jerryhomer420.jpg jerryhomer420.jpg
Feature Film

If I weren’t in San Diego…

…I’d be seeing The Simpsons Movie today.

I’d love to hear what you thought of it.

  • Starsky

    I though it was surprisingly great. One particular thing fell completely flat, added nothing and could’ve been easily deleted (the boob lady), but otherwise it was the funniest, most incredibly clever thing the show’s delivered in ten years. Stay through the entire credits, people, it’s worth it.


    You could always watch it at the pacific theaters there in the gaslamp, or catch a cab 2 fashion valley mall they have a movie theater. Hope U get 2 see it. (the Con is so much fun this year)

  • I am so very relieved to say that it was hilarious and well worth the wait.

  • Corrado (Anthony)

    Well it lived up to the hype and then some. I was very impressed with the writing and of course animation. The voice work was great too with perhaps Julie Kavner’s best work during the wedding video scene. And Tress macNeille deserves a lot of credit as Colin and the Boob Lady. I also liked how the vast array of one-off and minor characters were the townspeople this episode rather than generic people which every episode has at least one scene with them instead of the obscure characters. I mean I don’t think Brad Goodman has appeared since “Bart’s Inner Child.”

    There were a few flaws though like 2 strangling scenes instead of 1 and the fact that Mr Burns/Smithers had very few scenes. I mean they could’ve had one with Russ Cargill. Still though, highly enjoyable.

  • top_cat_james

    I enjoyed it immensely. The characters and the animation look great on the big screen. One quibble- where were the musical numbers that the show is famous for?

  • K.Borcz

    And if I were in San Diego I’d be at the Comic Con.

    I’m reading what you’re writing about comic con, so I guess I’ll pay extra attention when I’m watching the Simpson’s movie tonight. And then write a note about what I thought of it.

  • that pic is creepy. its looks like homer is attempting to cram that giant cartoon chili dog into jerry’s mouth

  • Alex Dudley

    it’s everything I’d hoped it would be. And more!
    Please people, if you care about 2D animation, see this movie.

  • Jave

    Awesome movie. Loved every minute of it. Great gags, nice story, and every character got its moment in the spotlight.

    I’ll have a longer review soon, but for now, I highly reccomend this film, even if you’ve never in your life seen the show.

  • Nick

    Yeah I thought it was pretty good, definately way better than I was expecting it to be. Funnier than anything that the TV show has done in recent years, and I’m hoping for a sequel (which they hinted at, but I won’t tell you how!)

  • I saw it at the premier on Monday. It was basically an extended version of a good Simpsons episode with Futurama style 3D animation for dramatic camera moves.

  • Luke S.

    As someone who has grown up with the show, I couldn’t have been happier with how the movie turned out. Well, perhaps I would have given some of the second string characters more screen time (You can never get enough Chief Wiggum.) Here’s hoping the stand-out quality of the film re-invigorates the show! (Kind of a long-shot, but I can dream.)

  • RR

    These are summary reviews from IMDB:

    Film critics are of two minds about The Simpsons Movie. Sure, it’s funny, most of them agree, as funny as the best episodes of the TV Simpsons. But, they seem to ask, as if the voice of Peggy Lee were playing in their minds, “Is that all there is?” Roger Ebert puts it this way in the Chicago Sun-Times: “The most unexpected thing about The Simpsons Movie is that although it expands its view to include panoramic Alaskan vistas and a more panoptic view of Springfield than we’ve seen, it doesn’t push the boundaries of the TV show in a narrative sense. Unlike South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut, The Simpsons Movie doesn’t venture anything more transgressive than it usually does; it doesn’t take the gloves off.” Kyle Smith in the New York Post similarly suggests that the movie version “takes no chances,” then asks, “Why is it worth $11? Because a supersized Simpsons episode is funnier than 90 percent of movie comedies.” A.O. Scott concludes his review in the New York Times by remarking, “Ten or 15 years ago, The Simpsons Movie … might have felt riskier and wilder. But The Simpsons, for all its mischief and iconoclasm, has become an institution, and that status has kept this film from taking too many chances. Why mess with the formula when you can extend the brand? Do I sound disappointed? I’m not, really. Or only a little. The Simpsons Movie, in the end, is as good as an average episode of The Simpsons. In other words, I’d be willing to watch it only — excuse me while I crunch some numbers here — 20 or 30 more times.” Geoff Pevere in the Toronto Star actually applauds the movie’s producers for sticking with the tried and true. He writes: “The Simpsons Movie couldn’t give a doodle in a doughnut hole about expectations anyway. It may deliver what we’ve already got, but it leaves no doubt why we got it in the first place.” And Liam Lacey in the Toronto Globe and Mail concedes that he feels ambivalent about the movie. “It’s often clever and silly, but rarely inspired and there is nothing remotely necessary about it,” he comments. Yet, on the other hand, he says, “This isn’t supposed to be a typical contemporary family movie, in which the narrative serves as the centre of a cross-promotional campaign with TV, theme park, fast food and toy corporations. This is The Simpsons which, with its first big-screen effort, is underachieving and proud of it, man.”

