Oh, that Slate review...
I think Ebert once mentioned that one of the traditional appeal of the movies was seen beautiful people on big screens. It suppose that goes into conflict with certain ideological agendas that flare up at the notion that some people may have more appealing appearances than others.
Insert "I think he's kinda hot" reference here.
Sadly for those people wanting to create the forced egalitarian notion that looks cannot be assigned value, I doubt it is ever going to go away, and a review that shows its writer cannot get past the fact that the lead character is good looking and that is not going to be ignored in its particular context, shows perhaps an even more standing (and rather overwhelming) concern with looks than what is shown in the actual movie.
And well, just the way it states not being able to tell "the white Chrises" apart, is quite indicative. Not just the unnecessary calling out of ethnic appearance (um, again with that...) but also, really, does not being able to tells things apart in order to evaluate them seem rather part of what being a critic should be about?