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

Voters
1033. You may not vote on this poll
  • 5 STARS - WOO-HOO! Completely worth the 18 year wait!

    331 32.04%
  • 4.5 STARS - Fantastic

    203 19.65%
  • 4 STARS - Excellent

    173 16.75%
  • 3.5 STARS - Really good

    95 9.20%
  • 3 STARS - It was pretty good, but could have been better

    122 11.81%
  • 2.5 STARS - Hmmm... good, I guess

    35 3.39%
  • 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 1.16%
  • 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 12 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 906



Thread: Rate & Review: THE SIMPSONS MOVIE



(Users Browsing this Thread: )

  1. #331
    Up an atom. Ramier Wolfcastle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Boxborough, MA
    Posts
    1,294


    I'll say 4.5/5 because...

    It didn't feel perfect, but full of jokes! Spider Pig and Otto smoking from his bong were awesome! This movie definitely makes up for the handful of crappy episodes from seasons 17-18.

  2. #332
    has a smack of ham to him. kid_presentable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Utah
    Posts
    932


    Bucket is a better word than handfull.


    Choke on your lies!!!

  3. #333
    Junior Camper
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    94


    Better then expected, not a disaster but a tad disappointing, I'll give it 5/10.
    I might do a full review tomorow if anyone wants.

  4. #334


    ^A "Tad disappointing" and you gave it a 5/10?

    Anyway,I thought this movie was pretty great.It's pretty much the only movie that I've laughed at consistently almost all the way through(Bar like,one or two crappy jokes).It reminded me of why I love the show so much,something I may have been forgetting due to the newer episodes.I'd probably give it a 9.2.
    Easily the funniest film of the year(although that's not really difficult as the only other film that comes to mind is Hot fuzz).

  5. #335
    Vs. The World Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    4,289


    Quote Originally Posted by Tomacco
    - The song played during Homer's daydream is "So Happy Together" by The Turtles, as also heard in "Special Edna".
    ...plus "Trilogy of Error"

  6. #336
    Junior Camper 90'sCartoonMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    82


    Quote Originally Posted by schwnj
    I have a sneaking suspicion that, several months from now our opinions of the movie will change, such that those of you who rated it a 5/5 will come down a bit, and those who rated it a 1/5 will realize it wasn't that bad. I'd be interested to see what would happen if NHC had a new R&R poll once the DVD had come and gone and the movie had slipped into the background (a year or so).
    I'd like to see a new R&R when the DVD comes out. How will we react when we watch the movie on a television in our own homes? You're probably right about those opinions changing a little bit.

  7. #337
    *RIP Marcia Wallace* TriforceBun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,183


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha
    ...plus "Trilogy of Error"
    Also The Way We Weren't, during Homer and Marge's first kiss.
    My Nintendo webcomic,

  8. #338
    coming on strong Wall E. Weasel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    2,781


    omfg i cannot express how angry you morons are making me. it was NOT good, that is a fact. i can understand all these noobs saying they enjoyed it but the fact that SO MANY people who really should know better are acting like it even compares with the best episodes is really pissing me off.

    and don't give me any of that "everyone's entitled to their own opinion" shit either. having the opinion that the simpsons movie is good is tantamount to having the opinion that hitler was a standup guy or that two plus two equals five. the simpsons movie was awful and shits all over the already faded legacy of what was once the greatest tv show in the world and that should be the end of it.

    hahahahahaha oh no wait i forgot homer gets a hammer stuck in his eye and later motorcycles up the side of a big dome carrying a bomb hahahahahaahahahaha shit what was i thinking it was fucking gold.

  9. #339
    Literally mind-blowing Dental Plan!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    1,987
    Blog Entries
    1


    Please, don't call us morons for having an opinion which differs to yours. There were plenty of classic era comparable jokes here, and if you found nothing about the movie that you actually enjoyed then I doubt you ever were a Simpsons fan, classic era or otherwise.

