View Poll Results: RATE AND REVIEW THE SIMPSONS MOVIE!!

Voters
1030. You may not vote on this poll
  • 5 STARS - WOO-HOO! Completely worth the 18 year wait!

    331 32.14%
  • 4.5 STARS - Fantastic

    201 19.51%
  • 4 STARS - Excellent

    173 16.80%
  • 3.5 STARS - Really good

    95 9.22%
  • 3 STARS - It was pretty good, but could have been better

    121 11.75%
  • 2.5 STARS - Hmmm... good, I guess

    35 3.40%
  • 2 STARS - Meh, I dunno, not entirely what I wanted

    26 2.52%
  • 1.5 STARS - Not too good

    13 1.26%
  • 1 STAR - Groan, that was pretty bad

    12 1.17%
  • 0.5 STARS - Not worth the wait at all, wish it was never made

    7 0.68%
  • 0 STARS - The worst moment in Simpsons history

    16 1.55%
Page 10 of 31 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 906



Thread: Rate & Review: THE SIMPSONS MOVIE



(Users Browsing this Thread: )

  1. #271
    has a smack of ham to him. kid_presentable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Utah
    Posts
    932


    Tough, tough, soft, tough, soft soft, tough, soft, tough, tough, soft.



    Choke on your lies!!!

  2. #272
    Stonecutter KoenSoontjens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    belgium
    Posts
    1,287


    Quote Originally Posted by kid_presentable
    Tough, tough, soft, tough, soft soft, tough, soft, tough, tough, soft.

    lol
    i realy liked that line i was one of the only ones laughing at that line in teather
    .

  3. #273
    Mmmmmm Beer
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    38


    Quote Originally Posted by KoenSoontjens
    you need to pay closer atention to the movie ,russ cargill put guards around the dome so even if they could dig a tunnel they would be caught.


    But that was only after the simpsons escaped....before they made it out there were no guards. My friend kept asking me that question and i was like "Well ask the writers, its just a movie" I just accepted it as part of the movie and didn't really have a problem with it....maybe they just wanted you to think that so you would never see the destruction of the city comming.

  4. #274
    a real professional CousinMerl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Spittle County
    Posts
    8,083


    I just saw it for the first time, and I think it was really great, so it gets a solid 4.5/5 by me. The movie was much better than I expected (Please note that my rating maybe is getting higher after another viewing of the movie, which will be when it's released on DVD)

    The movie was packed with great jokes and scenes, many of them really memorable, I stayed during the end credits and it was worth it. Top entertainment from the start to the end.
    Last edited by CousinMerl; 09-16-2007 at 01:51 AM.

  5. #275
    Stonecutter Veryjammy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,467


    Yeah so I posted this in off-topic as well but whatever....please don't hate me

    I really didn't like it. Halfway through I pretty much felt like leaving. I've seen episodes from Season 18 that felt more authenticly Simpsonsy and had better writing than that. For most of it I felt like I was watching any old Hollywood kids movie. The writing in the sentimental moments was so leaden and heavy handed it made me cringe and I don't think the Homer/Bart/Ned thing worked well at all. It was all so sickly and cheesy and just...ugh. Most of the Marge and Homer stuff was equally nauseating like them offering their hands to each other and all that hokey bullshit, although I liked the videotape and the bit just after. And then they killed it with the 'To be continued...immediately' bit. It's hardly a good or original joke anyway but it bombed amongst the audience and managed to leave a sour taste to the most genuinely moving bit in the film.


    In fact I don't really want to talk about it anymore and I really don't want to watch it again. If I was to rate it I guess it would be 1.5/5 or something.

  6. #276
    Tingle Tingle Kooloo-Limpah Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mogitate Tingle no Barairo Rupee Land
    Posts
    758


    Agree with jammy and a few users who have not yet lost their brain (jk, like it if you want!). Posted this in the off topic section.

    Simpsons: 2,5/5. It just didn't feel inspired to me. It felt like a run of the mill animation film to me, and not like the simpsons at all. Pretty much 80 % of the jokes fell flat for me or were just incredibly boring and poor immitations of the ones you find in the classic seasons. I can't give it more than a 2,5. The awesome animation and directing saves it from being an absolute stinker for me. And come on, Marge/Homer marriage in crisis again, don't give me that shit after 20 years of simpsons.

  7. #277
    I'm Bartman. Jims's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    3


    Quote Originally Posted by skittlebrau
    The pacing of the movie was really off, I must admit. Everything went well until "THE SIMPSONS ARE GOING TO ALASKA!" at which point (and this is weird) it kinda throws me off. It seemed like they go to Alaska almost straight away, and in that swiftness, it also seemed like they were right back in Springfield getting rid of the bomb. Even with that complaint, it still seemed like they were in Alaska an awfully long time. Crazy, huh?
    Agreed. The movie really seemed to slow down when they traveled to Alaska. The whole first half of the movie was really great, plot-wise, because there was a feeling of tension of the Springfield mob in the dome. When the Simpson family traveled to Alaska, they were so far away from the problem that the movie dragged a little. It was nice to have those "family moments," though.

    Part of me wishes they would've left Lisa behind (by accident) just so she'd have something to do during the movie.

  8. #278
    Junior Camper
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Halifax, NS
    Posts
    82


    Saw it opening night, and I must say I loved it! My only beef would be that it was kinda short. I could of used a little more time getting to Alaska or something but it wasn't a huge deal. I still think it deserves a 4/5.

    I also don't get why people keep comparing the movie and the newer seasons for that matter to the first couple seasons. It can't possibly be those again. I still enjoy some of the new eps, especially from this past season more so than maybe 16 and 17. But maybe that's just me.
    "That's rediculious, how could I even get all 5 necessary drops into her cereal.... what?"

