I have to admit that I'm really convinced of the concept of putting an animated TV series on the big screen in the first place. Even the "South Park" movie that tried to incorporate theatrical elements such as the musical numbers didn't really justify the need for a cinematic adventure. Most animated comedy shows have a very fast paced humour with quick editing. This works for an episode of 25-30 minutes but in a movie with 90 minutes running time, it would really great for the audience.
As a consequence "The Simpsons Movie" is unusually slow at times. At the same time the storyline is not really stretched to cinematic proportions. Epic as it may be, similar topics have already been dealt with in the TV show (and better). It's been said before and it's true: nothing here tries to push any boundaries and except for the length of the whole thing (and maybe some annoying people in the theatre who watch the movie with you) you would never realise that this is a "Simpsons"-motion picture.
Other flaws include the fact that some inhabitants of Springfield have only very brief cameos (Mr. Burns!) and that some ideas have been used in a fairly similar way before. As entertaining as the movie still may be, it is also pretty predictable at times. This kind of "underachieving", as some critic called it, may have its own charm, but in the end one would have hoped for this to be a bit more special. The movie is by no means a catastrophe, but by "Simpsons"-standards it's just not good enough.
"The Simpsons" have become a brand. People know what to expect and therefore applaud even a relatively average movie like this one. To rely on that is a bit lazy, however, and one wishes that producers put an end to Homer's adventures as long as we can still remember him and the other beloved inhabitants of Springfield as characters that completely revolutionised comedy at one point and not as money making merchandising props.
As a consequence "The Simpsons Movie" is unusually slow at times. At the same time the storyline is not really stretched to cinematic proportions. Epic as it may be, similar topics have already been dealt with in the TV show (and better). It's been said before and it's true: nothing here tries to push any boundaries and except for the length of the whole thing (and maybe some annoying people in the theatre who watch the movie with you) you would never realise that this is a "Simpsons"-motion picture.
Other flaws include the fact that some inhabitants of Springfield have only very brief cameos (Mr. Burns!) and that some ideas have been used in a fairly similar way before. As entertaining as the movie still may be, it is also pretty predictable at times. This kind of "underachieving", as some critic called it, may have its own charm, but in the end one would have hoped for this to be a bit more special. The movie is by no means a catastrophe, but by "Simpsons"-standards it's just not good enough.
"The Simpsons" have become a brand. People know what to expect and therefore applaud even a relatively average movie like this one. To rely on that is a bit lazy, however, and one wishes that producers put an end to Homer's adventures as long as we can still remember him and the other beloved inhabitants of Springfield as characters that completely revolutionised comedy at one point and not as money making merchandising props.