  10. #340
    coming on strong Wall E. Weasel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    2,781


    hush your mouth of course i'm a fan of the simpsons. i'm just not a fan of the "big dumb yellow man does big dumb things show" and its spinoff "big dumb yellow man does big dumb things the movie"

  11. #341
    Junior Camper
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    94


    The movie wasn't the best but some of the jokes in the first 30mins or so where comparable to the classic era of the simpsons, it actually reminded me of why I used to watch it, but I think their storylines have gone to hell, and the show takes after that.
    Still some of the jokes were good, not instantly memorable but they maybe after I give it a second watch.

  12. #342
    Stonecutter
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,530


    I watched this for the third and final time today. (Until it comes out on DVD). And still rank this 4.5/5 (A-)

    But in respsone to those who felt characterizations were an issue, I'd still disagree and say characterizations were near perfect.

    Whilst I can understand where the complaints are coming from, I still disagree. Yes Bart was a tad soft, but I like to think of it as it hitting a really sensetive side of Bart. In "Burns Heir" as I think the member Mike Scully pointed out he was far less willing to let Burns be his father figure. But, remember Bart saw Burns as evil. And Ned is the complete opposite. I think it's natural for Bart's ajustment to Ned to be quicker. And afterall Bart only liked Burns becuase of the money and gifts he could offer him. So whilst it probably could of been done maybe a tad better, I think it still works.

    As for Homer being poorly characterized, again I disagree. Yes he was being selfish. And some may say too selfish. But I think the line where Homer says he can't go back as they tortured him sums it up quite well. He fails to see the bigger picture, and afterall wouldn't he be scared of them killing him again? I guess it would of been nicer to see Homer work it out himself where he went wrong. I think on this occasion though the picture was just too big for Homer to work out. And deep down he knew the correct decision.

    And on the lighter side of the news () did anyone else find the scene with Bart using his sling shot to ping the motorbike back on track, very neat?

  13. #343
    I'm not your friend-o Cartoonnetwork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,787
    Blog Entries
    1


    Like a lot of people said the problem was the movie has no identity. I know I am looking a little undecided by agreeing with the possitive and negative reviews here, but I actually think it was a very weird mixture.

    I really enjoyed it but at the same time I kinda felt bad inside. Like I was really happy to see how well Lisa was portrayed in her first scenes and really interested in her new love interest then all what happened was that...she continued with the guy at the end.

    Like I was having fun with the silly pig thing and liked the character, then he is never seen again. The whole "Homer gets a new pet" thing is rarely the best kind of plot we have ever seen in the series but still, it can be good fun with a proper development. If it's only an excuse to keep the plot moving, well at least explain something, show Homer giving the pig back to Krusty or show the pig dying, or don't cut the goddamn scene with the character at the end. Or just invent some kind of accident that Homer provokes in SNPP and don't start the whole pig thing at all.

    If there is a dramatic marriage crisis, something we have seen a million times before, at least show why Marge loves Homer again, not only cause he does just the action heroe stuff or because he's "good", but more concrete and personal thing.

    If you start the movie with an enviromental problem and puns to religion why don't you include those aspects anymore.

    Bart/Flanders/Homer and the dome plots were more focussed and they had some sort of pay off at the end. Nothing original but at least they feel like complete stories. And yeah, Homer's self redemption is partially well done. There are gags and plot ideas that remind you of classic era, esentially the first 30 minutes and things like Homer trying to help but failing or his crazy plans involving the Sop sign or the General Marriot Suits thing, and most of the jokes with secondary or anonymous characters.

    But the general feeling is that they just wanted to do a funny movie but not a risky one at all. It doesn't add anything very new at all in the type of stories animated movies have. And if The Simpsons doesn't do it, I don't know who is going to do that.

    So my opinion is sort of mixed cause I don't really think it was bad as such, but like other people said, they play safe. They included some screw the audience jokes and other original bits, but they were mostly harmless. The actual satire was either too loud or it was in small jokes like the Alaska money thing, but there was not a bitter message in any of the subplots.