  9. #279
    Tingle Tingle Kooloo-Limpah Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mogitate Tingle no Barairo Rupee Land
    Posts
    758


    I also don't get why people keep comparing the movie and the newer seasons for that matter to the first couple seasons. It can't possibly be those again. I still enjoy some of the new eps, especially from this past season more so than maybe 16 and 17. But maybe that's just me.
    How can you not get it? It's only damn fair to compare the movie to the classic seasons. First of all, because comparing something to shit will always make it look good, when it's actually not all that good. Secondly, many of the original writers that penned great episodes and made many memorable contributions to the classic seasons have their signature on this movie too. They all wrote for it and since they also wrote for the classic season we've got material to compare.

    But I'm not blaming them. I think this movie has no identity. And that's done on purpose. The tried to cater it to the general population as much as possible, and in my opinion, turned it into a boring, safe, mainstream run of the mill comedy. All the simpsons characters might as well have been replaced with random stickfigures and it still would have been the same.

  10. #280
    Stonecutter Veryjammy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,467


    Quote Originally Posted by Major fatal Moebius
    But I'm not blaming them. I think this movie has no identity. And that's done on purpose. The tried to cater it to the general population as much as possible, and in my opinion, turned it into a boring, safe, mainstream run of the mill comedy. All the simpsons characters might as well have been replaced with random stickfigures and it still would have been the same.
    That's exactly how I feel. Bart's characterisation in particular in this movie was shit. It's been off in the actual series for a long time, but it was terrible here too, they've completely lost track of what made him such a great character in the first place.

    I also found myself getting really irritated with Maggie throughout the movie. It's like she was there to appeal to all the 5 year olds and morons who think a baby is innately hilarious. I bet they brainstormed for DAYS over the movie's climax. Why bother writing an interesting and fitting ending when you can have Maggie appear from nowhere and drop a rock on the bad guys head? What the fuck has that to do with anything. I would expect to see that in some inane second rate kids cartoon, not in a movie written by series veterans that took years to make.

    Incoherent, unfunny, toothless, badly paced, sloppily written, dumbed-down mess.

  11. #281
    One man, no ducks
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    72


    Like Bob and a few others, I have to admit I'm baffled that the movie has gotten such an overwhelmingly positive response from this corner. My best explanation is that, as the "real" fans who took particular issue with Bob's review implied (perhaps unintentionally), they had so much anticipation invested in this movie that they absolutely had to like it.

    But hell, "The Simpsons" defined my childhood, too. I wanted to love it, too. And I entered the theater having read a slew of positive reviews from the sources I trust. The A.V. Club ranked it just below the zenith of "Simpsons" satire. Stephen Hunter called it one of the best movies of the year. A.O. Scott said his faith was rewarded; he even tweaked the standard NYT ratings blurb at the end, asking, "Won’t somebody please think of the children?"

    The heart of the problem, I would argue, is that everyone did. Matt Groening said on one commentary track or another that it’s easy to tell when a work of fiction was written by people without children. Well, this one was obviously written by people who do.

    That doesn’t just extend to the heart of the family narrative, which centers on Homer from the very beginning, ends with Homer and Marge riding into the sunset on a motorcycle, and includes the Simpson children only parenthetically. Nor does it extend merely to the bitter, albeit truthful, lines like, “Worst day of your life so far!” which elicited knowing chuckles from the older couples in my theater.

    No, the evidence of the “family-man” dynamic at work on this movie rests in its lazy, paper-thin plot, stuffed with lame pain gags and other empty cartoonishness wherever Groening or Jim Brooks decided not to put their feet down, wherever the writing team decided their kids were worth more than their work. That's to their credit as fathers, certainly, but as Bob said, the supreme feeling of, “It’s good enough,” permeates this script from beginning to end.

    The flimsy writing is especially infuriating because the animators clearly took five years off their lives for this movie. Silverman did a fantastic job, as did the all-star team of veteran “Simpsons” directors onboard -- the only big names I didn’t see were Wes Archer, Susie Dietter and Jeff Lynch. Disney cracks notwithstanding, this movie looked so fluid, with so many more in-betweens than a standard “Simpsons” episode, that the influences were obvious, even without the man-eyed woodland creatures that must have driven Groening nuts. The snow sequences were especially beautiful, but I can’t think of any scene in this movie that wasn’t gorgeous.

    Unfortunately, I can’t think of many in which I wasn’t groaning, either. The plot cracks along as fast as it can, but it still can’t disguise the fact that none of it makes any sense. The conceit that Springfield Lake could be “one piece of trash away from a toxic nightmare” is embarrassing for a team with as many science majors as this one. The political satire is nice, since it’s the closest the show’s come to anything of the kind in 10 years, but it’s largely toothless, tending to elicit the most groans among my theater’s audience.

    And once the townspeople have exhausted the options of shooting Cargill’s dome and melting it with an unavailable acid drill, they seem to forget not only that they could simply dig under the dome – which is apparently semipermeable, so as to allow the town to breathe? -- but that they have e-mail and telephones, as well as a regularly broadcasting television network with which to spread the news of their predicament. That’s not a hole that cynicism about government can’t spackle over (see: “Bart’s Comet”), but to not even consider such options is a mark of astonishing laziness.

    By the very end, the Environmental Protection Agency lowering a bomb into the town by a rope that is inexplicably timed for 15 minutes doesn’t seem any more ridiculous than the rest of this story, nor does Cargill suddenly being at Springfield Gorge with a shotgun, and that’s just sad. After all that, I was surprised to see the writers so self-conscious about the ramifications of the crumbling dome, since they didn’t seem to care much about, say, Maggie apparently killing Cargill, or the political repercussions of an attempted federal mass murder.

    For all its emotion, the family story doesn’t work much better, because it gives us absolutely nothing new. Bart’s story is “Brother From the Same Planet” with Flanders (and, inexplicably, child alcoholism). Lisa’s story, all three minutes of it, has been an “A” or “B” story more than once, and it was insipid and disappointing then, too.

    And the marriage crisis? Well, I’ll concede that Jim Brooks’ treacle is much better, immeasurably more human than anything the show has given us in years -- particularly the hotel-room conversation, one of the few with a sense of gravity and honesty about it. But Homer’s inevitable spirit quest isn’t an “homage” to “El Viaje,” as some have suggested; it’s a retread that isn’t done nearly as well, and just like in “El Viaje,” the outcome is never in doubt.

