The Simpsons Movie

[Martin Penny]

I went to see this yesterday, and really enjoyed it. I'm one of the people who hasn't really liked most of the more recent episodes, and the film is actually more like them than it is the 'classic' years, but it's still very funny.

Each of the family members get something important to do, and the relationships between them are key to the story, making it seem more like the earlier episodes, when things were a bit more realistic, rather than overly wacky and unbelievable. Unfortunately, Homer, despite providing many of the films biggest laughs, is somewhat unlikeable throughout the film, and just a complete and utter moron. Bart probably has the best story, which involves a big role for Ned Flanders.

Sadly, most of the side characters hardly get anything to do, except for Flanders. Although Wiggum, Moe, Kent Brockman, Cletus and Comic Book Guy get some of the films best moments. One character I was dissappointed to see completely left out was Principal Skinner. Mr Burns only appears once, but has one of the funniest scenes in the film. Albert Brooks, whose done loads of guest appearances, and is a brilliant voice actor, plays the villain, whose also a very funny character.

All in all, it's a very good film, a lot better than the most recent seasons, although not quite reaching the same level of hilarity as the early ones.
It gets Martins thumbs up

[Pip Madeley]

One character I was dissappointed to see completely left out was Principal Skinner. Mr Burns only appears once, but has one of the funniest scenes in the film.

Is it more than a coincidence that both characters are voiced by the same man?

[Martin Penny]

Is it more than a coincidence that both characters are voiced by the same man?

I would say no, as he also voices Flanders, who had plenty of screen time

[Pip Madeley]

Ah, good point, well made.

[Si Hunt]

Martin has your argument in a vice-like grip there Pip.

I'm definately going to see this, now that it has the Penny Stamp of Approval.

Si.

[Pip Madeley]

Martin has your argument in a vice-like grip there Pip.

My proverbial head is locked between his proverbial legs.

[Dirk Gently]

So long as it's only your 'argument' that he has in a vice-like grip!

I expected Mike Saville to answer a comment on vice.

[Trudi G]

We went to see this today, and we weren't dissapointed! It's a very good film, with some laugh out loud moments, and there's lots of little things to watch out for - and if you stay and watch the credits, you'll hear Maggie's first word!!

[Si Hunt]

We saw it today. It was good fun - what I enjoyed most was that it wasn't just the cartoon extended and put on the cinema screen. If "more budget" is possible for a cartoon, it was there on the screen - lots of impressive wide-scale CGI shots and breathtaking aerial pans of Springfield. I liked the heavier emphasis on plotlines, although several of them (including Lisa's crush on Colin) didn't seem to go anywhere. All the stuff with Homer and the pig was good value, and it was good to hear kids in the cinema giggling all the way through. We liked the post-modern opening, where Homer laughs at the cinema-goer for "wasting money on something you could watch for free on TV".

Overall the plot was decidedly odd, a bizarre mish-mash of environmental themes, the Simpsons being run out of town and a save-Springfield kind of thing. Unfocussed, unlikely, but it did its job really, and kept things going. I can't help but feel this was probably actually quite a poor film in its own way, and not half as witty, taught or intelligent as many of the TV episodes. But it didn't need to be really - seeing all the Simpsons characters brought to the big screen, with a clutch of winning jokes, really expensive looking animation and a few good bits of slapstick was enough to make it worth seeing.

Si.

[Phillip Culley]

After having lost faith in The Simpsons after the last 5+ years of generally slipping quality, the good recommendations and reviews convinced me to go and see it today.

And I loved it. There were some bits which felt wrong for some reason (like showing Bart's willy), and one bizarre plot moment (when the town was advancing on the Simpson house they said they just wanted Homer - not the rest of the family, however as soon as they left the house they were all mobbed), but on the whole it was excellent, and if we've had to sacrifice a few years of lacklustre stories in the TV series, then it was worth it.

Although it was very frustrating to pick up a DVD set on the cheap afterwards, and to find a $10 off coupon for the movie inside it

[Alex]

I saw this on Friday and quite enjoyed it. I've felt that the series has had a bit of a revival over the last couple of years (though there's still the odd stinker of an episode occasionally), but in general is pretty good these days compared to the horribleness of series 10 - 14.

Spoilers Below

And I did enjoy it quite a lot, but there was just something missing for me. I thought it started really strongly, and there were a lot of really great, funny moments (Bart and Homer's dareathon, all of the Spiderpig moments), but half way through I noticed I wasn't laughing as much as I had previously.

I can't help but compare it to South Park the movie, which imo is one of the finest comedy movies ever made, and which really raised the game for the rest of the series. Perhaps it's because I'm a sucker for tongue in cheek musicals, but the lack of any big numbers (something The Simpsons used to do brilliantly) was a bit of a disappointment, and plot wise it felt similar to previous episodes (Lisa having a crush, Homer mucking up and being driven out of town, the family going to another location for a while, Marge and Homer's relationship falling apart yet a bloomin' gain) but with a bit of OTT-ness (Springfield being in the dome) to give it a more epic feel.

This all sounds quite negative for a film I did enjoy quite a lot, and which did make me laugh a lot too. But I think it's just a shame that whilst being pretty good, they didn't do something really really special with it.

[Trudi G]

Dohhhhhhhhhhhm!!!!!

[WhiteCrow]

I liked, but but it felt like just a couple of episodes jammed together.

[Si Hunt]

One thing I was quite surprised at was the throwaway death of Dr Nick Riviera at the end. I'm not devastated or anything - I love the character but at the end of 20 seasons he's probably had his day - but it was very casually done and therefore a little pointless. Did they, perhaps, hype the film by promising that a series regular would die in it? It does seem a shame - I don't think they can really go back on it either. It's true that the Simpsons is concious of its cartoon format and does occasionally play with it, but they tend to ensure internal continuity stays consistent (Maud Flanders stays dead, and even the Van Houtens stay divorced for example). So it seems like the last time we'll see Dr Nick.

Si.

[Andrew Curnow]

"Bye Dr Nick!"

[Martin Penny]

The Man Who Lived ... Twice The "Simpsons Movie" features the death of a prominent Springfield resident, but don't shed too many tears, warns executive producer James L. Brooks. "There is a rebirth that might have to take place soon [on the show]," he hinted. "Yeah, that's right," added executive producer Al Jean, saying that they'll bring the character back la Dr. Marvin Monroe. "I won't say who it is that dies. But he does say, 'Bye everybody!' "

So I reckon we will see him again.

[WhiteCrow]

I was expecting as a bit of a nod to Futurama someone to say "these events are so horrible, we'll not talk about them again", so as the TV series just carries on as if nothing had happened.

They made a similar wink at the camera in Futurama after the Earth was devastated.