    I said it before but I really wanted Lisa's story to end with a tragedy, not killing the boy or anything, but maybe he could have disappointed Lisa. A sad love story is more original than a happy one, especially when you don't develop the boy character at all. And it's not like I'm not happy for Lisa or anything, but man, at least that would have been original. Someone could say then it won't be original in the context of the show, cause none of Lisa's previous romances have previously succeed, but that makes it even worse, cause if this is the definitive Lisa's boyfriend they should have developed him a little more, and I'm extremely unsure about what they are planning to do with him in the future, all things considered.

    On the other side I would have kept the pig or at least explain what happened to him.

    Yeah, I guess things didn't end too well for Mr Burns or dr. Nick, but general audience couldn't care less about them.

    There are episodes like Simpsons Tide on the top of my head that I already compared to the movie that yeah, they more or less include some sort of movie-like story with a relatively happy end, but they are a relatively more sincere or at least focussed diversion.

    In general I think the movie was like one of the more middle-of-the-road season 9 episodes with more exaggeration in certain details (the whole government satire with the Pressident or the big screen in the dome that sort of reminded me of Scully's conspiracy obsessions).

    Of all the bad current OFF tendencies one I thought it wouldn't be in the movie was the "including too many things" trend. Cause I was assuming structure would have been one of the things they would have worked more to get right. I couldn't expect they just wanted to have jokes, action scenes and some manipulative emotion. None of those things were badly done and they were better done than in most other blockbusters, but this is The Simpsons and I find even weird to use the world blockbuster when talking about it.
    Last edited by Cartoonnetwork; 08-02-2007 at 08:03 AM.
    My Simpsons homage!


    http://elblogderg.blogspot.com

  14. #344


    Quote Originally Posted by Wall E. Weasel
    omfg i cannot express how angry you morons are making me. it was NOT good, that is a fact. i can understand all these noobs saying they enjoyed it but the fact that SO MANY people who really should know better are acting like it even compares with the best episodes is really pissing me off.

    and don't give me any of that "everyone's entitled to their own opinion" shit either. having the opinion that the simpsons movie is good is tantamount to having the opinion that hitler was a standup guy or that two plus two equals five. the simpsons movie was awful and shits all over the already faded legacy of what was once the greatest tv show in the world and that should be the end of it.

    hahahahahaha oh no wait i forgot homer gets a hammer stuck in his eye and later motorcycles up the side of a big dome carrying a bomb hahahahahaahahahaha shit what was i thinking it was fucking gold.
    Okay, so I don't understand something. Why does Eddie nearly get warned for an off hand remark calling the people who liked this movie stupid, but Wall E. Weasel doesn't get a single bit of punishment for comparing our opinions to that of liking Hitler?

    And Wally, shut the fuck up. I don't give a fuck that you and DNS gave the moviea 0/5. You're entitled to your opinion, and so are we, jackass. Go get a job or a fucking hobby if the most you can find to do with your time is complain about how people aren't agreeing with you. It makes you seem like a 12 year old.
    Quote Originally Posted by simpsonsfan20 View Post
    My view: You can show pictures of people in the nude, you can show pictures of people having sex, you can even show kids naked, but SHOW HOMER 'DOING IT' WITH LISA AND I'LL HUNT YOU DOWN.

  15. #345
    Mod, eh? Tomacco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,882


    Quote Originally Posted by Wall E. Weasel
    omfg i cannot express how angry you morons are making me. it was NOT good, that is a fact. i can understand all these noobs saying they enjoyed it but the fact that SO MANY people who really should know better are acting like it even compares with the best episodes is really pissing me off.

    and don't give me any of that "everyone's entitled to their own opinion" shit either. having the opinion that the simpsons movie is good is tantamount to having the opinion that hitler was a standup guy or that two plus two equals five. the simpsons movie was awful and shits all over the already faded legacy of what was once the greatest tv show in the world and that should be the end of it.

    hahahahahaha oh no wait i forgot homer gets a hammer stuck in his eye and later motorcycles up the side of a big dome carrying a bomb hahahahahaahahahaha shit what was i thinking it was fucking gold.
    Buddy, quiet down. Don't attack other people's opinions. It's in the first post. If you can't handle it, then you're leaving. You've been warned.
    Signature.