    Ham-fisted moralizing aside, the other problem with Homer's dream sequence is that it didn’t seem much crazier or more cartoony than the rest of the movie. I’m using a certain amount of hyperbole here, but the tree bitchslap and even the near-dissolution of Our Hero isn’t far from the toxic spread over the lake, Lisa crashing through the city hall roof in her scissorlift, all the crazy sinkhole crap, kids smashing into walls every few minutes, Homer’s lizard tongue, Marge’s flaming hair, the truck careening down a mountain without any damage, the “Clap for Alaska” landslides, the igloo breakoff or the flaming breath. This kind of thing has worked fine in small doses through even the best years of the show’s run, but it was used constantly here, not sparingly.

    I did appreciate that the first thing Homer does after his reconstruction and the death of “Captain Wacky” is shove the Inuit woman off of him, but … what, suddenly he has sled dogs? Well, as long as it leads to more pain gags, why not?

    The rest of Springfield, of course, is relegated to interstitial updates for much of the movie. But perhaps that’s just as well, since while Homer has ostensibly reformed his jerkassery, the rest of the town is worse than it’s ever been.

    The assembled townspeople, aside from Flanders, never have their basic humanity in this movie until they’re suddenly helping to rebuild the Simpson home at the very end. In better-written angry-mob scenes, the mob was easily dissuaded ("Let's go to the old mill anyway! Get some cider!") or committing wantonly destructive acts without human costs (destroying the hockey rink in which they had been cruelly pitting their children against each other). Here they are genuinely gleeful at the prospect of murdering a man, a woman and three children; the mob scene shifts awfully quickly from, “We just want Homer!” to the pacifier fitted onto a fifth noose. That was not the only way to establish the gravity of the situation; like the sinkhole, it was just an easy out.

    It’s a shame we don’t get more of Springfield, because when they’re not explicitly murderous, the townspeople give us much of the best there is in this movie. Even the incidental appearances are better jokes than Homer taking a table saw to the cranium (for example, J. Loren Pryor and Dr. Zweig watching but not helping the handcuffed, naked Bart is a great joke with Mirkin all over it). Similarly, Lou’s “Listen, kid, nobody likes wearing clothes in public, but, you know, it's the law!” was my first laugh in the movie, the first joke that I didn’t see coming. The drill bit was nice; Wiggum was consistently solid; the bomb-disarming robot was deliciously dark.

    But the jokes that tell you a story smarter or funnier than “Fat man get hurt … funny” are few and far between (a particularly good topper: “Look, we can’t stop at every ‘Sop,’ ‘Yeld’ or ‘One Vay’ sign”). It’s telling that some of the best laughs the movie has to offer are animation jokes: the billboards during Homer’s “Welcome to America” speech; the appearance of an orc in the mob; the various rebound jokes; the blank-faced reaction shots (Lisa after Green Day dies, Bart to Homer eating/being shocked by raw zapped fish, Marge to the “Spider-Pig” song). Even little jokes like Homer missing the VCR on the first try have more heart in them than much of the dialogue.

    For most other franchises, this script’s embarrassingly low standards would have been par for the course. It would have been fine for most schlocky summer crap -- for, say, a Shrek sequel, or any shitty Hollywood comedy that I could have come out of saying, “Yeah, I liked that fine.” But I didn’t want to like this movie. I wanted to love it.

    The destruction of the Simpson house brought tears to my eyes. Like the unraveling of the “MG” on Homer’s head during the movie’s climax, it was a particularly vivid reminder of the death of my childhood and the living death of “The Simpsons”. While the house may be rebuilt without apparent injury, this movie serves as an unpleasant reminder that its contents will never be the same.

  12. #282
    I'm not your friend-o Cartoonnetwork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,787
    Blog Entries
    1


    Wow, Veryjammy's review was very harsh.Though I agree with him about Marge and Homer stuff, and other things.

    Now that I watched it two times I feel like doing a more extended review, a really long one. The main problem of the movie to me is that it's really disjointed. It's really like four or six episodes together. All of them are good in concept but almost none of them is used to its full potential.

    In fact I think there are like 6 episodes or subplots. Some of them are developed. Some of them not. That's why the movie doesn't work so well IMO. Every bit is ok, but it's an odd mixture. And the end is just pure cliche, with no message. However they manage to combine everything well during the first half hour, but then things get disjointed and everything loose its purpose.

    This is the way I see it.

    -Itchy and Scratchy short. One of the better parts of the movie. Hilariously funny animation and a lot of good references. Could have had more blood, they could have not talked at all, but it's not a big deal. 5/5

    -Green Day+Church Scene. Awesome introduction. Green Day's cameo was brief and it introduced the theme of the movie soon (or what it seemed to be the theme). First Homer's lines were reminiscent of Homer The Heretic. Grandpa's epiphany and the mistery were a very interesting and funny way to start. The clues in the prophecy and what they turned out to be were pretty interesting. Comic Book Guy was used in an excellent way. This was like one of the best Al Jean/Mike Reiss episodes to me. It's a pitty the rest of the movie wasn't that good. 5/5

    -Lisa's subplot. Now this had a fantastic introduction as well. Lisa was really nice and in good character. I loved when she said her boyfriend was not imaginary to Marge. This was like a good Jon Vitti or Mike Scully episode.

    Problem is...they forgot about this plot later. A lot of Homer and very little Lisa. Pretty sad if you ask me, especially considering Homer was not that well characterised at some points.

    The happy ending in this story don't convince me. There's something about the depressing ending of previous Lisa (and Bart) romances that makes the whole thing more interesting in some way. Also I'm really unsure about using Colin as a new character in the series.

