Friday night I went to see "The Simpsons Movie." While I am one of those die-hard, obsessive Simpsons fans, I didn't find this movie to be the must-see event many made it out to be. "The Simpsons" have had a tremendous impact on my life over the past 18-years--a great deal of my sense of humor was developed through "The Simpsons" 'cause it's on practically 20 times a day. I've got episodes memorized and gags permanently burned into my brain (I haven't seen a first-run, new episode in probably five years, but because off the syndicated reruns, I've seen virtually all of them).

That being said, I didn't see the "need" for a "Simpsons" movie. As Homer clearly stated in the movie's open: "Why would I pay to see something I could watch at home for free?" See, a good script has nothing to do with the movie business anymore. Nowadays, the studios release any movie with a built-in audience.

• A "Fantasy Four" sequel? I find it hard to believe the majority of American's called for a sequel after the first one was a very moderate hit.
• A "Die Hard" sequel? I love "Die Hard" just as much as any guy from the 80s. But c'mon--did we really need a fourth one 12 years after the last film? The studios could have simply created a new action franchise with a new star: instead, the put Bruce Willis in it and called it "Die Hard."
• The fourth and fifth sequel to "Shrek" is in the works: did the first one even need a sequel? .
• Ignore for a moment "Pirates of the Caribbean 2" sucked: the third one was released because it was already made. .
• "Rush Hour 3"--can't Chris Tucker find work playing any character other than Detective James Carter? Look at his last three movies: "Rush Hour," "Rush Hour 2," and "Rush Hour 3." .
• Even the upcoming "Sex and the City" movie--it's an absolutely fabulous television show, but do we really need a movie?

And that's how I sorta feel about a "Simpsons" movie. I love the show, but I don't feel like my life is incomplete without a full-length movie. I look at the "Family Guy" movie--what a load of crap that was. That 'movie' was just three episode of the show--there was nothing feature-length about it. Hell, FOX airs it all the time--as three episodes of the show.

That being said, I did go see the movie--on opening night. I went with my three brothers 'cause it was like a family bonding moment or something (all of us feel the same way about the show). I think ultimately the deciding factor as to why I saw it was because after 18-years of brilliance, I needed to give Matt Groening and James L. Brooks the benefit of doubt: surely they couldn't be part of the money-grubbing scheme that is the film industry.

I'm glad I did: I liked the movie. It was very good 'cause it at least felt like an episode of "The Simpsons" (unlike the "South Park" movie that dragged things out in the first act). I laughed at many things and the staff of double-digit writers did the show justice. There wasn't a single, unenjoyable moment of the movie--it was as funny as any "Simpsons" episode I ever saw.

Which brings me back to my original point: was a "Simpsons" movie necessary? I don't think this was a movie that had to be made. It's not groundbreaking or taking the show in a new direction. If anything, it's an 87-minute episode of the show instead of 22. I suppose I can't complain about that (even though my nature is to complain about everything). I just find it weird to watch a television show at the theater.

I've often stated that I think television is a better medium for storytelling and character development than cinema because television isn't limited by time restrictions ("Friends" took ten years developing its characters: "Chuck and Larry" took 110 minutes). But that's always been my own assessment--many have argued with me about this.

With "The Simpsons Movie," no fan of the show would be disappointed (well, maybe those who are obsessed with Sideshow Bob). With most "Simpson" episodes, I like them more after multiple viewings (I'm a little dense: it takes me a while to pick up on the subtle jokes). While I'm not saying I didn't like the movie, I'll probably love it third or fourth time around--even if I don't have the need for it.

© 2007 siknerd.com