  16. #346
    could give a flying fuck skittlebrau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    13,820


    Yeah, seriously, dude. Shut up already. Or you can get a thread banning. All up to you, Weasel.
    yep.

  17. #347
    in the back of a pick-up Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    26,901
    Blog Entries
    5


    Hmm...I thought he was making fun of DNS at first...
    twitter

    Quote Originally Posted by IdiotDetector View Post
    Two and a Half Men is no more an "adult show" than "Rocket Power."

  18. #348


    I think this movie was the best but what happened to the pig???
    My theory is when maggie said sequel in the credits she was trying to say there would be a second movie with the pig returning causing more havvock.

  19. #349
    Mod, eh? Tomacco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,882


    Quote Originally Posted by Bartoman22
    I think this movie was the best but what happened to the pig???
    My theory is when maggie said sequel in the credits she was trying to say there would be a second movie with the pig returning causing more havvock.
    Look for the pig at the beginning of the season 19 premiere.

  20. #350


    Quote Originally Posted by Tomacco
    Look for the pig at the beginning of the season 19 premiere.

    That aint a bad idea.

  21. #351


    Quote Originally Posted by Bartoman22
    I think this movie was the best but what happened to the pig???
    My theory is when maggie said sequel in the credits she was trying to say there would be a second movie with the pig returning causing more havvock.
    I don't think it's possible to express that idea by saying "Sequel".

  22. #352
    has a smack of ham to him. kid_presentable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Utah
    Posts
    932


    Quote Originally Posted by Xythantilops
    I don't think it's possible to express that idea by saying "Sequel".
    Well see, "sequel" is almost an anagram of "squeal" (you only have to drop one 'e' and replace it with an 'a') and "squeal" is one of the noises pigs make (the other well know one being oink). So I think it's fairly obvious that Maggie indicated that the pig will return in the second movie using a brilliantly constructed double meaning. </sarc>

  23. #353
    Pin Pal
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    "You'll never guess where I've been!"
    Posts
    457


    ^ Oh my...you're right! You've broken the code!

  24. #354


    man i dont know how people can work out these things .

  25. #355
    big bad Bartolo sung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    10,099
    Blog Entries
    1


    Let me give you my score first and then the reasons why. My score is 4.5/5, and it would've been 5/5 if I was little more biased.

    First of all, the biggest strength of the movie was humor. Everyone was basically spending time laughing at jokes for first 30 minutes of the movie. There were more jokes than spiderpig/plopper pig jokes. I just basically loved most jokes in the movie except for penis exposure and the 'boob lady' joke. I guess Scully wrote the naked skateboard part. Those jokes totally killed some other jokes in the normal episodes. Some jokes were totally uncalled for (the fake family joke in some convenience store, gay polices, etc), but funny.
    The plot was better than I thought. But the idea of locking Springfield inside with a big-ass glass was just unreal and blowing up the whole Springfield was just whackier. But the execution of this wackiness was just great. Everything fell in place (such as Homer re-viving his motorcycle skill to save Springfield)... it was, well, I just don't know how to describe it in English language. I'm just glad that the Simpsons Movie didn't get screwed as Scooby Doo/Garfield/and other movies based on one animation that got bad. There were some great emotional moments (for those who are fans of 'Lisa's' Substitute) as well as the pure PG-13 moments such as Homer giving a double finger to mob whiling sinking down the sinkhole.
    The animation was just great and it looks awesome if you seat on the right place in the room. I came in kinda early and enjoyed a magnificent view. Although I had to hold my metabolistic reaction for about 30 minutes until the movie's end, but it was well worth it.

