FAMILY MATTERS

The New Yorker and New York times gives rave reviews, but this widely touted Fox review by Roger Friedman seems to have all the problems of a typical conservative critique, in which the reviewer hasn't seen the movie or book, but heard it had adultery and profanity, and thus condemned it in absentia. This review is a new twist on that nugget-- Friedman has seen the movie, but is so appalled and so wishing to keep susceptible children from seeing it, he outrightly makes stuff up:

An hour and 20 minutes later, here are things you will not know: who Hancock is, where he and Theron came from (it’s telegraphed with the subtlety of a mallet that she has a past with him) and who the persons fighting them are (I have no idea).

While it's true the villainous "persons" are somewhat mysterious, because it has not been telegraphed by a mallet, Friedman can't seem to take the clues presented to come up with a feasible explanation. As for the backstory of the two character-- well, it's explained in the movie. Who they are, what they've been doing-- it's all there. Perhaps he had his head up his derriere, as he puts it (so delicately). It seems amazing, too, that Friedman is so appalled by a drunk as a superhero he can't bother to telegraph the message of the movie-- redemption. How-- Christian? Friedman states:

an "a-hole" so lacking in charisma, charm or even bravado that there’s nowhere for him to go but down from a low rung on the ladder.

Did Friedman not stay until the end? Did he not see, how loss of community and family left the hero bereft and unhinged? Did we not see how regaining love and family finally brought him back into a functioning member of society? Hasn't this been the Moral Majority's line since the mid-70's? Did we not see how the character's flippant or poorly thought-out actions came back to haunt him? Jesus, can't get more Christian that that.

Photo: Just Jared