July 26, 2007

The Simpsons Movie.

The Simpsoonnnns... You've heard the theme music for an astonishing run of eighteen years now. Years ago, you probably wondered if there would be a feature film, as did the show's pantheon of creative talent, before they, and you, gave up. It would never happen, and maybe it's just as well.

Well, the time is nigh, The Simpsons Movie has arrived. If the show's been uneven over the past several seasons - or, some would argue, past ten seasons (and I'd argue even the down years have presented us with their share of hilarious, near classic episodes), causing many to doubt, well, if this thing would be any good, the movie's out and the reviews are streaming in slowly. So far, there are less "D'oh!"s than there are "Woo hoo!"s.

simpsonsmovie1.jpg

We'll collect many of the reviews here (including, hopefully this weekend, my own) as more people give their own yellow thumbs up or down.

TimeOut London: "The Simpsons Movie does not feel at sea on the big screen and, crucially, it is very funny." TimeOut Chicago, only slightly less enthusiastic: "It's a feature-length Simpsons episode, and possibly not even the Best. Episode. Ever. Still, there’s nothing disposable about a very special Simpsons, especially one that keeps cracking jokes about how it isn’t actually TV."

Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum gives it a B+ (marking down a tic for action sequences that "sometimes falter"): "Turns out what they've done is make everything bigger, longer, and uncut, but let Homer be Homer, an average American screwup in a recognizable, screwed-up world of hypocrisy and lardy foodstuffs. The best thing about this long-awaited feature-length project, a classic Simpsonian interplay of family psychology, social commentary, and brainy visual and verbal jokes tossed off at rat-a-tat speed, is how relaxed it manages to be."

The Guardian (U.K.)'s Peter Bradshaw, not one to toss around rave reviews lightly: "So many movies promise what they could never deliver in a million years. The Simpsons Movie gives you everything you could possibly want, and maybe it's a victim of its own gargantuan accomplishment. Eighty-five minutes is not long enough to do justice to 17 years of comedy genius. It's still great stuff."

The AP's Jake Coyle wasn't as enthused: "Not to sound too much like the Comic Book Guy, but the Fox sitcom, which once brilliantly satirized TV's conventions, has gradually settled into its own ruts - which usually entail Homer acting silly for silliness' sake."

simpsonsposter1.jpg

More from Andy Klein of LA City Beat: "Film adaptations of TV action series can benefit from more expensive special effects and from the kind of widescreen immersion that can’t be achieved at home. Comedies can go raunchier. For cartoon material, more money can lavished on smoother animation. But The Simpsons isn't particularly action-oriented; it's too family-oriented to significantly up the ribaldry; and it would be catastrophic to monkey with the characters’ trademark visual simplicity.

"In fact, director David Silverman and his team, including 11 – count 'em, 11 – credited writers and four vaguely defined consultants, have done some of the above in minor ways. Mostly, however, they’ve constructed a longer, more complex story and exploited the compositional differences of a widescreen format. (For all but the first few minutes, the film is presented in an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, the widest ratio currently in common use.)"

The San Francisco Chronicle's David Wiegand: "Here's the shorthand verdict: No one will be bored with the feature film, but everyone who knows the show well will have a nagging feeling that something is missing."

LA Weekly's Scott Foundas calls the satire "a 90-minute, years-in-the-making comic wind-up machine that begins by mocking its own audience for paying good money to see what it can watch at home for free and proceeds from there through the most wickedly funny arsenal of assaults on big government, organized religion and corporate America this side of Borat (which, like The Simpsons Movie, somehow managed to use Rupert Murdoch’s money to do it)."

The Onion AV Club's Nathan Rabin, who likes it overall, adds: "The fingerprints of co-writer/producer James L. Brooks are all over the genuinely tender moments sprinkled amongst the silliness."

More reviews linked here as they come in.

Online viewing tip: From MTV's Movie Blog: Brooks and Matt Groening debate the merits of a live action Simpsons movie.

Another: David Cassel with the Simpsons greatest drug moments.

Online listening tip: Matt Groening on NPR's Fresh Air.



Bookmark and Share

Posted by cphillips at July 26, 2007 12:37 PM
Comments

THE SIMPSONS MOVIE is definitely not in 'Scope (2.35), contrary to what Andy Klein is reporting in City Beat. It's in standard 1.85 widesceen, which seems to be the rule for animated films.