    Again, my grade is 4.5/5, and would be A- on letter grade.
    calmer than you are

  26. #356
    One man, no ducks
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    72


    Tomacco and Kiyosuki wrote the most eloquently, and at the greatest length, about what Kiyo called the “aesthetic reality” of “The Simpsons,” a loose definition of realism that Tomacco argued exists only in service to the relatable family dynamics that function as the show’s core reality and heart.

    That’s a fallacious argument, though. Obviously the Simpson family is the heart of the show, but that hardly means it doesn’t need a brain. As Jim Brooks once passionately contended, the core reality of the family fails to register if the world around them is just a cartoon. And for all the nuances they developed over the years, the family’s dynamics were not what made this show or its once-biting cultural criticism unique -- what distinguished “The Simpsons” from standard nuclear-family sitcom fare was honesty with and respect for its audience. This movie had neither.

    As far as the rubber-band reality of “The Simpsons” stretched in classic episodes like “Bart’s Comet” or “Marge vs. the Monorail,” it stretched in service to an otherwise well-constructed story that either cleverly upended its source material or, in the case of “Bart’s Comet,” preemptively satirized an action-movie subgenre. In stark contrast to the movie, stories like these require you to suspend disbelief regarding particular details, which are themselves often satirical reversals of convention that strengthen the episode’s overall narrative.

    For example, the far more astute commentary on environmental regulation and governmental corruption seen in “Monorail” (in only a few minutes!) earns the “Music Man” parody, which is sharp enough -- reflecting the most harshly on the members of the town whose criticisms melt beneath Lanley’s huckstering -- to override the question of why the town would approve his plan so impulsively and abdicate oversight of the construction. That comic exaggeration leads us to the fantastic disaster-movie parody, which in turn earns its ridiculous anchor as a satire of the genre, and finally ends on a note of brilliant social and political criticism, with the pullback to reveal that the town has learned nothing.

    And even with one-quarter of the movie’s running time, “Monorail” spent more time justifying its absurdity. Throwaway lines designed to explain some of the plot holes in “Monorail” (“Solar power! When will people learn?”) have more irony and intelligence in them, and do more for the show’s historically unabashed environmentalism, than anything in the movie. The film played its action-movie clichés straight, and in embracing those clichés, it is no better than them.

    “Bart’s Comet,” as Tomacco argued, builds to a similar scenario as that of the movie -- doom headed for a trapped Springfield -- but it explores themes that have much more to them than the movie’s bare-bones Campbellian monomyth. The problem of American anti-intellectualism is explored in greater depth than can be achieved with murdered rock stars or slamming doors; the military-industrial complex takes harder shots than it does from President Schwarzenegger; the ways in which a town tugs itself apart, then pulls itself back together in the face of certain death are a poignant and often hilarious focus cut with just the right amount of treacle and no threats of infanticide. Bombastic as Frink's rocket may be, the public complacency that precedes the ultimate failure of science and local government is a brutally honest touch, and the rocket's course leaves us to believe that while some Springfield residents no doubt escaped via boat, Action-News helicopter or, hell, just swimming for it, most of the town didn’t have many outs with six hours to go. In the end, the episode inverts convention to leave us laughing with a sense of foreboding, a neat trick the movie never pulls off in church.

    As I suggested in my initial review, “Bart’s Comet” also better handles the logical questions by lampooning the ineffectiveness of government in a way that is far more honest and much funnier. It asserts quite believably that the breakdown of democracy and the resulting loss of American lives would be a function of corrupt bureaucrats -- a message even more resonant today, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, than it was then -- rather than the cartoonish depiction of homicidal megalomaniacs we see in the movie. Russ Cargill is a reductive, one-dimensional stereotype, a lazy crutch, and the movie cuts the legs out from under its own satire by not taking him seriously or treating him honestly.

