A Look Back at The Simpsons Movie

The Simpsons Movie is a very difficult film to review. That’s a strange thing to say regarding a 90-minute movie about the most famous family on television. But since watching it in 2007, I have always been asking myself, “Do I like this movie?” It’s not as good as the first eight or nine seasons of the television show, but there’s still plenty of jokes and things to like. What are we comparing it with, the show that was so perfect in the 1990s or other comedy films? Do people still watch it as a standalone film or just go back and watch the myriad of classic episodes instead?

Originally, there was a long wait for The Simpsons Movie. Matt Groening, the show’s creator, thought that a movie would be made upon the finish of the show. This seemed unlikely when the success of the show kept the show running and, at the time of writing, there are over 750 episodes of the show and counting.

Another option was to make a movie around the time of season three and four with the idea of expanding the episode ‘Kamp Krusty’ into a feature-length production. Issues arose when the development team struggled to expand the concept long enough to merit a movie.

There were ideas to do a Fantasia-style film, one based on the Treehouse of Horror episodes, and one where Troy McClure was front and centre. Unfortunately, the last one was impossible because of the sad death of voice actor Phil Hartman in 1998.

The show continued and the idea for a movie was put on the back burner. Ideas of what the movie could be about were swallowed up by episodes. The writing team wanted to make something that was unique and different from the television series.

The Simpsons Movie was eventually released in July 2007 after the airing of the show’s 18th season. 400 episodes of The Simpsons were already in existence and, when you look at viewer ratings, interest in the show was dwindling. However, the ratings were still respectable enough to keep Fox running the show.

The film did reasonably well at the box-office making £536 million. It didn’t get close to the big blockbusters in 2007: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and Spider-Man 3. One wonders how a movie released in the film’s golden days would have done and if a lack of repeat viewings from audiences, who have 400 episodes of the show to watch at home, was anything to do with it. In fact, the opening scene has Homer Simpson chiding the audience for their stupidity of coming to pay for a movie when they could enjoy the show for free at home.

In an attempt to make the best movie they could, the team assembled for the production was some of the strongest writers and producers that could be mustered from previous and current seasons of the show. Experienced Simpsons director David Silverman was also in charge of directing. Like any American comedy production there were 10 main writers on the film and things were constantly changing in the rewrites.

The plot is easier to describe in short sentences because there needs to be something for all of the characters to do. This many characters to move around in a film can be a blessing and a curse. Homer and Bart fall out, Springfield needs to clean itself up and protect the environment, Grandpa has a vision of the future in church, Lisa meets a boy named Colin, Springfield has a dome put over it because Homer dumps a silo of pig faeces into the lake, and more. It all slows down after this in the second act as the Simpsons move to Alaska to start a new life.

To be fair, the writing works for the most parts. The jokes come thick and fast, especially in the first act, and there are certainly more jokes per scene than most comedies. They had the scope to be more adult with the humour and do things that were restricted by the medium of television before.

People absolutely loved the idea of Spider-Pig at the time, the sight gags are as good as you’ll get anywhere else, and the characters are mostly doing what they do best.

Some of the biggest criticisms are what is not in the movie. When you learn that Kelsey Grammar recorded dialogue for Sideshow Bob which was cut makes you wonder what could have been. At one point the character of Russ Cargill was going to be taken by Hank Scorpio from the episode ‘You Only Move Twice’ which would have made sense and given audiences a character that is familiar from one of the best episodes of the show. Both are voiced by Al Brooks so it would have just been a change in animation.

In their defence, everyone would have an idea of what they want from a movie, especially if it derives from the most famous animation of all time. People wanted Mr Burns as the villain or Rainer Wolfcastle as the president. These make sense but you can’t just bow the what the audience wants, there has a be a clear artistic vision from the creators.

If you were to look at it merely as an movie independent of the series, you could say that the second act drops off after the all-go fun of the first. Also, some of the character motivations are not in keeping with what we know. The storyline where Bart wonders what it would be like to have Flanders as a father doesn’t quite work.

There is an interesting and unique balance that The Simpsons Movie has to navigate which not really any other film does. Not much background into the characters is required because you assume your audience to familiar with the show to an extent. However, it makes character development more difficult because you still need Springfield to be back to the status quo by the start of season 19. This, unfortunately, can make everything a bit predictable.

The characterization of Homer has also been a topic of conversation for a number of years now. When the show first started, he was drunk, fat and stupid but he was well-meaning and wanted the best for his family. As the seasons progressed, he started being ruder, brasher, and more selfish and earned himself the title ‘Jerkass Homer.’ He is pretty unlikable in this film and the writers apparently rewrote some of his scenes after a test audience screening because he was ‘too coarse.’ He doesn’t evoke much sympathy.

There also isn’t much for Marge and Lisa to do except to react to things men do. Marge leaving Homer and being his moral guide again. Lisa meeting Colin and falling head over heels with him. It’s a tall order to give all of your characters something to do, but we’ve seen a lot of this before.

And that’s an issue. When watch The Simpsons Movie there is a sense of would I rather be watching repeats of the older episodes that do this kind of thing so much better? Would I rather see Homer have hallucinations in the movie or when he eats too many chillies in the episode ‘El Viaje Misterioso de Nuestro Jomer?’

The main question with The Simpsons Movie is did it need to be made after this long? It made sense for a movie in the 1990s when it was at the top of its game. It would have complemented the show nicely and we might have seen something new and different. Unfortunately, although there are plenty of jokes here, we’ve seen most of them before done better in past episodes.

However, independent of the show, the movie is a good comedy with a huge amount of jokes and sight gags. It is well-written and the voice acting, for the most part, is excellent. It’s probably not as rewatchable as the shows but it certainly is watchable.

What the Critics Said

This movie has a fantastic score of 87% on Rotten Tomatoes. This was probably as a result of the jokes coming thick and fast and the experience of seeing the Simpsons on the big screen.

“While nothing in this motion picture quite matches the television series at its early best, this is more of a throwback than a throw-away. It's wittier and more energetic than anything that has appeared on FOX in quite a few years.” James Berardinelli – ReelViews

“It isn't the best movie ever, nor will it make fans forget the show's early-'90s golden years, but audiences will probably be too busy laughing to complain about any shortcomings.” Nathan Rabin -AV Club

“There's something about the Simpsons that's radical and simple at the same time, subversive and good-hearted, offensive without really meaning to be. It's a nice balancing act.” Roger Ebert – Chicago Sun-Times