Here's what I think: a good portion of the world has waited for a long time to see the Simpsons on the theatre screen. This kind of anticipation for a film has no precedent, as far as I know. It's absolutely huge. The logical, human extension of this anticipation is that many people are going to be disappointed. Others are going to be thrilled that the moment has finally arrived. I tend to think of it this way recall the dizzying excitement that you felt as a child when you were going to stay the night at a friend's house. You would stew it over, hype it up, bounce up and down at the thought the entire day before. Sometimes you couldn't sleep. Now imagine that excited anticipation, subconsciously preserved for fifteen years.
Because I think it needs to be understood that for a lot of us, "The Simpsons" is more than a show. It's a cultural load bearing pillar of our childhood. It's a resource of knowledge and life. So as much as it is impossible to live up to the expectations of a generation still bouncing up and down at the thought, and as much as no film could ever encapsulate the breadth of "The Simpsons"' brilliance (from 1992 to 1997), there is still a part of me that feels some deep untouchable itch put to blissful rest at the mere sight of Springfield on the big screen.
Is it a good movie? I think so. Kinda. It has a plot, and character arcs, and jokes, and all that. But truth be told, it's just about impossible to think of it as a film. When people ask if it's good, they don't mean "Was it a good film?" They mean, "Was it good "Simpsons"?" The answer to this question is, again, I think so. Kinda. There are definite upsides to it: writing credits include some of the most prolific writers from the series' golden years: Mike Scully, David Merkin and John Swartzwelder highly amongst them. These people were big believers in taking the show "back to the family", and though the character stories cooked up for the film are retreads (Homer endangers the family, then endeavors to save them; Marge's relationship with Homer is put into question; Bart feels he'd be happier with another father), they're at least done by writers who know the characters better than any. There's also some of that good old fashioned *tasteful* celebrity cameo usage which has grown short these past few years: Green Day, Albert Brooks and Tom Hanks lend their voices to mostly great effect.
But there are problems as well. Some computer animation here and there puts us just a little bit out of it, we're not used to seeing the camera of Springfield move in that bizarre two dimensional three dimension way that computer assisted cartoons do. This isn't as big a distraction as the fact that "The Simpsons" simply works best in an episodic format. It's hard work to enjoy them through one solid plot for feature length. It can be done, but it's a slightly strained kind of enjoyment. Like you're giving the film a hand when it slips a little. Kind of an interactive experience, if you want to be optimistic about it.
And the film does slip. I'd say roughly sixty per cent of the jokes got laughs out of my full theatre, and me personally. This is no criticism at the rate the show's been going, it's practically a miracle. Add that to the aforementioned fact that the film format isn't what "The Simpsons" was made for, and you've got yourself what's really a pretty funny production. The film's opening scene, of the Simpson family watching "The Itchy and Scratchy Movie" and making amusing parallels, Homer's "spider-pig" bit and Bart's naked skateboarding sequence are even downright hilarious (see also 'President Schwarzenegger'). And even though the scenes that cop the ungainly task of moving the plot forward do feel something like awkward punctuations, they need to be there to keep the relatively consistent laughs coming and they don't stop the show completely. We may be able to see the seams, but like an old soft toy, we love it anyway. And really, if you don't; if you're not willing to cut this movie some slack for old time's sake, what are you doing watching it in the first place?
Because I think it needs to be understood that for a lot of us, "The Simpsons" is more than a show. It's a cultural load bearing pillar of our childhood. It's a resource of knowledge and life. So as much as it is impossible to live up to the expectations of a generation still bouncing up and down at the thought, and as much as no film could ever encapsulate the breadth of "The Simpsons"' brilliance (from 1992 to 1997), there is still a part of me that feels some deep untouchable itch put to blissful rest at the mere sight of Springfield on the big screen.
Is it a good movie? I think so. Kinda. It has a plot, and character arcs, and jokes, and all that. But truth be told, it's just about impossible to think of it as a film. When people ask if it's good, they don't mean "Was it a good film?" They mean, "Was it good "Simpsons"?" The answer to this question is, again, I think so. Kinda. There are definite upsides to it: writing credits include some of the most prolific writers from the series' golden years: Mike Scully, David Merkin and John Swartzwelder highly amongst them. These people were big believers in taking the show "back to the family", and though the character stories cooked up for the film are retreads (Homer endangers the family, then endeavors to save them; Marge's relationship with Homer is put into question; Bart feels he'd be happier with another father), they're at least done by writers who know the characters better than any. There's also some of that good old fashioned *tasteful* celebrity cameo usage which has grown short these past few years: Green Day, Albert Brooks and Tom Hanks lend their voices to mostly great effect.
But there are problems as well. Some computer animation here and there puts us just a little bit out of it, we're not used to seeing the camera of Springfield move in that bizarre two dimensional three dimension way that computer assisted cartoons do. This isn't as big a distraction as the fact that "The Simpsons" simply works best in an episodic format. It's hard work to enjoy them through one solid plot for feature length. It can be done, but it's a slightly strained kind of enjoyment. Like you're giving the film a hand when it slips a little. Kind of an interactive experience, if you want to be optimistic about it.
And the film does slip. I'd say roughly sixty per cent of the jokes got laughs out of my full theatre, and me personally. This is no criticism at the rate the show's been going, it's practically a miracle. Add that to the aforementioned fact that the film format isn't what "The Simpsons" was made for, and you've got yourself what's really a pretty funny production. The film's opening scene, of the Simpson family watching "The Itchy and Scratchy Movie" and making amusing parallels, Homer's "spider-pig" bit and Bart's naked skateboarding sequence are even downright hilarious (see also 'President Schwarzenegger'). And even though the scenes that cop the ungainly task of moving the plot forward do feel something like awkward punctuations, they need to be there to keep the relatively consistent laughs coming and they don't stop the show completely. We may be able to see the seams, but like an old soft toy, we love it anyway. And really, if you don't; if you're not willing to cut this movie some slack for old time's sake, what are you doing watching it in the first place?