Review: The Simpsons Movie -- Scott's Review
Filed under: Animation, Classics, Comedy, Theatrical Reviews, 20th Century Fox, Family Films, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels

"Turns out the movie version was exactly like an episode of the TV show, only longer." -- Millions of unimpressed moviegoers after wasting thirty bucks on yet another failed TV-to-movie experiment.
And those moviegoers are usually unimpressed because projects like these exist as little more than franchise exploitation. Seriously, was the universe actually demanding a movie version of Inspector Gadget or The Beverly Hillbillies? Most definitely not. But in certain (generally rare) cases, a successful TV show makes the leap to the silver screen in exceedingly fine form. Star Trek certainly did it. So did South Park, The Addams Family, The Fugitive and Firefly. But lately all the worlds' media attention has been focused on one specific series, a comedic juggernaut that's been chugging merrily along for the last 18 years. It's more than a classic, more than an institution. Heck, I hate to think of television without it. Yep, Springfield fans, it's (finally) time for The Simpsons Movie.
What an amusing novelty it is to see America's favorite yellow family up on the big screen -- doubly so because the magic of the series has translated quite excellently into cinematic form. Aside from a few editing gaffes (the DVD version will probably run 110 minutes!), The Simpsons Movie is quite a GOOD movie: a colorful little treat that's sly enough for the grown-ups, silly enough for the kids and funnier that just about anything found in the multiplexes these days. It's as if someone pulled a forgotten episode out of a vault marked "Simpsons Seasons 4 - 9," stretched the thing out into a tight 85-minute package, and gussied up some of the animation and special effects. So yes, The Simpsons Movie is exactly like a feature-length episode of the Sunday night staple. And in this case, that's a really big compliment.
Even the most casual Simpsons fan will appreciate the flick's bizarre opening: We jump from Lisa meeting a new beau to Grandpa having a seizure in church to Homer getting chummy with a dumb little pig ... and then the actual "plot" takes form: Seems that the mega-slobby Springfieldians have polluted their environment so badly that a maniacal E.P.A. agent hatches a plan to cover the whole town with a giant glass dome. (And if you think this is a wacky idea for a plot, then you need to watch more Simpsons episodes before seeing their movie.) Several of the movie's themes are plucked directly from the series: Marge's growing disillusionment with her clod of a husband, Bart's search for a life less bizarre, Homer's repeated foul-ups and eventual redemption, Lisa's unflagging idealism... It's all so comfortably familiar ... only blown into big movie size!
And funny. I've always said that even a weak Simpsons episode is funnier than just about anything on TV, but if you chopped The Simpsons Movie up into three separate episodes, you'd have two classics and one half-decent chuckler. (A subplot involving the Simpsons' brief relocation to Alaska doesn't yield many yuks, but the flick moves so quick there's no time to worry.) And when this movie starts going at full steam, I can't imagine the Simpsons freak who won't be laughing like a loon. (Homer delivers an aggravated non sequitur about "Access Hollywood" that had me giggling for about four minutes.) As always, the priceless Dan Castellaneta creates a character so stupidly lovable, you'd follow him anywhere. (No lie: 90 minutes of Homer and his pet pig would have been enough to make me happy.) Of course the entire Simpsons voice cast has been included in the debut movie and needless to say there's not a false note in the bunch. (Special mention to the hilarious Albert Brooks as insane E.P.A. agent Russ Cargill.)
Early in the movie Homer mocks the entire process by wondering why a person would pay for something they normally get for free. It's a funny gag, but he's asking an easy question. The answer is (obviously) that The Simpsons are worth the price of admission -- and they have been for almost two decades. The creators could have easily chomped off more than they could chew for this movie, but instead of trying to make the "be-all end-all ultimate mega-Simpsons episode," they went with their proven formula and delivered one of the year's funniest movies. Like millions of you, I would have liked a little more from Apu, Skinner, Wiggum, Milhouse, Barney, Otto, Moe, Willy, Ralph, Nelson, Burns, Lovejoy, etc. -- but it's called "The Simpsons Movie," after all. And there will be plenty of time for the rest of the Springfield citizenry once sequel time rolls around.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-28-2007 @ 11:37AM
Kyle said...
I really doubt a sequel will happen. Sure FOX is going to push for one, but I don't think Groening and the rest of the crew will make one unless they feel right about it. Some cartoon movies get rushed (The Spongebob Movie, South Park, etc.) but The Simpsons Movie waited 18 years. They could have made a movie at their peak, but they didn't, they waited until it was right. Of course maybe Groening loves money more than I think, so you can get back to me when the announcement is made.
http://creamfilledblog.wordpress.com
Reply
7-28-2007 @ 11:58AM
tozmervo said...
$30? Who the hell spends $30 at a movie theater?
Reply
7-28-2007 @ 12:18PM
Uatu theWatcher said...
Prediction: They will try to make a sequel, it will lose momentum, rumors will fly about conflicts with Fox that messes up the timetable for a theatrical release but since so much work was done they will compromise and go straight to DVD.
I will be bragging here when is happens
http://www.makeminemarvel.com/
Uatu
Reply
7-28-2007 @ 12:27PM
Eric said...
To be fair, I went last night, and for the two of us, it only cost $17, including two drinks.