    2'5/5

    -Bart/Homer/Flanders. This was like a recent episode that is pretty good but you can't help but thinking there are some bad tendencies here and there. Thing is Bart and Flanders were pretty much perfect (or at least very good) but Homer wasn't likeable, and there were too many pain gags involving him. And at the end of the movie he didn't really do anything good for his son. Still it has some funny bits, like the naked scene that was really funny (also Nelson's haw-haw) and that part with Bart showing the Homer-Flanders picture that wasn't very emotional or anything, but it really makes you laugh. This is the equivalent of a recent and flawed Vitti episode or a later Jean/Reiss effort (like that subplot with Homer and Bart in Simpson Tide) 3,5/5

    -Homer and Plopper. This was funny for what it was. A silly Homer subplot with decent jokes. But what's the point? Once we start to like the pig we never see him again. He was not a character but a plot point. Or maybe too many scenes were cut. Meh. 3/5

    -The dome. This was like a decent Mirkin episode. It's the best part of the movie and the most prominent plot, but at the same time is what ruins the rest of the subplots. The movie completely lost its direction once OFF escape from the dome. Fist Plopper dissapears without any explanation, then Lisa's story is abandoned and the only development after that is...that she found Colin and ta-dah! happy end. There is no development of Colin's personality and there is not more stuff with Lisa and the enviromental problem.

    But back to the dome. This was really full of LOL jokes that were pure Mirkin, especially with secondary and also, anonymous characters. This is the most satisfactory part in the movie. The only one that one can see is fully developed. The first part is before OFF go to Alaska and the second part, after they come back, is perhaps a little weaker, due to the more typical blockbuster/action movie resolution but it still has the best Homer in the movie, trying to do good things but failing every time. It's the part in which he's truely likeable.

    This is the plot that "saves" the movie, though it's not entirely great, because of some cliches and the lack of subtle satire. Most of the stuff about the government, although pretty funny, was silly, loud satire, not subtle at all. It saves the movie, but , as I said, it also ruined the rest of the plots.

    4/5

    -Alaska. This is the part that seemed kinda off to me. I disagree with the critics that said the film loose its pacing here. However it does loose its structure. The other two subplots are cut in the middle and they suffer because of that.

    Also, in Alaska, they try too many different things. A decent joke that seems like something mildly good from a recent or a Scully episode ("Lisa, clap for Alaska!"), another decent joke with some nice animation (Disney sex), a couple of two modern references that nobody won't understand in 6 years (the Grand Theft Walrus joke) and the emotional part.

    The emotional part to me seemed quite unnatural. There was nothing really that sincere about it except perhaps Julie Kavner's voice (which I can't judge since I watched the movie dubbed). Don't misunderstand me. It was not bad. But it was not The Simpsons. In fact it was more similar to emotional scenes in Futurama. It was very very Hollywood-esque, manipulative. It could have still been pretty good if we haven't seen it so many times before, especially during Jean era. This was like a mixture of Jean era and Albert Brooks, but none of them at their best. It's very dramatic but it's hard to buy, cause we have seen it too many times and because Marge changes of opinion pretty fast during the movie, and it lacks development.

    Also Homer is pretty unlikeable for the most part. The fact that he needed that ritual with the boob lady to understand why he was wrong doesn't say anything good about him.

    About the boob lady scene it was kinda silly, but I didn't mind it. I actually think it was enjoyable to a certain extent. The dancing routine was entertaining in a goofy way. And at least we have a dream sequence there with some THOH/Viaje Misterioso-type of animation and we have the Spiderpig song with chorus, which is pretty enjoyable, and it does ,at least, some reference to the pig. It shows at least some Homer-logic in his dream. Though the later scene with the lady pointing the direction with her boobs is a little too silly.

    2,5/5 or 3/5...something like that

    Almost every bit of the movie is entertaining and almost every joke is funny. Its as if they have written half-a-dozen plots and they have kept the best jokes/moments in every one of them. So in a way it's .like some people said, a combination of the best moments from each era. But at the same time is almost less effective than the majority of those eras.

    I think the movie is pretty good until OFF escaped from the dome. Every plot has a nice introduction and they combine together pretty well. But after that it kinda lost it. The dome aspect has a proper resolution, but the enviromental and religious theme are completely abandoned. There is no message, there is no moral or satire. And the emotional stories are ended in the most cliche, predictable way. Marge/Homer story ends ok just because Homer saves the day. Bart and Homer story ends well because he lets Bart carry the bomb (this is not half as weak as the other two, though, they still kinda make fun of it with Todd's-or Rodd's-line) and Lisa's story? has a happy end.

    Now this sounds a lot more negative than my initial comments. Yes, I was kind of dissapointed. But at the same time I don't think it was a complete failure. I do think there were some hints of classic era style here and there. Especially during the dome subplot. The movie could have been better if they had extended it, and I'm really looking for the extended version in the dvd.

    Almost every joke, except some Homer's pain gags, were a hit, and Russ Cargil's lines were very funny, even though he wasn't very developed as a character. It's as if they have written six episodes, then they took the best jokes, but left out the development.

    But compared to SP:BLU, like some people here already pointed out, SP was really focussed. Simpsons movie wasn't. It had bits of emotion and a few satirical jokes that were ok (Homer's comment about America or the money they got when they arrive to Alaska), but the "theme" of the story does not exist. It's not even what Jean said "A man should listen to his wife".

    Maybe they should have included less subplots. SP had a subplot for everyone of the kids and other for Satan and they were all fully developed, but then again, it was a linear story. There was not inside the dome/outside the dome stuff there. That really hurts the subplots.

    It mainly works because of the animation and the dome story that is an entertaining disaster movie plot with good use of secondaries, a later Mirkin episode that makes you LOL in several parts but it's still not one of the best episodes of this type. I actually think the use of secondaries is quite reasonable in this part, apart from Burns and Smithers. I love Skinner and he didn't do anything remarkable and the same could be said about Patty and Selma or others. But there were still a lot of secondaries there and I guess not every one of them can have a proper line. Burns and Smithers should have been there more , cause it seems even adequate for the story, but I don't mind so much about the rest of them that didn't make it. There were still a lot of them that did.