    This is the fundamental problem with the movie as a whole, not just its ridiculous antagonist. It does not inject moments of absurdity into an otherwise logical, or at least cleverly ironic, sequence of events -- it consistently coasts on slapstick and absurdly rushes from plot hole to plot hole without ever earning the privilege. I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for Kiyo’s argument that the movie’s story wasn’t a disappointment just because it didn’t throw jockey elves at us: The show used to understand that the only bridge out of town or the escalator to nowhere was the kind of insanity that had to be bought with sweat, toil, and honesty; by the movie’s standards, even jumping Springfield Gorge, a feat at which the show itself balked, was downright tame.

    Most comedy derives from a scenario that reflects reality with one major conceptual exaggeration, hence the “comedy comes in threes” formula, but this movie never gave us the straight setup. We just got a mishmash of recycled stories that, without nearly as much to say as their shorter, funnier predecessors, or the patience to earn the moments of absurdity that accentuate rather than define the older shows, failed to top or even rival them. It is the most concrete example to date of how “The Simpsons” has become a parody of itself -- without much other satire involved.

    Certainly, the Simpson family is the bedrock of the show and its cinematic adaptation. The family’s perspective has always anchored the show’s editorial viewpoint, and its internal strife provides the most poignant moments the show has to offer. But leaving aside the fact that we’ve seen all the movie’s emotional conflicts many times before, there is no way to forget that we are watching a cartoon in these tender moments, as Jim Brooks wished, when the cartoonishness of the family’s world is otherwise constantly being hammered into our eyes.
    Last edited by JM1878; 08-04-2007 at 10:54 AM.

  27. #357
    First time stander-upper
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2


    3 stars.

    My favorite joke was when the people looked up and saw the dome being put up, the people that came out of Moe's ran into the church for refuge and solice, and the people that came out of the church ran into Moe's for refuge and solice.

  28. #358
    The GnarKill Newbie
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Near one of many Springfields
    Posts
    60


    4.5/5
    I think worth the 18 year wait, but it wasn't as good as I thought it would be. Don't get me wrong it was a great movie, but there was something missing and I can't think of it. I just hated how most of my friends who don't watch the Simpsons or aren't really fans went to see it for no reason. Yeah it was good and anyone can and should go see it. But, my friends went from saying yeah the Simpsons are alright but Family Guy is better and stuff to them being like die hard Simpsons fans saying they've liked it forever. I hate how they fake that!

  29. #359
    Profound Sadness Kiyosuki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    10,781


    That’s a fallacious argument, though. Obviously the Simpson family is the heart of the show, but that hardly means it doesn’t need a brain. As Jim Brooks once passionately contended, the core reality of the family fails to register if the world around them is just a cartoon. And for all the nuances they developed over the years, the family’s dynamics were not what made this show or its once-biting cultural criticism unique -- what distinguished “The Simpsons” from standard nuclear-family sitcom fare was honesty with and respect for its audience. This movie had neither.

    As far as the rubber-band reality of “The Simpsons” stretched in classic episodes like “Bart’s Comet” or “Marge vs. the Monorail,” it stretched in service to an otherwise well-constructed story that either cleverly upended its source material or, in the case of “Bart’s Comet,” preemptively satirized an action-movie subgenre. In stark contrast to the movie, stories like these require you to suspend disbelief regarding particular details, which are themselves often satirical reversals of convention that strengthen the episode’s overall narrative.
    Alright before everything, as I've said many times I know this film won't please everyone and I understand why, so I respect your opinion. But here's the thing JM, the majority of this argument basically pits the movie against certain episodes and in a way critisizes it for not going things the way they did it which is really not that fair to the film. You see even those episodes that you say justify their ridiculousness if you think about it do it in a very similar way. On the spot for simple plot convenience. I'm not saying this film isn't kind of ridiculous in spots, which it is, but with comments like this...

