Diehard fans won’t be disappointed

Dusty Lane, for the Northwest Guardian

I own no fewer than five pairs of “Simpsons” underwear (boxers, not briefs). There’s a can of Buzz Cola sitting on top of my computer as I write this.

I’ve been seriously considering getting a Blinky the fish tattoo for a year. Homer-esque laziness is the only thing that’s delayed me getting it.

So it’s fair to say, from the time I started sneaking episodes of “The Tracey Ullman Show” to catch the short cartoons, I’ve been more fanatical about “The Simpsons” than Ned Flanders is about church.

And after 20 years of watching, quoting, discussing and sometimes griping about the show, I understand that “Is ‘The Simpsons Movie’ any good?” is a loaded question.

So.

Best. Movie. Ever?

In the minds of many fans – myself included – “The Simpsons” lost much of its steam about halfway through its 18-season run. The plots became nonsensical, the humor became forced and “wacky,” the heart that had characterized the early shows was missing. And – most irritating of all – Homer became very, very annoying.

But the producers brought back many movers behind the early shows – with the notable exceptions of show-runner Sam Simon and writer Conan O’Brien – and I had mixed expectations before I watched the movie.

And mixed reactions after.

The movie is kind of like making out with Sharon Stone: In 1992, it would’ve been near the pinnacle of my existence, and while it’s still pretty good now, some of the magic is gone.

As is often the case with “Simpsons” episodes, many of the best jokes were loaded in the beginning of the film, starting with an awesome Itchy and Scratchy bit at the opening.

There are some great lines (Homer: “Alaska – a place where you can’t be too fat or too drunk!”), references (a bedroomful of Disney-style woodland critters help Marge and Homer set the stage to get intimate, then watch in horror as they do), and throwaway scenes (Green Day playing on as its barge Titanics its way to the bottom of Springfield Harbor).

The animation looks fantastic. The animators’ use of a larger color palette is immediately obvious, and the scenes were more detailed than a television episode – most notably, they added shadows throughout.

The movie’s got heart, too. Subplots involving Homer and Bart, and Homer and Marge, have as much feeling as anything “The Simpsons” has ever done.

The plot is surprisingly solid, considering much of it revolves around pig manure. It had the feel and quality of a film, rather than several discordant episodes thrown together, as was the case with “Family Guy’s” “Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story” in 2005.

Speaking of television cartoons that were made into films, “The Simpsons Movie” also takes a different approach than did “South Park: Bigger, Louder, and Uncut,” which used its R rating to produce some of the foulest language this side of an Ozzy Osbourne reality show.

The restraint works just as well as “South Park’s” lack thereof. There are probably three things in the film that wouldn’t make the cut on TV – the best being Marge uncharacteristically cutting loose with a curse – and the jolt of surprise adds to the humor.

What, or rather who, doesn’t add much to the humor, sadly, is Homer. In the first two acts, especially, he’s mostly obnoxious.

Aside from a few inspired lines (to the pet pig he’s formed an uncomfortably close relationship with: “Maybe we should kiss, just to break the tension”), his stupidity is, well, stupid. They also brought in my least-favorite running gag (somebody, in this case Grandpa Simpson, spinning around on the floor in a fit of insanity) and recycled or reworked several jokes that have been on the television show.

Final verdict: Much better than recent seasons of “The Simpsons,” not as good as the show in its heyday.

As Apu would say, thank you, come again. I probably will, anyway.