    I would really have liked if there have been some sort of come back of Grandpa, God or the enviromental theme towards the end to wrap things up, but, as it was, it resulted on an entertaining, but a little shallow story. Which is a little sad for a series that it's well known for its emotion and satire. But it was at least more LOL funny than the majority of the new episodes.
    Last edited by Cartoonnetwork; 07-30-2007 at 02:39 PM.
    My Simpsons homage!


    http://elblogderg.blogspot.com

  13. #283
    Mod, eh? Tomacco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,873


    If I worked on the show and I was reading all of this, I think my head would explode. It baffles me how some people are saying the characterizations of Homer and Bart were totally off the mark, since I thought they were better than they've been in a decade - ie: 100% NEVER 1-dimensional. The characters were shown as so much more complex, sensitive, and honest in this movie than on the show. People complaining about Bart's characterization I assume are forgetting the fact that despite the fact that he's a brat and a trouble-maker, he IS still a 10-year-old boy. If you were a 10-year-old boy whose father convinced you to repeatedly endanger and embarass yourself, and then take the fall for it, you'd be resentful as well. In the end, Bart and Homer's love of danger is still what bonds them together though, as exemplified by the church scene at the end. The bratty and sensitive sides of the character were explored in full force in this movie. People complaining about Bart being emotional and sensitive are also forgetting "classic" episodes like "Marge Be Not Proud", "Bart vs Thanksgiving", "Seperate Vocations" and others. It's called a well-rounded, multi-dimensional character.

    Anyways, to be honest, I don't really even want to talk about it. I've basically studied these characters for 18 years (been watching since the beginning) and I know what I saw. I don't expect to be able to convince the naysayers that the characters were spot-on, and I don't expect they can convince me they weren't. So, agree to disagree.
    Signature.

  14. #284
    I'm not your friend-o Cartoonnetwork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,787
    Blog Entries
    1


    ^Well, I don't know if I made myself clear, but I do think the characters were almost spot on, and I'm with you about Bart. I would want to read why people think he was not good cause I can't see it. I guess it has something to do with the drunk Bart scene...

    The only character I had a bit of a problem with was Homer, and it was not huge. But I think he was a little too unlikeable until the very end, even though that was the intention of the plot. I would agree that the part in which he's trying to help, but does nothing but provoke more chaos, is really spot-on for his character. I just think he was a little more likeable in the majority of the episodes of classic era overall or at least in the best episodes from classic era, and also in some of the best "modern" episodes. Maybe he is less funny in modern era, but he has been more likeable sometimes.

    Secondaries were all of them great and Marge and Lisa were too. I didn't have that much of a problem with Maggie either.

    Characterizations were not really the problem of the movie.
    Last edited by Cartoonnetwork; 07-30-2007 at 04:36 PM.

  15. #285
    Tingle Tingle Kooloo-Limpah Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mogitate Tingle no Barairo Rupee Land
    Posts
    758


    JM1878, I want to commend you with your great review/analysis. I enjoyed reading it and you're quite right.

  16. #286


    Quote Originally Posted by Veryjammy
    That's exactly how I feel. Bart's characterisation in particular in this movie was shit. It's been off in the actual series for a long time, but it was terrible here too, they've completely lost track of what made him such a great character in the first place.

    I also found myself getting really irritated with Maggie throughout the movie. It's like she was there to appeal to all the 5 year olds and morons who think a baby is innately hilarious. I bet they brainstormed for DAYS over the movie's climax. Why bother writing an interesting and fitting ending when you can have Maggie appear from nowhere and drop a rock on the bad guys head? What the fuck has that to do with anything. I would expect to see that in some inane second rate kids cartoon, not in a movie written by series veterans that took years to make.

    Incoherent, unfunny, toothless, badly paced, sloppily written, dumbed-down mess.

    Come on, man. I hate the Jean era just as much as the next guy (probably more), but it seems like you got your head up your ass on this one. I know a good movie. I know good Simpsons. This was good Simpsons. Yes, the humor was mostly average for the Simpsons standards, but it was hilarious throughout, dramatic, and well-told.

    I'd say Coherent, FUNNY, well-paced, well-written, (although indeed a little dumb-downed for the sake of the general audience), but not a mess.

    And that goes for anyone. Marge's speech/monologue was some of the best acting Julie has ever done and some of the best in the series. The Homer/Marge conflict was not sappy, it felt natural and played perfectly. I even got a little choked up. Everyone was in perfect character.

    The ending with Maggie was a little bit of a cop-out, but it was funny and everyone laughed and was done in classic Simpsons-fashion.

    Hugely entertaining, loved every bit of it and I'd give the movie 4/5 stars. A-/B+

  17. #287
    like kissin' a peanut
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    227


    Quote Originally Posted by Major fatal Moebius
    But I'm not blaming them. I think this movie has no identity. And that's done on purpose. The tried to cater it to the general population as much as possible, and in my opinion, turned it into a boring, safe, mainstream run of the mill comedy. All the simpsons characters might as well have been replaced with random stickfigures and it still would have been the same.
    This disappointed me the most. Everything in the movie was geared towards a dumb summer audience instead of fans of good, intelligent comedy - even though the movie would have been just as successful had it been smarter. Overuse of slapstick plus messages of sub South Park caliber made this film not even seem like a NEW episode of The Simpsons. And a movie of season 18 quality would have been much, much better. The audience was already there, so I have no idea why they decided so much pandering was necessary.

    If this movie were broken down into three different episodes, they would have fallen squarely within the worst parts of the Scully years and everyone would have hated them. Instead, blind fanaticism is making people who hate the movie sheepish about voicing their opinions.

    And JM1878, that was a terrific review. Not just because I agree with it, but because it's also a great piece of critical writing.
    Last edited by bobservo; 07-30-2007 at 03:43 PM.

