Review of Fred Claus -- Why Do Critics Object to Redemptive Themes?

I've recently found a new way to decide what movies to see and which ones will be a waste of my time. I look for the reviews of the movie from The New York Times, Village Voice, and USA Today. If the review of the movie is negative, I'm out the door to the theatre! In fact, reading only one of these publications will suffice, for they almost always agree.

The New York Times says that "Fred Claus" is a "lackadaisical mess" and speaks of the elves as "Chinese laborers who earn 25 cents an hour churning out lead-coated toys". Of the humor, The New York Times refers to it as "mirthless jokes, most at the expense of the shorter members of the cast". Is the reviewer accusing the producers of being elf-ist?

USA Today says "Fred Claus" is "uninspired... a ho hum family comedy.....predictable".

The Village Voice really shows its hand when it calls the script "thin....beholden to family-fare protocol, with its mushy-minded moral and slick sentimentality".

Confession: I had no idea what The New York Times or the Village Voice said about the movie until I began writing this article. I only knew the USA Today review. Just like I stated before, knowing one publication's opinion is enough. The other two will be "ditto" and "ditto".

"Fred Claus" will not, more than likely, become your all-time favorite movie. It's a cute movie with a good message that's entertaining for kids, as well as adults. It's nice to see Paul Giamatti in this type of role. His portrayal of Santa is that of a sensitive, kind-hearted type with a keen business sense and a desire for excellence. He's not overbearing in his pursuit of excellence, entrusting his "employees" with the carrying out of his vision in an efficient way, which is propelled by their love of Christmas.

The conflict in the movie resides between Santa and Fred. As far as Santa is concerned, he only has love for his older brother, Fred (Vince Vaughn). Fred, however, is the "little tree" overshadowed by the accomplishments of the "big tree", Santa. With the resentment built up over the years, Fred forces himself to work at the North Pole for a few days in return for $50,000 from Santa, which Fred will use to open a business in Chicago. After a family intervention carried out due to Fred's psychological issues, he is angered and leaves the North Pole, money in hand.

A surprise in the movie occurs when Vaughn attends a "Siblings Anonymous" meeting. Some cameo appearances by real brothers of famous people bring a laugh at the start of the conflict resolution.

Fred eventually sees the error of his ways, makes ammends, and everyone lives happily ever after. No surprise there.

The three major publications that criticized this movie so harshly betray an ever-growing resistance in our society (especially among the "elites") to anything with a moral message resting upon a foundation that is actually moral. It seems that "morality" is fine as long as your definition of morality is "whatever feels right to me." Those who want to demand that true morality has to be based upon some immutable foundation are seen as old-fashioned, close-minded, and extreme.
Movies that win Oscars are those that most successfully blur the line between right and wrong, between absolute and relative. "Fred Claus" will not change our society. It makes no huge political statement, no unique statement of altruism, no persuasiveness to some type of action. It's just a nice holiday movie that will entertain your family, and, in the meantime, it will support those things you have always dared to tell your children: be kind to others, don't be selfish, love your family. I guess definitive statements like those are dangerous, and the critics at USA Today, The New York Times, and the Village Voice are just trying to protect us.