    Bombastic as Frink's rocket may be, the public complacency that precedes the ultimate failure of science and local government is a brutally honest touch, and the rocket's course leaves us to believe that while some Springfield residents no doubt escaped via boat, Action-News helicopter or, hell, just swimming for it, most of the town didn’t have many outs with six hours to go.
    This isn't like, hard evidence its just an assumption. Its a good one, and thats what makes the show interesting because I love thinking about this stuff. But by the same token I can easilly say (and I have) that the reason the Springfield people don't dig under the dome is because maybe they tried to, or they tried to go underground but they couldn't.

    Maybe they were thwarted by EPA, or since they had the cameras there they were watched. I mean why not? They're dumb but they're not -that- dumb. They've got Frink there, a former Green Beret Skinner, the cops are usually just lazy or ignorant but never that stupid. Yes none of that is in the movie, but there's nothing that can say otherwise for me thinking all this. Maybe they were just too stupid, maybe they did try to get out. Who knows, there's plenty of room to imagine what happens. The point is though, is that its in a very similar vein. I remember in Bart's Comet all that pretty much happens is the supposedly only bridge in town goes out. You're left to assume the rest through the chaos but thats really the only thing that happens its simple plot convenience. There are things that can be worth comparing things to older episodes with, but In this case I don't think its too fair. You pretty much have to do exactly what you said here.

    In stark contrast to the movie, stories like these require you to suspend disbelief regarding particular details, which are themselves often satirical reversals of convention that strengthen the episode’s overall narrative.
    Also when you talk about the breaking down of society and all that stuff, I think something similar is in this movie to an extent. I've actually thought about it quite a bit. Okay I'm going off on a tangent here for a sec. When you look past the little details and assumptions in the plot I think there's something almost pitifully endearing about how the town looks in the end. Its a lot of smaller things, like how the Mayor is actually with his wife in the background, how distrought many of the people look, how Wiggum and the other cops are the only people that don't look like hell in the end which was kind of an interesting touch to think about, how scared some look maybe comforting eachother and stuff. For a few brief moment some even seemed to be kinda more helpful than usual like Carl. Its more assuming and imagination again, taking the smallest details and running away with it I admit, but the way I like to think of that is you know how looming doom and the breakdown of everything familiar can sometimes bring the best (and worst in Moe's case) out of people? (kind of similar to the end of Bart's Comet really.) Thats how I saw that, that too can be an almost endearingly real thing about us people. Especially one thats basically closed in together. It was almost like in a subtle subtle way, it seemed like many of the characters' broke their own stereotypes. In the way the Simpsons themselves did that too a bit.

    Its one thing I wish the film looked at more, with even one or two more scenes a few minutes long each. That Krusty scene that was cut could have been perfect for that. I think it could have given it more weight without sacrificing any of the humor really. But still no matter what this is all my personal wishful thinking, I'm not going to hold this stuff-that- much against the film.

    One thing I do agree with you though is Russ. I think more than anything the character needed at least one more scene to not necessarilly be believable but at least be a little more than a simple evil catalyst. Now that is a bonafide weakness of the film I admit. Even if his reason were completely ridiculous it'd be better than nothing. I also do wish the whole thing with the government weren't handled quite so lightly, although you could say that since the President didn't know he was blowing up the town and was largely just ignorant of what was going on there that its maybe a really really exaggerated way of portraying just government ignorance in general, it is still kind of on the light side.

