Unclear: "Does not meet eligibility criteria".

@gromit82​ OK, here it is, and it is a bit looong. HEADLINE: This is a cult movie, but it's a weak movie. TEXT: It could be passable standalone space opera without serious ambition, but it's bad as installment of transformers, because I feel TF franchise should be an area to tell stories about self-development, self-making, self-inventing and progress. But as a story, The Transformers: The Movie is conservative to the bone and characters in it don't develop through plot even a little. Here main protagonist is just "chosen one" without deep personality and don't do much to became a new leader. Here evil is defeated not by skill, intelligence or courage, but by the will of ancient divine piece of electronic junk (the Matrix, yep). I must admit that "chosen one" is a trope of many other movies, some of which are great. But usually it still requires from protagonists some work to enter their comfortable path of destiny. For Anakin Skywalker it was surviving in slavery and winning extra dangerous Boonta Eve Classic race, for panda Po it was learning martial skills against all odds and against hate of other kung-fu students. On top of that, TF franchise can be done without "chosen" trope completely. For example, in the finale of japanese TF:Victory two good guys learned how to combine into mighty Victory Saber to defeat relic decepticon's superweapon Space Fortress, which required team leader Star Saber to agree for 50/50 death-threating surgery on himself, and his companion Victory Leo to overcome his menthal breakdowns, so it was a victory of progress and self-work over ancient superweapon stuff, while in the Movie "chosen one" trope not only is bone of the story, but it is pushed to the limit: good guys just relied on relic Matrix to defeat ancient demigod Unicron and Galvatron spoiled with Unicrons's relic divine energy. In the finale, Rodimus Prime is the same daredevil as in the beginning of his story, he didn't change much, he just become taller and broader because autobot matrix decided to boost him a bit. For me, this is what describes different approaches in G1 and JG1 in general - japanese series were about development and self-making, while american G1 and TF:The Movie were about just fulfilling old conservative tropes and prophecies. I prefer synthesis over genesis, self-progress over following old ready ways, that's another reason why TF:The Movie is so bad, even in comparison with regular TV series of Transformers. Still I understand why some people praise TF:The Movie. It's plot borrows successfull Star Wars approach and is completely based on vivid character archetypes, which are pushed to the limit. Young daredevil Hot Rod, fatherly sacrificial Optimus Prime, old advisor Cup, priggish quintessons, straightforward dinobots, optimistic junkions, honest soldier Ultra Magnus, feminine and submissive Arcee, innocent Daniel, deformed and posessed Galvatron, menacing minions Cyclonus and Scourge, ancient evil Unicron - all of this may touch watcher's soul. But while in Star Wars and otner great movies character archetypes were just a basement for more complex work over it (for example, old menthor Obi Wan turned to be somewhat controversial figure with some lies and unclear past, and naive Luke learned to be wiser and more focused), TF: The Movie, on contrary, just exploits archetypes without even subtle try to deconstruct them or develop characters beyond them. The Movie is like a cheap booze - it may seem good for those who are happy with stereotypical character templates and don't need any development of the story and characters. The same with TF:The Movie's rock'n'rollish musical score - tracks are catchy but have no individuality, they're just product of 80's culture, when rock culture started to lost it's drive and began it's to convert into conservative culture of old, passing the baton to more progressive electronic music. What about infamous "great toy massacre of 1986", I feel it's OK and sometimes even necessary to kill characters to move story, but the Movie did it in most clumsy way possible, destroying too many of them at once, and in very disrespectful way. I don't like G1 characters, their designs lack aesthetics and their personalities are irritating for me, i don't feel sorry for them, but they died too easy on contrast to, say, ridigulously invulnerable and even worse dinobots. This is another sign of total dominance of most primitive archetypes and story tropes (as well as toy business needs) in this movie over any logic, character and story development - when script writer needed to remove characters, they crumbled on single blaster hit, but other characters were strangely invulnerable only because script writer needed them to fit "strong" archetype. It would be unfair to say that TF: The Movie had no good traits at all. It was first time when art quality and animation in TF universe raised over total cheapness. But I won't rate it much. Later japanese JG1 had high quality with much much lesser budget, and not only quality, but also much nicer design of character outer appearance. Still I give 3/10 for TF: The Movie. 1 for the massive work over detailed drawing, 1 for trying to present some new characters and 1 for the fact that this movie mortally injured american G1 series, so sweet japanese JG1 series were possible.

Mekkhano: I don't see any obvious problems which would have caused this review to be rejected. I looked at the guidelines again (https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/contribution-information/user-review-guidelines/GABTWSNLDNFLPRRH#), and if there were violations, I didn't see them. There were some grammatical issues and I could make some suggestions about how to put this review into more idiomatic English, but I would prefer to let someone who has seen the film take the first attempt at that.

@gromit82​ Thanks for the reply! I also guess now that "conservative to the bone" could be taken as not-so-tolerant political statement, while I implyed no political context.

@Mekkhano​ I thought about that, but I understood you to be referring to being artistically conservative rather than politically conservative. If you think that might be the problem, I suggest using the word "staid" instead of "conservative" each time.

@Mekkhano​ Hi! @gromit82 is right, there is no breach of policy in the review, it was a processing error, please re-submit and post your 18-digit submission reference here so we can approve. Cheers!

Mekkhano: Here is my proposed edit for grammar. It could be a passable standalone space opera without serious ambition, but it's bad as an installment of Transformers, because I feel the Transformers franchise should be an area to tell stories about self-development, self-making, self-inventing and progress. But as a story, The Transformers: The Movie is conservative to the bone and characters in it don't develop through plot even a little. Here the main protagonist is just the "chosen one" without deep personality and doesn't do much to become a new leader. Here evil is defeated not by skill, intelligence or courage, but by the will of an ancient divine piece of electronic junk (the Matrix, yep). I must admit that the "chosen one" is a trope of many other movies, some of which are great. But usually it still requires from the protagonists some work to enter their comfortable path of destiny. For Anakin Skywalker it was surviving in slavery and winning the extra-dangerous Boonta Eve Classic race, for panda Po it was learning martial skills against all odds and against the hate of other kung fu students. On top of that, the Transformers franchise can be done without the "chosen" trope completely. For example, in the finale of the Japanese TF:Victory two good guys learned how to combine into the mighty Victory Saber to defeat the relic decepticon's superweapon Space Fortress, which required team leader Star Saber to agree to 50/50 death-threatening surgery on himself, and his companion Victory Leo to overcome his mental breakdowns. So it was a victory of progress and self-work over ancient superweapon stuff, while in the movie the "chosen one" trope not only is the bone of the story, but it is pushed to the limit: the good guys just relied on relic Matrix to defeat ancient demigod Unicron and Galvatron spoiled with Unicron's relic divine energy. In the finale, Rodimus Prime is the same daredevil as in the beginning of his story; he didn't change much, he just become taller and broader because autobot matrix decided to boost him a bit. For me, this is what describes different approaches in G1 and JG1 in general - the Japanese series were about development and self-making, while American G1 and TF: The Movie were about just fulfilling old conservative tropes and prophecies. I prefer synthesis over genesis, self-progress over following old ready ways; that's another reason why Transformers: The Movie is so bad, even in comparison with the regular TV series of Transformers. Still I understand why some people praise Transformers: The Movie. Its plot borrows the successful Star Wars approach and is completely based on vivid character archetypes, which are pushed to the limit. Young daredevil Hot Rod, fatherly sacrificial Optimus Prime, old advisor Cup, priggish quintessons, straightforward dinobots, optimistic junkions, honest soldier Ultra Magnus, feminine and submissive Arcee, innocent Daniel, deformed and posessed Galvatron, menacing minions Cyclonus and Scourge, ancient evil Unicron - all of this may touch a viewer's soul. But while in Star Wars and other great movies character archetypes were just a basement for more complex work over it (for example, old mentor Obi-Wan turned out to be a somewhat controversial figure with some lies and unclear past, and naive Luke learned to be wiser and more focused), Transformers: The Movie, on contrary, just exploits archetypes without even a subtle try to deconstruct them or develop characters beyond them. The Movie is like cheap booze - it may seem good for those who are happy with stereotypical character templates and don't need any development of the story and characters. The same with Transformers: The Movie's rock'n'rollish musical score - tracks are catchy but have no individuality, they're just products of 1980s culture, when rock culture started to lost its drive and began to convert into conservative culture of old, passing the baton to more progressive electronic music. What about the infamous "great toy massacre of 1986"? I feel it's OK and sometimes even necessary to kill characters to move a story, but the movie did it in most clumsy way possible, destroying too many of them at once, and in very disrespectful way. I don't like G1 characters; their designs lack aesthetics and their personalities are irritating for me, I don't feel sorry for them, but they died too easily in contrast to, say, ridiculously invulnerable and even worse dinobots. This is another sign of total dominance of most primitive archetypes and story tropes (as well as toy business needs) in this movie over any logic, character and story development - when the script writer needed to remove characters, they crumbled on a single blaster hit, but other characters were strangely invulnerable only because the script writer needed them to fit the "strong" archetype. It would be unfair to say that Transformers: The Movie had no good traits at all. It was the first time that art quality and animation in the Transformers universe were raised over total cheapness. But I won't rate it much. Later Japanese JG1 had high quality with much much lesser budget, and not only quality, but also much nicer design of characters' outer appearance. Still I give 3/10 for Transformers: The Movie. 1 for the massive work over detailed drawing, 1 for trying to present some new characters and 1 for the fact that this movie mortally injured American G1 series, so the sweet Japanese JG1 series was possible.

@gromit82​ Oh, sorry that I did not warn you that I've already submitted my third version. Just a minute ago I've discovered that it was finally approved. I've softened some not-so-polite phrases in it, and it worked. Anyway, don't think that your efforts were for nothing. I'll study differences of your and my versions to work on my english, so thank you very much! Here is approved more polite version: It could be passable standalone space opera without serious ambition, but I consider it bad as installment of transformers, because I feel TF franchise should be an area to tell stories about self-development, self-making, self-inventing and progress. The very conception of shape-and-size changing characters gives a key for it, as often sci-fi does. But The Transformers: The Movie is closer to most simpe fantasy fiction as a story - it lacks any scenario daring and characters in it don't develop through plot even a little. Here main protagonist is just "chosen one" without deep personality and don't do much to became a new leader. Here evil is defeated not by skill, intelligence or courage, but by the will of ancient divine piece of electronic junk (the Matrix, yep). I must admit that "chosen one" is a trope of many other movies, some of which are great. But usually it still requires from protagonists to do some work before they enter their comfortable path of destiny. Let's remember some examples. For Anakin Skywalker it was surviving in slavery and winning extra dangerous Boonta Eve Classic race, for panda Po it was learning martial skills against all odds and against dislike and teasing by other kung-fu students. I believe, TF franchise could be done without "chosen" trope completely. There are good examples. For example, in the finale of japanese TF:Victory two good guys learned how to combine into mighty Victory Saber to defeat relic decepticon's superweapon Space Fortress, which required for one of them to agree for surgery with only 50% to survive, and for his companion to overcome his heavy psychological breakdowns, so it was a victory of progress and self-work over ancient superweapon stuff, while in the Movie "chosen to win by ancient thing" trope not only is bone of the story, but it is pushed to the limit: good guys just relied on relic artifact named The Matrix to defeat ancient demigod Unicron and Galvatron who was spoiled with Unicrons's relic divine energy. In the finale, Rodimus Prime is the same daredevil as in the beginning of his story, he didn't change much, he just become physically taller and broader because autobot Matrix decided to upgrade him a bit. For me, this is what describes different approaches in G1 and JG1 in general - japanese series were about development and self-making, while american G1 and TF:The Movie were about just fulfilling old conservative tropes and prophecies. I prefer synthesis over genesis, self-progress over following old ready ways, that's another reason why TF:The Movie is so weak in my eyes, even in comparison with regular TV series of Transformers. Still I understand why some people praise TF:The Movie. It's plot borrows successfull Star Wars approach and is completely based on vivid character archetypes, which are pushed to the limit. Young daredevil Hot Rod, fatherly sacrificial Optimus Prime, old advisor Cup, priggish quintessons, straightforward dinobots, optimistic junkions, honest soldier Ultra Magnus, feminine and submissive Arcee, innocent Daniel, deformed and posessed Galvatron, menacing minions Cyclonus and Scourge, ancient evil Unicron - all of this may touch watcher's soul if such a cliche characters are good enough for him/her. But while in Star Wars and otner great movies character archetypes were just a basement for more complex work over it (for example, old menthor Obi Wan turned to be somewhat controversial figure with some lies and unclear past, and naive Luke learned to be wiser and more focused), TF: The Movie, on contrary, just exploits archetypes without even subtle try to deconstruct them or develop characters beyond them. The Movie is like a cheap drink - it may trick watcher with stereotypical character templates, veiling lack of development of the story and characters. The same with TF:The Movie's rock'n'rollish musical score - tracks are catchy but belonging to era generic 80's action films and now sound very dated. What about infamous "great toy mas***re of 1986" problem, I feel it's a more subtle matter than is commonly believed. I think it's OK and sometimes even necessary for script writer to "kill" characters to move story forward, but the Movie did it in most clumsy way possible, destroying too many of them at once, and in very disrespectful way. I don't like G1 characters, their designs lack aesthetics and their personalities are irritating for me, i don't feel sorry for them, but they died too easy on contrast to, say, ridigulously invulnerable and even worse dinobots. This is another sign of total dominance of most lazy archetypes and story tropes (as well as toy business needs) in this movie over any logic, character and story development - when script writer needed to remove characters, this characters were crumbled on single blaster hit, but other characters were strangely invulnerable only because script writer needed them to fit "strong" archetype. It would be unfair to say that TF: The Movie had no good traits at all. It was first time when art quality and animation in TF universe raised to some decent level over previous total cheapness. But I won't rate it much. Later japanese JG1 had high quality as well in regular TV episodes with much much lesser budget, and not only quality, but also much nicer design of character outer appearance. Still I give 3/10 for TF: The Movie. 1 point for the massive work over detailed drawing, another 1 point for trying to present some new characters and, ironically, 1 point more for the fact that this movie's box-office flop brought G1 series to decline in USA, so japanese JG1 series were finally possible.