  18. #288
    I'm not your friend-o Cartoonnetwork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,787
    Blog Entries
    1


    JM1878, I was writting my review while you posted yours. Mine was more benevolent but I do agree with a lot of what you said...though some bits I don't think they were nearly as problematic as you mentioned, especially the thing about Homer's hair and OFF house that seems a bit melodramatic. Those things are not really "sacred" if you can add a joke or a plot point by using them. Your review is really well written and interesting to read, though.

    So I guess you didn't like it too much, but anyway I would have liked you to include your grade as well.

  19. #289
    So.. Chinese or Japanese? Swartzweldian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,002


    Quote Originally Posted by Tomacco
    So, agree to disagree.
    I don't agree to that!

    I honestly need to watch it again, at home before I can judge it much more.

    I laughed only a couple times at the theater. It was 90% slapstick comedy - which isn't even that bad..but I do like smart references and more subtle jokes.

    I'm glad to see I'm not the only one irritated by Maggie. The rock hitting Hank Scorpio #2 was a dumbed down Disney moment.
    "Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance."
    -Winston Churchill

  20. #290
    So.. Chinese or Japanese? Swartzweldian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,002


    Quote Originally Posted by JM1878
    The heart of the problem, I would argue, is that everyone did. Matt Groening said on one commentary track or another that it’s easy to tell when a work of fiction was written by people without children. Well, this one was obviously written by people who do.

    I think that was an EXCELLENT review. You really captured my feelings very well.

    The quote above is an excellent observation. Many of the writers have now gotten older, more "comfortable" in life.

    I agree you could see Mirkin influence in a few different places (I'd imagine most of Wiggum/cops came from him).

    Thanks for putting those thoughts down. It was excellent criticizime that is constructive - as painful as it may be for the writers to see.

  21. #291


    I honestly don't get all the complaints about Bart. I agree he was not as bad ass as he used to be in some respects but I actually liked his arc in the movie because I have always wondered where his discontent and disrespect of Homer as a father would lead. It is not like we have never seen Bart turn to another man before when Homer disappointed him as he did with his Bigger Brother Tom and he didn't act out or lash out at Tom. But I think the thing that made this movie so crazy is that the Simpsons were ALL in an extreme situation and had extreme reactions and Bart was no different.

    He reached a place where Homer shamed him so badly that even Ned Flanders someone he considered nerdy began to appeal to him. The naked skateboarding and Homer's handling of the situation were an epiphany to Bart and I don't think it's shocking that Bart would rebel against his father by clinging to a man who is the opposite of him and a man that Homer hates. At the end of the day Bart is a 10 year old boy and all he's ever done has been looking for some attention and boundaries and the reason he is unruly is because Homer is a suck ass father is how I have always interpreted it. So I am not upset or turned off that Bart finally once again began looking for another father figure and found it in Flanders, but in the end realized that even though Homer is a terrible father, he is HIS terrible father and that is evident in the fact that Homer knew how to win Bart back in the end.
    You gotta do this one for me, Billy. McGarnagle!
    I'm just like Lisa!
    I'm Lisa, who are you? by NoHomers.net

  22. #292
    Mod, eh? Tomacco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,873


    The ridiculousness of the plot really did not bother me. "Bart's Comet" is pretty much the same idea in terms of having no way out of the town. Destroying the "only bridge in or out of Springfield" is just a weak explanation as why nobody could leave, but merely functions as a way to satisfy criticisms and questions about logic and realism in such a story. Basically, I think it's understood that in stories like these, you're encouraged to take real-world logic with a grain of salt. They did explain why the Simpsons were the only people who could escape by digging under the dome through the sinkhole (since Cargill asked to set up the whole team of soft/tough guys around the perimeter). It's similar to the insanity of the bridge out of Springfield excuse in "Bart's Comet". I guess all I can say is when I start thinking of questions like "how can Cargill get away with blowing up an entire populace?", "how can pig crap mutate an animal?", "how can a baby appear out of nowhere and kill a man?", etc, I just start to feel like Comic Book Guy. IMO, The Simpsons has never been a show that presents happenings in this world as true to life. What makes The Simpsons known as being a relateable and realistic show has everything to do with the characters and the heart of the show (which is what worked best in this movie, which is why I let the story's unrealistic nature and events slide).

    This is precisely why old wacky episodes like "Itchy & Scratchy Land", "Deep Space Homer", and "Bart vs. Australia" work, but "Simpson Safari", "Kill the Alligator and Run", and "Helter Shelter" don't. In those older episodes, the characters react to the ridiculous stories in true-to-fashion ways, whereas in the later episodes, they don't. For example, in "Kill the Alligator and Run", they tend to just go along with everything without showing any emotional response to their situations (which are often totally disjointed and randomly motivated situations, unlike in the movie where Homer did cause the whole ordeal himself). When they live at the diner in BABF16, they transform into hicks, when they become prison waiters, Marge asks Bart to re-stock the possum bar, etc. In "Helter Shelter", Homer's in distress but still asks Marge to throw a rope in an old-timey way, and she obliges. When they're attacking the camera crew, Lisa and Marge make no objection to pushing a man off a cliff. The family just goes along with the predicaments external forces put them in. Not to mention, the resolutions to all three of those newer episodes I mentioned demonstrate zero amount of character growth or redemption. They're all resolved in arbitrary ways (Captain Jack didn't die after all / the family is bribed with diamonds / the family finds a camera crew helicopter). In the movie, everything is character-driven and resolved through character realizations, which really makes all the difference in the world. I would say that genuine heart is the backbone of the entire show, and the primary difference in what made the jump from season 8 to 9 so glaring. Episodes like "Lisa's Substitute", "Lisa the Vegetarian", "Lisa On Ice", "Homer's Triple Bypass", "Mother Simpson", "Homer's Phobia", "Lisa's Sax" and others so great was because they were character-driven heartfelt episodes. Those kinds of episodes started going the way of the dodo when the show started centering around ridiculous stories with causalities based on outside non-character sources instead of character-driven ones. Mirkin was great at mixing the more ridiculous stories with the heart of seasons 1-4 beforehand. These episodes usually had exciting stories which stuck to character-centered themes throughout (ex: "Marge on the Lam" [marriage theme], "Deep Space Homer" [Homer success/achievement theme], "Itchy & Scratchy Land" [family giving Marge a nice vacation theme], "Boy Scoutz N the Hood" [Homer and Bart relationship theme], "Homer the Great" [Homer being loved by friends theme], etc) , and if I had to make a comparison, I would say The Simpsons Movie best resembled the Mirkin years.