    But really, the series has lampooned government a lot so I get the impression that wasn't really its main point. The Environment, the Government, all those big issues I still think all fall under the big theme of just taking responsibility for your own actions. We have gotten that in the series, but its usually behind a much larger main satire, but I think in this case that was the satire. Everyone has to take responsibility for their own obnoxiousness in this film. The town tries to but ultimately they're just too little too late and are done in by one guy. Even if this all happened because of Homer they still had a large part to do with why it all happened. The town paid for their slow reaction. Bart kinda pays for his recklessness and genuinly regrets it. Marge in a way has to pay for the fact she's been so blindly supportive of Homer in this, as he proves to her in the cabin when she does the exact same thing he does to win her over earlier. Russ in all his 1-dimensional glory doesn't take responsibility for his actions and becomes a creep. Even the President looks for a moment like he regrets not taking responsibility for his own actions, even though Russ has him by the balls by that point. Finally of course, Homer who's biggest weakness is taking responsibility for himself has to learn the hard way because so much of the film is his fault. That to me was that the film was trying to say, its funny in cartoons but don't be too callous, even in this cartoon it came back around.

    I won't deny that its not the heaviest film, but really ultimately this isn't an episode of the series. Its the movie. It has to have a broader theme and feel behind it as opposed to more of a specific topic.Taking the good with the bad I still say this film did have a lot of the right stuff that made some of the classics great. It had room for implying and assumption, had some real heart in it, and humor wise everything did kind of come together. I do wish as said some things were expanded on to make it have more of a punch as well as tie the plot together better, and humor wise some really groan worthy stuff made it through. But while its not a perfect film I think considering this series' past is its greatest enemy it faired pretty well.

  30. #360
    One man, no ducks
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    72


    For the record, the two episodes I chose to analyze were the ones to which Tomacco compared plot elements of the movie in defense of its absurdity. With that in mind, my analysis of the strengths of “Marge vs. the Monorail” and “Bart’s Comet” shouldn’t have been taken as my checklist of sorts for the movie; they’re just examples of ways in which these writers have been able to surprise an audience with better jokes and smarter commentary in episodes that are, in terms of story beats, extremely, extremely similar to what the movie showed us. I’ll spare you a similar analysis of a marriage crisis show, a “Lisa’s crush” show or “Brother From Another Planet”.

    Of course, in a story four times the length of a “Simpsons” episode, there are going to be weak spots no matter how strong the satire. But as I suggested in my initial review, the movie’s barrel of recycled jokes, its simply numbing abundance of slapstick and its astonishingly lazy plotting are far greater evidence of contempt for the audience than Homer calling us suckers ever could be. In comparing the leaps of faith between that of “Bart’s Comet” and the movie, I think there’s a big difference between wondering, “Hey, couldn’t the Sea Captain have sailed away?” and having to create, as you seemed to, an entire second film to fill in the moments or answer the questions the movie ignored.

    That the movie’s broader theme is one of responsibility remains inarguable from the “Itchy & Scratchy” cartoon onward, and it’s a theme that lies at the heart of most of the show’s best episodes, up through (I would argue) “Homer’s Enemy”. And both you and Tomacco are correct, I’d say, that the movie represents an effort to return to an ethos that’s been often shockingly absent from the show in recent years. That said, if the movie should be made to stand on its own, as you suggested, I don’t understand why it sabotaged virtually every other noteworthy attempt at cultural criticism it made.

    I understand that the stakes are different in a format that isn’t episodic, and I’m not suggesting that the movie should have had the laser-fine satirical focus of episodes like “Homer Badman,” “Lisa the Beauty Queen” or “Homerpalooza”. The broader theme of responsibility, however, is hardly mutually exclusive from the shots at government or the environment that consistently misfired. As I wrote in my review, the show hasn’t really attempted an earnest or intelligent attack on government in a decade, and to me that is, as you also noted, the greatest missed opportunity among a slew of them.

    If “The Simpsons” has a thesis, I would argue, it’s that familial love is the only bond truly worthy of trust or defense in a world full of self-styled authority figures. In arguing that case on the big screen, I agree that there are powerful, perhaps necessary advantages to be had in keeping it as broad as possible. But government and the environment, ostensibly the twin engines of this plot, are about as broad as you could ask for. Setting the former up as a straw man, and the latter as a dismissable plot device, does little to advance the underlying ideal, or much of anything, for that matter.
    Last edited by JM1878; 08-04-2007 at 05:26 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
  •