 More negative reception came from the magazine Empire , where reviewer Ian Nathan compared the film to New Coke , saying that " it utterly failed " . Phil Villarreal believed that there were " too few laugh @-@ worthy moments " and that " instead of stretching to new frontiers , the film rests on the familiar " . Sheila Johnston criticized the pacing of the film and its joke level saying that " the overall momentum flags at times " and that it was " a salvo of comic squibs , some very funny , others limp " . David Edwards agreed with this , writing that although " there 's a great half @-@ hour show rattling around ... the rest is padding at its very dullest " , concluding that it " isn 't a terrible film , just a terribly disappointing one . " Cosmo Landesman believed , " the humour seem [ ed ] to have lost its satirical bite and wit " and that " much of the comedy is structured around the idiocy of Homer " . This assessment was shared by Carina Chocano of the Los Angeles Times , who felt that " once the movie wanders into its contemplation of mortality and meaning , the trenchancy kind of creaks and falls off . " She negatively compared it to South Park : Bigger , Longer & Uncut ( 1999 ) , a film similarly adapted from an animated television series , saying that , in terms of satire , it offers " nothing we don 't hear every night on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart . " Bruce Newman criticized the fleeting appearances of many of the show 's secondary characters , and found the film to be " a disappointment " . 