  • Great, loud laughs thru and thru. everyone is at their best in what feels like one long, huge funny episode, which feels entirely appropriate. I think if they had strained to “push the boundaries” beyond the sporadic ‘you can’t do/say that on network TV’ bits, it wouldn’t have been THE SIMPSONS. The show always gets its best laughs from zeroing on on character and social satire, not from shock humor. Kids were singing the “Spiderpig’ song as i left the theater, (i’d love to see that pig character make a comeback!). As always i am amazed at how many jokes they can stuff into a scene, sequence, story without making it feel overworked (even throwaway text gags like ‘OATMEAL ENTHUSIAST’ ‘THE ZESTY FORK’ and ‘ESKI MOE’S BAR’ leap to mind.)

  • I thought it was pretty good. Not quite as good as I hoped, but still pretty darn good. It was nice quite a few of the secondary characters (Milhouse, Martin, Moe, Cletus, etc.) got their chances to shine, even Maggie. I disliked some of the dumb things Homer did (esp. early in the movie), that Patty, Selma and Sideshow Bob weren’t in it, there were no references to Futurama.

  • I quite enjoyed it! Good gags, fairly solid (if a bit silly) storyline, and it wasn’t inundated with “guest” voices, which I had feared. Even some nods to events from past episodes also. Animation was pretty good, a lot of it was CG rather than 2D, but it integrated fairly well and wasn’t distracting. It felt more like an old Simpsons episode also, whihc was refreshing.

  • Jpox

    Great film! It was indeed worth the wait!
    Of course Homer is the star of the film, and a lot of Springfield’s townpeople get their moment to shine.
    I too am wondering “where was the musical number?”.

  • Conrad Peril

    With TV-to-movie adaptations, there’s often a gigantic temptation to work everybody in, give everyone a nice juicy moment so that all of the fans of (insert character ‘x’) leave the theater with a happy, geeked-out feeling. The Simpsons Movie, with so many characters to work in, could have been a disaster if they took that impulse too far.

    Instead, we got a story that focused on the family, tossed in bits with the supporting cast, and remained extremely true to the show. Essentially, it was a long episode of the show with improved animation and production values, and that’s about all we could have asked for. (Oh, and a few very slightly ‘pushed’ bits tossed in–I get the feeling that Marge tossing off a juicy curse while yelling at Homer at the end was something she’s been waiting to do for a long time…)

  • Very mixed feeling about the movie. It was hilarious, more than I expected it to be. But plot-wise was worst than I was expecting. It didn’t drag, it didn’t had pacing problems as some critics seem to suggest. But it did have some huge plot holes, which is strange considering other aspects seem to be very well thought from the beggining. There is something I didn’t totally buy about the emotional part but it had some really touching moments.

    Animation was excellent and the first act was brilliant. Seriously I have never laughed so much at the movies since a long time. But then the plor started to feel a little disjointed. Not boring or anything. I just felt that it should be an extended version of it including some explanations here and there and perhaps some more scenes with some secondaries that should have featured more. I’m talking about Mr Burns and Smithers, mainly.

  • Esn

    A giant Homer has appeared carved in the English countryside next to a pagan fertility god.

