objective, but on many issues, they are not; re abortion, Alfabet people, feminism, national interests first, and anything Woke, they simply cannot be trusted.