    The one character-related thing I didn't notice was the "we just want Homer!" thing turning into wanting the whole family suddenly. I suppose that didn't really make a lot of sense. The family running with Homer would have worked just fine, since I'd understand the family wanting to stick by Homer, but the nooses is a bit inexplicable.
    Last edited by Tomacco; 07-30-2007 at 05:28 PM.

  23. #293
    Banned HappyPalooza_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Behind your Couch, USA
    Posts
    236


    I've agreed with everything Tomacco has said so far. But there are hardly any harsh criticisms, so whatever. Another thing I don't understand is the criticism of the theme change.

    "It smoothly shifts from evironment to marriage crisis! The whole thing is a mess, somebody explain this to me. The whole movie's topsy-turvy now!"

    And I didn't really mind the plot-holes since the writers must've acknowledged them. They've mentioned scenes cut that wrap up the loose ends, and were even going to have Kang and Kodos point out the plot-holes in the credits.

  24. #294
    Mod, eh? Tomacco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,873


    Quote Originally Posted by HappyPalooza
    I've agreed with everything Tomacco has said so far. But there are hardly any harsh criticisms, so whatever. Another thing I don't understand is the criticism of the theme change.

    "It smoothly shifts from evironment to marriage crisis! The whole thing is a mess, somebody explain this to me. The whole movie's topsy-turvy now!"

    And I didn't really mind the plot-holes since the writers must've acknowledged them. They've mentioned scenes cut that wrap up the loose ends, and were even going to have Kang and Kodos point out the plot-holes in the credits.
    Honestly, I don't see the central theme of the movie being about the environment at all. Sure, there is an anti-pollution message, but it's never overbearing or even important to the movie itself. Neither is the supposed religious theme people have mentioned. Both of these threads are subservient to the central theme of family and personal redemption. Grampa's religious experience is there to serve the Marge/Homer story, as well as to foreshadow the conflict the town faces. It ends when the dome is put over Springfield and Marge exclaims "EPA! EPA! "Trapped Forever"". The whole point of it is so that Marge can begin investigating Grampa's freak-out, so that she can start noticing the "twisted tail" and other bits and start warning Homer about it and beg him to get rid of the pig. So, basically, Grampa's freak-out is what starts Homer's selfishly ignoring his wife's pleading and warnings, which is a big part of building up to Marge's eventual dessertion of Homer.

    The environmental aspect ties into this too, of course, since it's tied to Homer dropping the pig crap into the lake, against the whole town's wishes. So, not only does Homer go against his wife's wishes to get rid of the pig, but he selfishly goes against the town's wishes by running over a bunch of No Dumping signs and dumping the crap. This gives the town motivation for wanting to kill Homer as a mob when they hear it's his fault, and it's what makes Homer's "screw Springfield!" while in Alaska the selfish weight it deserves and the family's reason to desert him. Homer wanting to stay in Alaska truly is the ultimate selfish move - he screwed over the whole town, then deserted them, and is fine with continuing a better life in Alaska while they get killed for something he started. About as selfish you can get (and story-wise, about as character-driven as you can get). The whole dumping thing also puts him at odds with Lisa, who started the campaigning to clean up the lake.

    Combined with Homer's dare contest with Bart, all of this functions together to get the family (and Springfield) at odds with Homer, which is the central story, with the central theme being Homer's selfishness and underappreciating his family and community. I don't see how people can call the story a mess. It's incredibly focused and unified through character-based causality, as I hope I've shed some light on here.
    Last edited by Tomacco; 07-30-2007 at 06:16 PM.

  25. #295
    Profound Sadness Kiyosuki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    10,781


    Even since season 4 the so called realism of this show was really aesthetic. Its there, which is what sometimes helped to keep things in a kind of odd control, but its exaggerated and loose. I didn't personally think this film went beyond that point so much. Its not about the total lack of anything wacky, I think its more how it works in the context of the story. Yes it can be a stretch, they could have dug under the dome or something. But sometimes you gotta take a step back and wonder if complaining about realism is valid in this case, or if its just plain wanting it to be something its just not. By that same logic I could nitpick a dozen classic episodes, how can Marge get to that other town and back to Springfield so fast in Marge vs. the Monorail?

    You guys are entitled to think whatever, but while there are valid gripes in this movie I don't personally think the realism or stretch of believability is one of them. Thats not really critique of the film itself, its critisizing it for not being like a season 3 or earlier episode. It can't do that, its supposed to be as much its own thing as possible, while representing the overall show in general at the same time. In the context of this film I thought the overall plot worked fine. Still not so sure Alaska was necessary, and they could have taken a couple of the more obnoxious things out like Homer's reflection in the dome glass, those things deal with the movie itself, but nitpicking realism is just kinda pushing it.

    And besides, Elves under the ground were crazier than this, that was worth bitching about.

    I thought the plot considering how much they had going on was pretty consistent too. It wasn't disjointed, the overarcing theme was pretty apparent, don't be an idiot or you'll eventually pay or it.. There are different parts to it, environmentalism, integrity, an adventure to save the town, marriage crisis, but it all falls under that theme. Its like I said before, in a way Homer is actually punished for being jerkass Homer. Because he can't get past his own selfishness and obnoxiousness he almost gets his town destroyed, gets all his friends and townsmen killed, gets his family killed, and finally almost loses his family and loving wife alltogether just because he can't get into his head that he's not the center of the universe. Even everyone else has a similar predicament, even though Springfield tried to stop the pollution they still kind of paid for their obliviousness, Bart paid for his recklessness, and even Marge paid for being too passive towards Homer. Thats what the plot really was to me, taking responsibility for your own actions.
    Last edited by Kiyosuki; 07-30-2007 at 05:48 PM.