  • John

    It was awesome, awesome….oh and did I say it was….AWESOME! I can’t wait to see it again

  • Alright I watched the film,I was pleasantly surprised despite many flaws. First the good:

    1. Hilarous Icthy and Sratchy segment which had funny animation.

    2. Hilarous Opening.

    3. Homer’s and Bart’s dares.

    4. Some great dialogue.

    5. Wonderful final act.

    6. All the cameos turned out good.

    7.Boob Lady.

    The bad:

    1. Largely lackluster animation.

    2. Bart turning to Ned for a father figure could have stirred up something intresting but it turned out to be a gimmick just to move the film along.

    3. Lisa’s relationship with that boy was another gimmick.

    4. After The Simspons escape Springfeild, the movie goes dips in quality. The Alaska scenes was largely laughless and the film dosen’t pick up until the finale.

    5. Albert R. Brooks’ character was neither funny or interesting.

    6. President Schwarzenegger really had no purpose in the film at all. The movie barely attempts to make fun of him. Yes they called him dumb but c’mon, how many times have we seen that sterotype of him ?

    7. Homer realizes all to quickly what he needs to do.

    8. For about the 100th time, Marge leaves Homer.

    Overall a good effort. I did expect worse. On a scale of 1 to 10, I give it a 6.5/10.

  • Oh one last thing, bring a barf bag because you will vomit after watching the HORTON HEARS A WHO trailer.

  • Chris Sobieniak

    After having read the imdb summary review posted earlier, I sorta agree with the thought of why we had to wait this long for a Simpsons movie at all. Still at the same time, it’s that sort of dive the Japanese can do much easier with their anime or manga properties when they go off and make a movie practically every year for the same series (like Urusei Yatsura in the 80’s). The American film industry doesn’t have that sort of attitude to believe it could make a movie based on a TV show in that fashion, let alone a whole series of films over a time span outside of a possible sequel.

  • Andreas

    I too am missing the Simpsons movie due to the Con, but sitting through the Worst Cartoons Ever was hilarious. I want to join Team Titan! Thanks for the entertainment this evening.

  • It was a lot better than I expected. Like most reviews say, better than any episode from the past few years, but not as good as 10 years ago.

  • Shmalex

    One of the funniest movies EVAR! Yay!

  • It looked great up on the screen, better than I expected. There were a few too many obvious CG assists, but it pretty much stayed true to the Simpson’s style. I laughed out loud. Can’t say that about too many movies.

  • I have to agree with most of what PC Unfunny said, especially Itchy and Scratchy short. That was wonderful.

  • Loved the movie and saw some very familiar traditional animators in the credits. Can anyone tell me what John Pomeroy worked on in the film?

  • I liked it a lot. At my screening, opening night, the projector was off for the first 2 minutes of the film, up until Homer stands up in the theater and insults the movie-goers. Then the film was set aright. Everyone I was with – and some strangers – were conviced this was intentional and that the projectionist didn’t fall asleep at the switch. I’m still not convinced.

  • I was suprised that it was actually pretty decent. I went in expecting to hate it but it was pretty funny. It had some of the weaknesses of what the show has become, the character designs have rotted like fruit, the colors have too, the characters regained some flavor, but they’re still shadows of what they once were, and that really showed in the dramatic sides of the story, the jokes were mostly up to snuff though and at least one of the dramatic elements was decent. It’s a good note to die on and hopefully that’s what all this cashing in on the franchise is about. Hopefully the one joke about the life hereafter of the series in the credits was just a joke that by its delivery kind of points in the opposite direction. But I don’t really no why they would suddenly decide to stop raping my adolecent/teenage memories now.

    Anyway, they missed a trick. I was kind of hoping to see The Critic when the credits finished.

  • steve coats

    It’s pretty good. Like any Simpsons episode it lives or dies on the strength of the gags. Most of them are funny some very funny. The story is like any Simpsons story. There are improvements in the animation although there is certainly no Wow factor in it. I thought I was getting bored with pop culture references in the Simpsons but gee you’ve gotta love that Spiderpig. All in all a worthwhile trip to the flicks.

  • garth jones

    It’s recieved oddly mixed reviews so far, and i really couldn’t work out why! It’s funny, sweet and beautifully ugly. My only wish would be that they spent longer on the animation, it was great but was not much more emotive than a clasic episode.