I was one of the millions of people in attendance Friday night for the opening night of the new Simpson's Movie. I first started watching the Simpsons in college, and have been hooked ever since. They have become the longest running sitcom in television history. By 2009, when they hit 20 years, they will be the longest-running scripted show in prime-time history (passing Gunsmoke).
As for the movie - if you like the show, you will like the movie. It was hard to see the movie as anything more than a really long episode of the Simpsons. Which of course makes me wonder if Homer is correct when in the opening scene of the movie he calls everyone in the theater a sucker for paying to see what they can get for free at home.
Maybe it was just the big screen, or maybe it was the extra millions spent on the movie vs. a TV show, but the animation did seem more vivid. The use of shadow was more noticeable, there was more detail in wide shots (I say shots like there is a camera involved), and they did some "special angle" animation - like the shot from inside Homer's mouth of him chewing a hamburger.
As for the plot - even the producers admit it is hard to come up with new ideas after over 400 episodes. In fact, the movie has a plot somewhat similar to an episode from season 9 of the show (1997-1998). In the TV episode, Homer becomes sanitation commissioner and gets the town of Springfield so polluted with other people's trash that they have to move the entire town 5 miles down the road. In the movie, Homer through his normal stupidity and in a quest to quickly get some free donuts, pollutes Lake Springfield to the point where Springfield is declared the most polluted town in America and the government must decide how to remedy the situation (President Schwarzenegger chooses between 5 unthinkable options).
The movie took a few liberties that the television show can not. A little more graphic violence, (an on-screen suicide), a little more adult language (put the word God in front of the word damn), and a nude scene. But those extra liberties didn't enhance the ability of the writers to tell a story and in fact seemed like they were put in just because they could be.
At the movie I attended, the audience was asked to complete a pull-tab form for a movie-rating service. The form asked for my age group and gender. I said I was seeing the movie for the plot/story, rather than because of any actors, or because of the genre of the movie. I said I would rent the VHS/DVD (although I know Blockbuster no longer carries VHS) and I also said I would by the VHS/DVD (although I do not own a VCR).
However, when asked the all-important question of rating the movie, I gave it a "B". Not because I didn't think it was great and not because I wouldn't see it again (remember, I will buy the DVD) but because it was really nothing more than a long episode of the TV show. Maybe that is a testament to the greatness of the TV show rather than a knock against the movie. But, for my expectations, the movie needed to be a lot more original in order to garner an "A" rating.
Maybe Homer's right - I'm just a sucker.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I was an opening night attendee also. Funny stuff.
You're right, I think, that it's basically like a regular episode, only longer, but it works. It seems epic in the sense that the town of Springfield requires saving from some destruction, but that's happened in the regular half hour episodes too, so it's not that different.
The glory years were the mid-90s, but it's still remarkably consistent and the show has always worked on an emotional level, not just for its variety of gags, which translates really well to the big screen. I get the sense from listening to the creators talk though that this is the last of the movies. It fulfills its inevitable goal then that years from now it will be a fitting introdution to new fans to rediscover the old episodes.
Haven't been yet, but I think this says something about how rotten most movies are today. The anarchy of the Simpsons on television is like the Marx Brothers in their day, and so much more prolific. 400 episodes is ridiculous. We take for granted how good it has been for so long.
On Friday, I read the NY Times review of the movie, and the critic, A.O. Scott, said the same thing you guys are saying about the relative quality of the film compared to the TV episodes-- better than some, but weaker than others-- and he finished by saying that he still expected to watch it 20 times over. How many movies that this guy sees do you think he plans to watch 20 times?
Post a Comment