There is, however, one thing I remembered from trailers but not from the movie- Lovejoy's "Here's the money shot" line.
Reply
7-28-2007 @ 6:12PM
Owen said...
Kyle, at the end of the movie if you wait till the end of the credits there's a pretty clear hint of a sequel with Maggie uttering her first word, which as it happens to be is "sequel". The creators wouldn't have put this little easter egg in a the end if the case were otherwise. I liked the movie overall though, worth my $10.
Reply
7-28-2007 @ 2:01PM
InfoEmpresa said...
It all depends in my opinion. I love the Simpsons, but I was sure it was going to be a case of a long episode, filled with cracks and funny stuff. Since that was what I expected to see, and that was what I got, I wasn't dissapointed at all! And I chuckled and laughed out loud in more than one scene, so my $15 or so spent were more than justified...
Reply
7-28-2007 @ 1:53PM
Kyle said...
I don't remember Lovejoy saying that in the trailers. Was it just his voice, or did they animate it as well?
Also I heard Kelsey Grammer was going to do a voice over, and apparently Sideshow Bob wasn't in the movie. I wonder if they just cut his scenes (Groening did say a few characters were cut in editing) or if they never recorded/animated anything. I guess we'll just have to wait for the DVD, which will probably have all the extra footage.
Reply
7-28-2007 @ 5:32PM
Entrapt said...
the movie was hilarious and it was great having being apart of a movie crowd that you can sense had the same anticipation as yourself to see your favorite cartoon characters on the movie screen.
About the sequel there was a moment like during the end movie credits where the simpsons characters were complaining about people who dont spend their time at least watching the credits and then as they were ready to leave, marge mentions something about maggie saying her first words, thus maggie says "sequel?" so maybe a hint of a sequel?
Sorry if this spoils anyone but it does happen deep into the movie credits which ppl barely wait to finish anyway....
Reply
7-28-2007 @ 6:09PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Baffled beyond all comprehension. I used to watch the show religiously - back in the early-to-mid 90s. Never in a million years would I have predicted even a 20 million dollar opening weekend for a show that's still on television. WTF?
30 mill on the first day? Why? What more is there to mine from a show that lost its way by 1998?
Reply
7-28-2007 @ 8:55PM
Adam C said...
I remember hearing that Erin Brockovich was going to play herself in this movie. And afterwards I could imagine the annoyance of having "*gasp* Erin Brockovich! That's right, now clean up this lake" appearance like the groan-worthy appearances of more recent episodes.
Instead I can't remember when I've laughed so many times in a movie theater.
Reply
7-29-2007 @ 1:03AM
Don't Panic! said...
I'm pretty sure that after the next 5 seasons they'll be able to produce another movie.
Reply
7-29-2007 @ 4:46PM
Chance said...
Actually, Maggie said her first word years ago. It was in the episode where Marge leaves Bart and Lisa with her sisters and Maggie with Homer then goes to a spa for the weekend. Maggie leaves the house and has an adventure through Springfield, at the end when they lay her down to sleep in her crib she says Dada.
Reply
7-30-2007 @ 3:22AM
skins21 said...
Scott, this was for better than a tv to movie novelty. I beg of you, spend 4 years writing and come up with something that has me laughing so hard towards the end i cry (i did towards to end of this)
Read Roger Eberts review you if you question spending the money to see this. He gave it 3 outa 4 stars. (and the man's won a Pulitzer)
anyway i fucking loved this movie.
The simpsons has turned to SHIT over the last 6 years and this movie was like watching the best stuff of the 90s. It was great and im probably goin to see it again .
Reply
7-30-2007 @ 12:36PM
Kyle said...
Chance, Maggie did say "dada" in her crib but nobody heard it, so when Marge says "it's Maggie's first word!", to them it actually is.
the whole tree falling in the forest thingy comes to mind...
Reply
8-09-2007 @ 3:01PM
himay said...
Why are so many people congratulating The Simpsons' creators for not taking any chances, and instead re-treading tired territory?
There was an opportunity here to say something, to make a point, to go bigger than the show. South Park took the opportunity of a movie to make the point that censoring language seems absurd when so little violence is censored. The Simpsons instead chose to try and make the least offensive movie possible--something that would please everyone with innocuous, clever wit--and what they got was *yawn* a long episode.
The movie was their chance to be BETTER than the small screen. Why do we celebrate that it failed in this regard?
Reply
8-25-2007 @ 12:42AM
william said...
Can you Guys Please Make A Simpsons 2 Come To Theatres July 2009 not diretly on DVD Call It The Simpsons Vacation With The Pink Donut Again With the O Between The i and n
Reply
10-21-2007 @ 8:01PM
cyberen said...
The problem I see with the movie is that the Simpsons have done so many "We're going to [insert state/country here]!" episodes that this feels less than epic. It was done with epic pacing and special effects but not really above and beyond what could be possible in the show in terms of plot. I would have liked the plot to center more around Mr. Burns (His plan to cut off power to Springfield was a subplot that led nowhere) and why was Schwartzenegger president instead of Ranier Wolfcastle?
It would have really been epic if the movie had all the secondary and tertiary characters involved in a complex plot instead of just appearing on screen to spout a line or two. A plot that can't begin and end in 22 minutes. It still managed to be funny, though.
Reply