Posted by: Gabe Klinger at July 26, 2007 2:52 PM

I was wondering about that too, Gabe.

[Update to this comment: After seeing the film myself, I agree with T, and others, the first few minutes are in the smaller ratio, then it widens. Mystery solved]


cp

Posted by: Craig P at July 26, 2007 2:54 PM

It's the same as on DT, but here you go!

I just got back from The Simpsons Movie. It was extremely funny. The first 10 minutes are as funny as anything as I've seen in a long time. After that, I laughed consistently, but it lacked the big belly laughs of the beginning. The plot was negligible, but it kept moving for the duration. Make sure you stay through the credits for some added jokes.

I've seen the "spiderpig" bit probably 40 times, and I still laugh every time.

Posted by: Hallux Valgus at July 26, 2007 2:58 PM

For what it's worth, IMDB list the AR as 2.35

Posted by: mister blue at July 26, 2007 3:13 PM

I don't know anything about the aspect ratio, but it would have been pretty tough (and completely arbitrary) to change it. Offhand, I think it was 1:85, so it might just be a goof. That said- I was sitting in the third row, so it was all I could do just to take in the whole screen. It really did look good. they used a lot of the Futurama-style animation (and the same 3D studio)

Posted by: Hallux Valgus at July 26, 2007 3:38 PM

These stills also suggest a 2.35 : 1 AR...

Posted by: mister blue at July 26, 2007 3:58 PM

after asking around, it was indeed a 2:35 aspect ratio.

Posted by: Hallux Valgus at July 26, 2007 4:46 PM

Thanks, Hallux!

whew...

I guess I'm having one of those "You-know-when-you're-a-film-geek-when..." moments for getting emotinally invested in an aspect ratio.

Gabe brings up a good point that 1.85 : 1 is the usual standard for animated films. That's what makes the "Scope" of Sleeping Beauty, The Iron Giant and The Incredibles so special.

Realising that the latter two films were directed by Brad Bird and considering his ties to The Simpsons, it seemed likely that The Simpsons Movie WOULD be Scope if only for the subconscious way it would register as more 'movie-like' in the audiences' mind than the TV show.

Posted by: mister blue at July 26, 2007 7:51 PM

No problem (oviously replacing the colon with a period in the above scope). Let me also add (per my, ahem, chastising) that I work for Fox, and the post production people work around the corner from me. I asked some of them, and they looked it up. So there you go- full disclosure. So go see The Simpsons Movie, because we need the money.

Posted by: Hallux Valgus at July 27, 2007 8:18 AM

Weird. The screening I saw in Chicago on Tuesday -- the press screening set up by Fox -- was in 1.85. Sorry to confuse everyone with this, but that's what I saw.

Posted by: Gabe Klinger at July 27, 2007 10:13 AM

A colleague who was at the same screening just confirmed that it started at 1.85 and then widened to 2.35. Since I saw four other movies that day, my memory is a bit foggy. Apologies, folks, for the confusion.

Posted by: Gabe Klinger at July 27, 2007 12:09 PM

I saw it last night, and I'm pretty sure it was 2:35. The first few moments of the film (I don't think this counts as a spoiler...) are an Itchy & Scratchy cartoon, and this is presented in a smaller aspect ration (maybe 1:85? Maybe less?) Once the movie enters the world of the Simpsons, so to speak, the aspect ratio expands.

Posted by: T Money at July 27, 2007 9:23 PM

Yep, I initially was wondering what was up with the theater where I was seeing it since in the past they've had some pretty crappy projection (I had to run back down to the service desk while seeing Pan's Labyrinth there since they couldn't aim the projector and had completely cut off the subtitles), but the film does open up from 1.85. Again, not to reveal too much, but this is done for dramatic reasons (the I&S cartoon is being watched by the Simpsons in a theater, when it goes back from the "screen" it opens up to 2.35).

Incidentally, Hallux, since you work for Fox shouldn't your comment have an ad banner at the bottom directing me to watch more wonderful Fox programming ("Are you smarter than an American Idol viewer ?" perhaps?), also where's the Fox bug and the loud, bottom-third of the screen animated ad for other Fox shows obscuring the Fox show that I'm actually watching right now (although in all honesty, FX is a lot worse about that than Fox with multiple loud ads in the middle of a show for the same show... sometimes during re-runs of that show itself!). I kid, I kid... well... you at least, but not the marketing and advertising departments.

Posted by: Belgand at July 30, 2007 11:55 PM