  26. #296


    Quote Originally Posted by Veryjammy
    I've seen episodes from Season 18 that felt more authenticly Simpsonsy and had better writing than that. If I was to rate it I guess it would be 1.5/5 or something.
    Quote Originally Posted by bobservo
    And a movie of season 18 quality would have been much, much better.
    You're both on crack.

  27. #297
    So.. Chinese or Japanese? Swartzweldian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,002


    Quote Originally Posted by Tomacco
    The one character-related thing I didn't notice was the "we just want Homer!" thing turning into wanting the whole family suddenly. I suppose that didn't really make a lot of sense. The family running with Homer would have worked just fine, since I'd understand the family wanting to stick by Homer, but the nooses is a bit inexplicable.
    I noticed that as well..They said that, then did the opposite. Maybe the yell back "we just want Homer", was added later (since there is not even animation for it, that I noticed).

  28. #298


    Quote Originally Posted by Swartzweldian
    I noticed that as well..They said that, then did the opposite. Maybe the yell back "we just want Homer", was added later (since there is not even animation for it, that I noticed).
    I don't think so, Carl's line is what made it funny. Maybe they decided to hang all of them because they realized that the family was protecting and harboring Homer.

    BTW well said, Tomacco.

  29. #299
    Mod, eh? Tomacco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,873


    More from me:

    To elaborate even more - this movie being about the whole world of Springfield, including the rest of the family, being at odds with Homer is something that is such a long time coming and really does make this movie an important moment in the history of The Simpsons existence. You can make a list of episodes about Homer screwing up in regards to his family ("Simpsons Roasting Over an Open Fire", "The War of the Simpsons", "Homer vs the 8th Commandment", "Saturday's of Thunder", "Brother From the Same Planet", "Lisa's Pony", "I Married Marge", etc etc), another list about screwing up in regards to his friends ("When Flanders Failed", "Homer Goes to College", "Homer and Apu", "Homie the Clown", etc), but I don't think there's ever been a story where Homer has created a wrong so massive affecting so many people as in the movie. Not only that, but the resolutions for Homer-screw-up episodes are usually small-scale, and even sometimes nothing more than little speeches (like ones that win Marge or the kids back, which in the movie case Bart drunkenly mocks with "you just bought another load of crap from the world's fattest fertilizier salesman"). In the show's worst years, Homer has even often gotten away with huge misdeeds without real consequence or redemption ("Viva Ned Flanders", "When You Dish Upon a Star", "Homer to the Max", "Homer Simpson in Kidney Trouble", "Kill the Alligator and Run", etc). His lack of redemption is often what made him an annoying hateable character in some episodes.

    This movie puts Homer on trial for his selfishness and foolishness, after years of escaping real persecution. He commits his worst most selfish act ever (having the town domed then about to be blown up), and must perform an equally massive heroic act to redeem himself (saving the town). As the initial promos indicated, Homer's massive screw-up warrants the most massive treatment - on the big screen.

  30. #300
    Profound Sadness Kiyosuki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    10,781


    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlandersMan
    I don't think so, Carl's line is what made it funny. Maybe they decided to hang all of them because they realized that the family was protecting and harboring Homer.
    Well they were a murderous mob too, kind of upset over the fact the town was officially fucked and them as well all because Homer wanted free donuts.

    Angry mobs arn't too well known for their rationality. It was a little bit painful to watch though, since a lot of their friends were in there, although thats not as bad as some of the family members. I mean Patty and Selma hate Homer but them helping to hang their sister and her children? And Gramps with a gun (although he's senile so its not as hard to understand.). Moe's got a thing for Midge too. Thats kinda heart wretching stuff. I just assumed though they were pretty angry over the fact they were all doomed by the guy and driven to mad rage, not entirely hard to understand when throwing in a little cartoon exaggeration.

    But then again the Springfielders kind of pay for their irrationality anyways. Maybe a scene during when its in ruins where at least some of them maybe showed some regret over that (Well not for Homer anyways, maybe the others.). Could have gone really well with how much the people there seem to mellow out and get a little more sincere than thier usual selves. Stuff like that cut Krusty scene in the cut-scenes thread that happens between when the town goes crazy and tries to break out, and when OFF finally return to flesh out the break down a bit I think is something the film would have really benefitted from having.

    Kind of pointless to say this now, its done. But whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomacco
    To elaborate even more - this movie being about the whole world of Springfield, including the rest of the family, being at odds with Homer is something that is such a long time coming and really does make this movie an important moment in the history of The Simpsons existence.
    Yeah thats what I think too, its one thing that did work for the movie. Like I said above this film is really about taking responsibility for your actions I think. Thinking about it, in all the episodes I've personally seen...and thats pretty much all of them, the characters in this actually having to answer for their own ignorance and mistakes has never happened quite to this same magnatude. Of course we've gotten shitloads of episodes about a character or group having to learn a lesson by the end, but never quite as much as I saw in this film.

    Its one thing I did really like about it because I think emotionally the show gets at its best when the characters are forced to venture outside their usual routine. To actually not be so cookie cutter or just like...them, but to actually have to deal with their own flaws and challenge their own stereotype. Actually go through kind of a change, even if its mostly forgotten by the next episode it still makes it poignant. Stuff like Burns actually asking Maggie for his bear back, Bart thinking about his sister, Ralph showing everyone up by having an unexpected latent talent, Wiggum doing something charitable, Homer resisting beer for Marge. Its that kind of thing I think the film did actually have somewhere in there. Taking responsibility for your own actions is kind of a recurring theme in the show overall, and we've seen it to various extents but I don't think its been actually focused on quite as much as in this movie. I wish it were spelled out a little better even, but regardless.
    Last edited by Kiyosuki; 07-30-2007 at 06:33 PM.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

User Tag List

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •