Okay, Sarah Wiggum was never a major presence. She was mostly a tertiary character that served to make the Wiggum family look stable. Sarah was a combination of Ralph and Clancy's design, with Pamela Hayden doing her best Chief Wiggum impression for the voice. However, this episode decided to drop Hayden from the role, and celebrity cast Mullually, and a bunch of other guest voices to do supporting roles. The episode starts off fine enough with Marge trying to be friends with Sarah after Bernice, Luann, and Majula abandon her. However, after Sarah's true side is revealed the episode drips in quality. It turns out Sarah is an ex-criminal who fell in love with Clancy after trying to rob him. This backstory just feels so artifical, with two of Sarah's sidesicks not even needing to be in the episode. From there, it gets even weirder as Sarah teams up with Marge to get revenge on Lindsey Naegle who betrayed her team years ago. I don't want to say anything more, expcet how are we supposed to care for Sarah Wiggum as she is basically a new character. The episode tries and fails to do Sarah justice, but I'm glad they tried.
13 Reviews
A regular 6.2/10
miab-7298129 March 2021
One of the best episodes of the season
rsivan5 April 2021
Just Way Too over-the-top
AnimatedCritic28 May 2021
Since when was Sarah Wiggum a criminal? I appreciate the backstory on her character, but this isn't the backstory on was hoping for. The criminal idea leads to some good scenes, but it's just too random for a Simpsond episode. Would've worked better as an anthology episode segment.
Unlimited material
nataliesanders29 March 2021
Just let it die
cbrown0-100-9823082 May 2021
This episode sums up how bad The Simpsons has become. The story is pure tripe and the new character voices are just sad to listen to.
The longer episodes like this air the more it takes away from how good the show was up until about 2001/2002.
Please, just let The Simpsons die now.
The longer episodes like this air the more it takes away from how good the show was up until about 2001/2002.
Please, just let The Simpsons die now.
I have nothing to say about this, but...
burteriksson24 June 2021
This was a bad episode. What can you expect from season 32... Go back a season or two - or three and you'll see good episodes. Lenny, Hibbert, Bumblebee Man etc. Sound bad. They are now on these 2021 episodes using a thicker line and a lower frame rate to grasp that old-school feeling of the show, but when the writing is this bad and soaked with abhorrent political agenda... Just stop making the show and cash in your chips. I have nothing to say about the story as it is forgettable.
Absolutely Terrible
eXtra_sauce4 April 2021
Not sure why they ditched Pamela Hayden, especially if it was just going to be for that Meghan lady...blech. Kind of like expecting a gourmet meal and ending up with a Happy Meal. Besides, nothing about Sarah here made any sense whatsoever. It maybe could've worked with Luann Van Houten or even Helen Lovejoy, but not Sarah. Talk about a swing and a miss!!
I never thought I'd give up on this show, but I think that day is coming soon. I miss Apu and the new Lou/Carl is just atrocious. No knock against the person doing the voices, but he just doesn't bring the same personality to the characters...it's like he's just trying to do his best to imitate the sound of the voices as best he can rather than bring the characters to life.
I never thought I'd give up on this show, but I think that day is coming soon. I miss Apu and the new Lou/Carl is just atrocious. No knock against the person doing the voices, but he just doesn't bring the same personality to the characters...it's like he's just trying to do his best to imitate the sound of the voices as best he can rather than bring the characters to life.
The Simpsons have died.
theordinares29 March 2021
Words I never thought I'd say. First off, I have watched every episode of the Simpsons repeatedly. They're practically my family at this point. But this episode was akin to watching both your parents and your favorite pet pass away at the same time.
The plot is unwarranted, focused on a background character who has never garnered a backstory, yet has had a complete character overhaul to accommodate an attempt at an overused plot device.
The voice recasting has ruined characters. Carl, who's voice has been iconic, is no longer the personality that he once was. Many of the other main voice cast voices have worn down so badly that they lose character as well.
I'm proud of The Simpsons for making this far. 701 Episodes is unprecedented and amazing, but it's time to accept that they're stalling being put in the ground.
The plot is unwarranted, focused on a background character who has never garnered a backstory, yet has had a complete character overhaul to accommodate an attempt at an overused plot device.
The voice recasting has ruined characters. Carl, who's voice has been iconic, is no longer the personality that he once was. Many of the other main voice cast voices have worn down so badly that they lose character as well.
I'm proud of The Simpsons for making this far. 701 Episodes is unprecedented and amazing, but it's time to accept that they're stalling being put in the ground.
An illogical Retcon that is just horrible, and even messed up
Duderocks553929 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, not what I was expecting for a Sarah Wiggum episode. The idea of giving her one is fantastic and that's perfectly fine, but the execution of it was absolutely absurd here, and even messed up if you dive into it more. First, they gave her a new voice provided by Celebrity actress Megan Mullaly, who sounds like Gayle from Bob's Burger's and not even trying to emulate Sarah's original nasally southern like voice done by regular cast member Pamela Hayden which is far more iconic and works better, despite Sarah being a side character Yes, she never got a whole lot of screen time or roles, but her lines and cameos, along with character traits from past episodes is enough evidence to show she is a more kind hearted soft person which is how her personality has been established all of which have been consistent all these years, she has characteristics that are a mix of Clancy and Ralph. Producer Matt Selman tried to justify in an interview that prior to this episode Sarah was a "blank slate" and "Had no personality", which is ironic as character traits are one of the key components of a person's personality, of which she like Ralph and Clancy, is sort of piggish and dimwitted, but is also sweet and naïve, and like Clancy, shows genuine love towards Ralph, along with Clancy as well. Secondly, they changed her design and made her slimmer and "sexier" which is also screwed up as that is Fatphobia and even sexist. And then they do one of these "Shock twist on a minor character in order to make the character interesting plot" of which comes out of nowhere and just doesn't work for the character at all. This is also the same show that cancelled Apu and recasted non white characters with non white VA's because it's not PC, yet apparently this is ok once you dive into it deeper.
She is a completely different person in this episode and not at all the same character. They made her from a sweet and lovable housewife like Marge and some other housewives' of Springfield with quirks of her husband and son, to an immature stereotypical fetish bait femme fatale who is just borderline unlikeable. The whole backstory of her being a criminal along with crime partners is just completely unnecessary and has no build up or any evidence of this in the past. None of this makes any sense to Sarah's already established consistent context, and all of this was just thrown together to try to make her be something and someone all for just attention, but especially in the way they did it on making her look sexy and giving her a "sexy" role is really the tipping point of where this is just gone way too far. If they really wanted to do an episode with Sarah, this episode would've been better off just being a heartfelt episode with Marge and Sarah bonding like how Homer and Clancy bonded in the episode Chief of Hearts, as well as Sarah being voiced by Pamela Hayden. Another thing to note too is that not only is Sarah a mess in this episode, but it makes poor Clancy look bad too and even more of an idiot then he already is due to his wife who is just like him basically using him, and it even makes Ralph look bad too. Talk about ripping lovable characters to shreds.
Here are some red flags and certain things in this episode that don't make any sense whatsoever:
1, at the beginning of the episode, Marge walks up to Sarah acting like they have never met before, and Marge also saying that she's Bart's mom. In past episodes, Marge and Sarah are seen together, ie "The Great Wife Hope" and "The Devil Wears Nada" Sarah is seen in small club gatherings with Marge and others, so they definitely know each other, Sarah definitely knows who Marge is, that Marge is Bart's mom, and knows who Bart is, so these are all consistent continuity. Plus with the other moms ditching her also doesn't make sense either because those other moms are also friends with Sarah as well, one of the lines at that part stuck with me. When Luann comments that she feels bad for anyone that has to stay with Sarah, Bernice comments "What is she looking for, a personality?" This line is particularly weird and makes no sense either because again, Bernice is also long time friends with Sarah as well, which is another thing that is consistent..
2, in the backstory sequence, in the part showing how Sarah and Clancy met is all retconned and changed up to go with the horrible plot line as well, which is also something that didn't need to be done as well since in the episode A Star Was Born Again Clancy was dancing with Sarah at a festival and he was telling her she was the most beautiful she's ever been since the time he fell in love with her to which she blushes and giggles while saying her catch phrase "Oh Clancy", and his excuse to fall in love with her was to plant crystal meth on her so she would notice him because he was too shy to say anything to her, so that way he could arrest her and then hook up with Sarah right there and then and fall and love with her despite being innocent, unless she also fell in love with him at the moment which I'm sure she did since both are a perfect match. She wasn't a drug addict either or did the crystal meth either implying that she is sober. This would be another way this episode should've been done, exploring that backstory in visual form of where Clancy planted evidence on her, say at a donut shop or something.
Sarah isn't even a drinker either, except in the mobile game which is non canon like all Simpsons games, but at least they did her personality right in all the games she's in, minus being a drinker in tapped out. But she took a swig of Whiskey in the beginning of the awful episode in question this whole review is talking about, before she went into the "who the F is this women" mode. But Clancy only planted drugs on her so he has an excuse to arrest her and fall in love despite her being innocent and not doing anything wrong which that moment alone was more charming and cute (especially when she blushed and giggled) then anything in this episode, despite A Star is Born Again was already made a few years after the show declined, but at least they didn't start ruining characters yet and doing stupid one off wacky plot lines like this. Also, if Clancy "arrested" her, Clancy was already a Police Officer, whereas in this episode during the backstory, Clancy is portrayed as being a security guard when he met Sarah, and Sarah was a robber and she is the one that fell in love with him while distracting him while picking open a safe behind him, That right there also changes up Clancy's backstory which has already been long established as well and no mention of him being a front desk security guard at a "pent house" when his early life and backstory was established, or even mentioning that's where he met his wife. None of this stuff during this part of the episode makes absolutely no sense and is unnecessary just like this whole episode is, nothing in the episode makes any sense period. The issue is that all of these elements have remained consistent, and that's what matters. Here they are basically not even acknowledging any of these things happened, and not even adding to it either.
All of that is clear enough to tell you this is a non canon throw away episode that won't have any elements or mention relating to Clancy being a pent house front desk security guard or Sarah being this "robber" both in the backstory and present of this plot, or them meeting like how they did here in any future episodes when they both appear again and or speak. Another thing too in this god awful episode is Sarah at one point says to Marge about Clancy after Marge asks her "You never told Clancy you were a criminal?" Sarah said "Let's just say he's always been better at planting evidence than finding it." which as well makes zero sense because that's how Clancy truly met her as I said above which is not shown or even mentioned here, basically by her saying that is implying how the real Sarah and Clancy actually met in the true universe of the show unlike her in this out of universe one off episode. And how could he have planted evidence and "arrested" her in order to fall in love with her if he supposedly was this security guard? Again, it makes no sense and they are trying to bring "in universe" elements in and try to add it to "out of universe" elements which they fail at miserably here because they know this isn't the true way they both met and that this isn't apart of Sarah's character, personality, and continuity, and even apart of Clancy's backstory prior to becoming a cop. Clancy met Sarah when he was already the chief of police and has been the same continuity since that was said back in the 2003 episode as mentioned above. The crew knows this plot and especially this part of the episode especially doesn't make sense, but why do it then and get a celebrity VA to voice Sarah when all of this stuff is thrown away once the episode ends and basically didn't exist once the next episode starts?
Another thing to point out is multiple times throughout the episode they say "Sarah Wiggum, who are you?" or like when Clancy says "She's just my little schmoop-a-doop, and that's all there is to her." Just to drill that point in your face. To anyone who likes this episode, please explain what is so good. "A background character was given an episode" or "The episode was AMAZING" isn't a logical reason why it was so good. People like me that say this episode is bad have logical explanations and points that make perfect sense. Plus this episode is repeating a similar storyline from the episode The Book Job with this Ocean's style heist BS. It still doesn't change the fact that its even messed up that they are also not even acknowledging Pamela Hayden's work as the character by Matt Selman also saying in the interview, "Lets find these invisible characters and what their voices are."
She is a completely different person in this episode and not at all the same character. They made her from a sweet and lovable housewife like Marge and some other housewives' of Springfield with quirks of her husband and son, to an immature stereotypical fetish bait femme fatale who is just borderline unlikeable. The whole backstory of her being a criminal along with crime partners is just completely unnecessary and has no build up or any evidence of this in the past. None of this makes any sense to Sarah's already established consistent context, and all of this was just thrown together to try to make her be something and someone all for just attention, but especially in the way they did it on making her look sexy and giving her a "sexy" role is really the tipping point of where this is just gone way too far. If they really wanted to do an episode with Sarah, this episode would've been better off just being a heartfelt episode with Marge and Sarah bonding like how Homer and Clancy bonded in the episode Chief of Hearts, as well as Sarah being voiced by Pamela Hayden. Another thing to note too is that not only is Sarah a mess in this episode, but it makes poor Clancy look bad too and even more of an idiot then he already is due to his wife who is just like him basically using him, and it even makes Ralph look bad too. Talk about ripping lovable characters to shreds.
Here are some red flags and certain things in this episode that don't make any sense whatsoever:
1, at the beginning of the episode, Marge walks up to Sarah acting like they have never met before, and Marge also saying that she's Bart's mom. In past episodes, Marge and Sarah are seen together, ie "The Great Wife Hope" and "The Devil Wears Nada" Sarah is seen in small club gatherings with Marge and others, so they definitely know each other, Sarah definitely knows who Marge is, that Marge is Bart's mom, and knows who Bart is, so these are all consistent continuity. Plus with the other moms ditching her also doesn't make sense either because those other moms are also friends with Sarah as well, one of the lines at that part stuck with me. When Luann comments that she feels bad for anyone that has to stay with Sarah, Bernice comments "What is she looking for, a personality?" This line is particularly weird and makes no sense either because again, Bernice is also long time friends with Sarah as well, which is another thing that is consistent..
2, in the backstory sequence, in the part showing how Sarah and Clancy met is all retconned and changed up to go with the horrible plot line as well, which is also something that didn't need to be done as well since in the episode A Star Was Born Again Clancy was dancing with Sarah at a festival and he was telling her she was the most beautiful she's ever been since the time he fell in love with her to which she blushes and giggles while saying her catch phrase "Oh Clancy", and his excuse to fall in love with her was to plant crystal meth on her so she would notice him because he was too shy to say anything to her, so that way he could arrest her and then hook up with Sarah right there and then and fall and love with her despite being innocent, unless she also fell in love with him at the moment which I'm sure she did since both are a perfect match. She wasn't a drug addict either or did the crystal meth either implying that she is sober. This would be another way this episode should've been done, exploring that backstory in visual form of where Clancy planted evidence on her, say at a donut shop or something.
Sarah isn't even a drinker either, except in the mobile game which is non canon like all Simpsons games, but at least they did her personality right in all the games she's in, minus being a drinker in tapped out. But she took a swig of Whiskey in the beginning of the awful episode in question this whole review is talking about, before she went into the "who the F is this women" mode. But Clancy only planted drugs on her so he has an excuse to arrest her and fall in love despite her being innocent and not doing anything wrong which that moment alone was more charming and cute (especially when she blushed and giggled) then anything in this episode, despite A Star is Born Again was already made a few years after the show declined, but at least they didn't start ruining characters yet and doing stupid one off wacky plot lines like this. Also, if Clancy "arrested" her, Clancy was already a Police Officer, whereas in this episode during the backstory, Clancy is portrayed as being a security guard when he met Sarah, and Sarah was a robber and she is the one that fell in love with him while distracting him while picking open a safe behind him, That right there also changes up Clancy's backstory which has already been long established as well and no mention of him being a front desk security guard at a "pent house" when his early life and backstory was established, or even mentioning that's where he met his wife. None of this stuff during this part of the episode makes absolutely no sense and is unnecessary just like this whole episode is, nothing in the episode makes any sense period. The issue is that all of these elements have remained consistent, and that's what matters. Here they are basically not even acknowledging any of these things happened, and not even adding to it either.
All of that is clear enough to tell you this is a non canon throw away episode that won't have any elements or mention relating to Clancy being a pent house front desk security guard or Sarah being this "robber" both in the backstory and present of this plot, or them meeting like how they did here in any future episodes when they both appear again and or speak. Another thing too in this god awful episode is Sarah at one point says to Marge about Clancy after Marge asks her "You never told Clancy you were a criminal?" Sarah said "Let's just say he's always been better at planting evidence than finding it." which as well makes zero sense because that's how Clancy truly met her as I said above which is not shown or even mentioned here, basically by her saying that is implying how the real Sarah and Clancy actually met in the true universe of the show unlike her in this out of universe one off episode. And how could he have planted evidence and "arrested" her in order to fall in love with her if he supposedly was this security guard? Again, it makes no sense and they are trying to bring "in universe" elements in and try to add it to "out of universe" elements which they fail at miserably here because they know this isn't the true way they both met and that this isn't apart of Sarah's character, personality, and continuity, and even apart of Clancy's backstory prior to becoming a cop. Clancy met Sarah when he was already the chief of police and has been the same continuity since that was said back in the 2003 episode as mentioned above. The crew knows this plot and especially this part of the episode especially doesn't make sense, but why do it then and get a celebrity VA to voice Sarah when all of this stuff is thrown away once the episode ends and basically didn't exist once the next episode starts?
Another thing to point out is multiple times throughout the episode they say "Sarah Wiggum, who are you?" or like when Clancy says "She's just my little schmoop-a-doop, and that's all there is to her." Just to drill that point in your face. To anyone who likes this episode, please explain what is so good. "A background character was given an episode" or "The episode was AMAZING" isn't a logical reason why it was so good. People like me that say this episode is bad have logical explanations and points that make perfect sense. Plus this episode is repeating a similar storyline from the episode The Book Job with this Ocean's style heist BS. It still doesn't change the fact that its even messed up that they are also not even acknowledging Pamela Hayden's work as the character by Matt Selman also saying in the interview, "Lets find these invisible characters and what their voices are."
Boring and unfunny
themrmunchlax29 March 2021
Had potential
safenoe16 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, even though I prefer the Golden era of The Simpsons, I'm still willing to give a lookout for the much more later seasons. Uncut Femmes had potential for sure, with Sarah Wiggum showing her femme fatale side. I'd love for The Simpsons to explore the German kid Uter's backstory (would be interesting in this climate) and also the backstory of Lenny.
Talking of Lenny...Carl is being voiced by Alex Desert, not Hank Azaria. As a long-time fan of The Simpsons, I was astonished because with due respect to Alex, his rendition of Carl seemed like a bad imitation of Hank Azaria's version.
No Good Read Goes Unpunished, the famous Simpsons episode that was a harsh rejoinder to "politically correct" Indian-American Hari Kondabolu's The Problem with Apu, is an episode that came to mind immediately when I saw Uncut Femmes. Because why on earth did The Simpsons producers cast replace the extraordinarily talented Hank Azaria as Carl's voice with that of Alex Desert (with due respect to Alex of course). Why can't the producers get an Indian-American to voice Apu?
Talking of Lenny...Carl is being voiced by Alex Desert, not Hank Azaria. As a long-time fan of The Simpsons, I was astonished because with due respect to Alex, his rendition of Carl seemed like a bad imitation of Hank Azaria's version.
No Good Read Goes Unpunished, the famous Simpsons episode that was a harsh rejoinder to "politically correct" Indian-American Hari Kondabolu's The Problem with Apu, is an episode that came to mind immediately when I saw Uncut Femmes. Because why on earth did The Simpsons producers cast replace the extraordinarily talented Hank Azaria as Carl's voice with that of Alex Desert (with due respect to Alex of course). Why can't the producers get an Indian-American to voice Apu?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
