The prime-time animated series that has become an American institution during its eighteen uninterrupted years on network TV finally makes the leap to the big screen, and all of its barbs at modern culture are still intact. “The Simpsons Movie” has exactly the amount of clever, rapid-fire visual and verbal gags you might expect from the beloved cartoon.
And, with this movie especially, expectations are everything.
The film just grossed 74 million dollars in its opening weekend, so obviously America was excited about seeing “The Simpsons Movie” in the theaters—and why not? Unlike most TV shows that get turned into movies, there has been no break for nostalgia to build. We cannot look back and reflect on that late, great animated series that was so funny in its day—because the show hasn’t taken any time off. Year after year, “The Simpsons” has remarkably maintained a level of consistency (how much so is up for debate among more dedicated Simpsonites), and has therefore managed to stay relevant in the public consciousness.
This puts the film version in the unique and unfair position of having a lot to live up to, and “The Simpsons Movie” is not quite up to the task.
A clever opening starts things off right, showing Homer Simpson and family watching an Itchy & Scratchy movie in a theater. We’re not five minutes into “The Simpsons Movie” before its first self-referential moment, when Homer gets up and complains, bellowing about why anybody would pay money in the theater to see the same thing that’s free on their TV every week. It’s also the first indication that we’re going to get a whole more than we bargained for, because the filmmakers acknowledge what we’re already thinking.
So its a pretty big disappointment about halfway through the movie when the story (which would have made a fine 30-minute TV episode) just plain runs out of steam. Like Homer Simpson, the film goes soft in the middle. It is basically an eco-aware disaster movie where the government (headed by U.S. President Arnold Schwarzenegger, in a joke that goes nowhere) is the bad guy, but is outdone in stupidity by the typical bone-headed single-mindedness of Homer.
The screenplay has fifteen credited writers, from creator Matt Groening and producer James L. Brooks to thirteen other longtime writers and executive producers. I assume that they spent most of their time on the show’s patent witty jabs at modern culture and pop icons, because the main thrust of the story feels like a drawn-out version of the show. Along with Homer’s foolish eagerness for a free donut, Bart grapples with the ideal of what makes a good father and Lisa courts a boy with an Irish brogue.
For die-hard fans of the show, these moments are probably big, but the writers are playing it too safe. In addition, it may be rewarding for loyal fans to see virtually every character in Springfield make at least a cameo appearance, but sometimes it feels like these scenes were added because they thought the characters would be missed in the big feature film. For example, cold-hearted millionaire and series favorite Montgomery Burns has little more than a cameo, and it is during a lame joke you can see coming a mile away.
It feels like I’m complaining too much about a movie that’s still quite funny. After 400 episodes, the fresh new plot factory may have just run dry. The Simpsons themselves remain the quintessential parody of modern American life, and though the nature of their stories is formulaic, it is how they get there that makes the satire new and hilarious.
The TV show is an institution itself now, but “The Simpsons Movie” is also the most mainstream film to ever take so many pointed potshots at politics, family values, religion, and every other sacred American institution. Although my expectations may have been too high, there are worse ways to spend 90 minutes than with the subversive-with-a-smile style of “Simpsons” humor I have come to love.
[…] Huge opening weekends only mean one thing for a movie– that a lot of people wanted to see it. Well, $74 million of tickets were sold last weekend for “The Simpsons Movie.” How does it stack up against the TV show? Does it matter? Eric has his take on the film in Print Reviews. […]
(spoilers) Although I laughed quite a few times, this movie is not very good. I remember when The Simpsons TV show was subversive and satirical but the film is really appealing to the lowest common denominator of movie-goers. Instead of pointed comments on society, we’re subjected to a bunch of dick jokes. They should have got Conan O’Brien on board as head writer, at least it could have been absurdly funny.
The opening was lame, and the plot was as pointless as any new era Simpson’s show. It was also ridiculously sentimental just like all of the worst Simpson’s episodes. Marge wants a divorce, Bart wants Flanders to be his dad, Lisa has a boyfriend…blech.
But I thought the biggest sellout of Simpson’s fans was the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger was the president instead of McBain who parodies him on the show. They don’t even use his real voice, its just McBain’s voice. Wouldn’t it be a more effective parody if they used the character from the show to mock the governor’s presidential aspirations? At least they could have had McBain fight it out with Schwarzenegger for the presidency, and then maybe Mike Tyson could box Drederick Tatum.
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100% regarding , but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong