Q: Is it worth the wait?
A: It's very funny, and I walked out feeling I got my money's worth. I'm somewhat of a lapsed fan, though, not having followed the show regularly for years, and I had been skeptical of the need for a big-screen adaptation. So the wait wasn't so tough for me.
Q: What makes the movie different from the TV show?
A: You know, not a whole lot. Fox obviously sunk more money into the animation, and you have nearly an hour and a half of material rather than 23 minutes, but ultimately The Simpsons Movie just feels like a very good episode of the show.
But that's fine. The Simpsons in its prime was one of the best television shows in history, and I'll gladly pay to see anything that approaches that level. The story here is not groundbreaking. In fact, there are many plot elements that have popped up before in the show (not surprising given the hundreds of previous episodes). However, it is well constructed and paced, never feeling padded to fill the movie length. It isn't just a collection of gags, but a compelling tale with useful subplots and plenty of the heart the cartoon had in its best days.
Q: You don't watch the show anymore? What are you, some kind of hater?
A: I drifted apart from The Simpsons for two basic reasons: 1) Fox's NFL overruns made it difficult to keep up with their Sunday night schedule, and 2) More importantly, the episodes I did see disappointed me too often. Many supporters will say it's still better than most of what's out there, but to me it's like watching Willie Mays when he hosted "Jackpot Bowling" or Milton Berle when he played for the New York Mets. I may have that mixed up, but basically, the magic was gone if you remembered the golden daysy
So it's a delight to see a funny, solid Simpsons episode, even if it's a film. Actually, I think my distance from the series improved my experience, as the classic Simpsons-style gags felt nearly as fresh as ever.
Q: Are all the great supporting characters in it?
A: Well, "all" covers a whole lot of territory with the Simpsonverse, but there are a bunch of them. They don't all have speaking lines, but sharp fans will spot most of their favorites. The story focuses on the core, though, which is of course Homer and his family. Characters like Flanders and Moe get plenty of screen time. Luminaries like Krusty, Lenny and Carl get probably just the right amounts.
If I had to pick one supporting player who was underused, I'd say Mr. Burns, who is reduced to a mere cameo. The writers created a new foil, an EPA director voiced by Albert Brooks, and he's OK but not nearly as fun as ol' Monty.
Q: If it's so much like the TV show, why is it worth 10 bucks?
A: Well, I paid matinee price, for the record, but let me say I laughed consistently and was entertained throughout. The Simpsons Movie won't transform the way anyone feels about the show, unlike the South Park movie, which both transcended its origins and made me more appreciate those origins. No, his feature film adaptation is just a really funny movie. It feels like The Simpsons I knew and loved, and that's an accomplishment in itself. If it's not a transcedant experience, if it doesn't make you jump up and say, "Ah! We DID need a Simpsons movie," well, it's still a great time at the multiplex.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I've brought this up elsewhere, but don't you think the movie would have been better if the head of the EPA was Scorpio? It's the same voice actor, same inflections, and same Bond villain insanity.
I liked The Simpsons Movie, but I think they dropped the ball there.fo
Heh. "fo" was the first part of the word verifiction test.
My first accidental post and follow-up explanation. I feel like a real interlard now.
That's a great point. I don't know what they gained by creating a "new" character for Albert Brooks. Kind of surprising, actually, given how much they love referencing the old characters.
On a similar note, I think they should have just had Rainier Wolfcastle be President instead of Arnold.
Post a Comment