"I can't believe we're paying for something we could get for free on TV." -- Homer Simpson, The Simpsons Movie.
Exactly. Eighteen years in the making, we get a pretty funny 86-minute Simpsons episode. Not Season 4 funny, not even Season 8 funny, but not bad. But, honestly, it's nothing special.
On the plus side, there are less celebrity guest stars than your average current episode -- I counted only three, one of whom provides the movie's biggest laughs. (It's not Green Day.) Another, frequent guest voice Albert Brooks (Brad Goodman, Hank Scorpio, Bowling instructor Jacques), is funny as always as an EPA brass who is the defacto villain.
But the story -- Homer messes up with catastrophic results -- although grander in scope, is basically one we've seen dozens of times before. The biggest flaw for me, and David Poland of Movie City News also pointed this out, is that the writers pull much of the story out of Springfield and alway from the townsfolk. Mr. Burns and Smithers get a very, very short scene. Krusty gets maybe two lines. So does Moe. Principal Skinner gets one line. Lenny gets one line. Carl gets one line. Willy... nothing! None of them, apart from Flanders, is really intrinsic to the story. Maybe this is what happens on episodes these days -- I stopped watching regularly about six years ago.
Trey Parker and Matt Stone knew how to take a TV show and turn it into something bigger, wilder, funnier for the Big Screen. I think The Simpsons Movie was over-thought, with the edges dulled and the schmaltz factor upped. (Blame James L. Brooks for that.) One of my complaints of later Simpsons seasons was that they took away the heart, which made episodes like "Maggie Makes Three" so good. But on TV they only get 20 seconds of sentiment, but here you get long scenes of introspection. Again, it's in now way bad. Just disappointing. I guess. It'll probably play better on TV.
why am I not caring about this movie? what's wrong?
Posted by: Erich Scholz | Friday, July 27, 2007 at 04:30 PM
Because the Simpsons haven't been worth caring about since Season 10?
I went in with low expectations, which may in turn have been high expectations because they were so low I was secretly hoping they'd knock it out of the park.
I'm glad I saw it on the big screen. I'm also glad I saw it for free.
Posted by: SoundBitesNYC | Friday, July 27, 2007 at 05:19 PM
Well, as someone who's still watching the show now (I've only missed one ep ever), I thought it was tremendous. For the first time in AGES it was a Simpsons script with heart and emotion based around the Simpson family. It was the first time in perhaps 9 years I could state that. The stories that were about keeping the family together I have always thought were the strongest, and this was no exception. And Julie Kavner's acting when Marge leaves her message on that home video was simply stunning.
I'm also happy that they didn't need to fill it with gags or stupidity ever second (which the shows has been guilty of for the past few years). And I'm also glad Albert Brooks was involved.
I'm glad I paid my 11 bucks (screw FOX and there chekcing the cell phone screenings) and plan to do so again in a couple of weeks.
Posted by: steve | Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Oh, and I thought David Silverman did a great job of expanding the visual palate of Springfield. And I didn't feel the need for them to shoehorn every character in--they already did that in 32 Short Films.
Posted by: steve | Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Well glad you liked it, Steve. To each their own.
BTW, I didn't have to check my cellphone.
Posted by: SoundBitesNYC | Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 10:09 AM