#by best I mean best written - an actual film review

[cuntyji]

everyone’s talking about nerd gojo (thank you @to00fu for the meal), but what about nerd nanami? and i’m not talking about just any nerd nanami, im talking about letterboxd nerd! nanami — 

who wears a “directed by quentin tarantino” tshirt under his suit because he's a bit embarassed about unironically liking this type of merch, and who actually reads through all the letterboxd published articles from cover to cover.

his profile is so organised and he leaves such beautifully written and critical reviews that people who read it go crazy and spam the review’s comments section with “who is this diva 😭” and “WHO LET BRO COOK 🗣️” (he doesn’t understand the meaning of these phrases, but yuuji told him they’re positive phrases so he lets them be).

he's very selective about who he follows — a few of his irl's do know he's on letterboxd, but when they ask him for his profile he does not bother entertaining them. it's not that he's ashamed of his profile or taste, he just likes to keep his irl's seperate from his online activity. 

letterboxd nerd! nanami is heavily against piracy, and he refuses to opt for the “easy way out” when it comes to watching regional films. (he once took a flight all the way to paris on a weekday just to watch a movie that hadn't started international screening).

not to mention, he has a lot of friends that are directors, producers, script-writers, actors etc…it's not even a flex, he was genuinely the most supportive figure in their lives when they were starting out, and often times he gets free tickets or VIP passes to special movie screenings as a way of thanks.

letterboxd nerd! nanami is always one of the top three or five reviews in most trending movies on letterboxd, but imagine his horror when casual letterboxd user! reader bests his review and pushes him down to seventh place.

the horror.

and it's not even a “good” review, as nanami says —  it's just a rant about how hot the cast is. and for some outrageous reason, everyone seems to be upvoting your poorly written review instead of his meticulously detailed review about the script writing, acting, soundtrack, camera angles…you get what i mean. 

naturally, letterboxd nerd! nanami is pissed. 

and he's even more so when he realizes that casual letterboxd user! reader doesn't even log films on the daily — no, it seems more like you just remember this app exists and then log in whatever you just watched. you didn't even bother putting up a profile picture up until yesterday. and why the hell have you rated most of the disney movies a 5/5? do you not know what an objective rating is? 

letterboxd nerd! nanami, after stalking your watched list, prays you never come online to log your films again. he can't afford to be bested by you again. until he sees a notification that makes him groan out loud in annoyance — 

y/ncore has started following you.

bonus: nerd gojo and letterboxd nerd! nanami are mutuals and close friends on letterboxd (under aliases of course), but both of them hate each other irl — nerd gojo mocks him for spending time on “lame” things like movies, while letterboxd nerd! nanami scoffs at his blatant attitude of “not appreciating cinema.”

[thewadapan]

So why did Transformers One bomb?

Look, I'm just going to say it right off the bat: no, Transformers One is not the best Transformers movie of all time. I am (gritting my teeth) very happy for every single Transformers fan except me, who all seem to have liked it, and most of whom seem to have loved it. I agree that, as a production, it meets some baseline level of technical competence. It's a perfectly fine movie.

It's also the worst-performing Transformers movie Paramount has ever made.

Hopefully, now that its theatrical run has unceremoniously ended, people aren't going to try to rip me to shreds for theoretically threatening this multi-million-dollar film's box office revenue some miniscule amount by sharing a few teensy weensy complaints with my fifty followers.

Because I do just have a few little nitpicks, which I've tried my best to communicate, over the next 17,000 words of this post.

If you're not a Transformers fan, sorry, this essay is mostly written with the assumption that you've seen Transformers One. However, it might still be of some interest as a window into the current state of the franchise. I've written a basic plot summary of the movie to bring you up to speed, in that case. Because Transformers One purports to be the perfect introduction to the story, no homework needed, I've also done you the courtesy of elucidating background context as needed—think of this less as a review, and more as a history lesson, or maybe a "lore explained" YouTube video. After all, that's pretty much all that Transformers One is.

(And if farcically long posts aren't really your thing, you might prefer to listen to the special episode of Our Worlds are in Danger where my pals and I chatted about the film. Many of the hottest takes and silliest bits in this essay are shamelessly stolen from Jo and Umar.)

We've been waiting for Transformers One for a very long time. It's the first animated Transformers film to get a theatrical release since The Transformers: The Movie came out in 1986. It first entered development around a decade ago. Many fandom members I know online got to see it as far back as June. Its US premiere was in September; those of us in the UK had to wait a full extra month before seeing it, for no clear reason. This is a film which purports to show, in broad strokes, for the first time on the big screen, the origin of the Transformers: where they come from, who they are, and why they're fighting.

By the end of its runtime, Transformers One does not actually answer these questions. Don't get me wrong, it takes great pains trying to answer a lot of different, related questions—just ones which nobody was really asking in the first place: What does the word "Autobots" mean, if not "automobile robots"? What does the word "Decepticons" mean, if they're not actually deceitful? Why is he called "Optimus Prime"? Why is he called "Megatron"? If they were friends, why did they fall out? Why does Starscream sound Like That? Where does Energon come from? If "Prime" is a title, what were the other Primes like? How do Transformers transform?

Writer Eric Pearson, coming onto the project as an outsider to Transformers, describes having to go to Hasbro to ask these kinds of questions:

they had a script that outlined the story that they wanted to tell. I knew Optimus Prime and Megatron and I knew Bumblebee as well, or B. I had to ask about some of the other deeper ones, the mythology, “what exactly is the Matrix of Leadership?” Stuff like that.

See, Hasbro does in fact have the answers written down somewhere. The story as I understand it goes something like this. During the wild west of the '80s and '90s, Transformers "canon" was largely a by-the-seat-of-your-pants consensus-based affair between the freelance writers and copywriters the toy company would bring on to advertise their toys. That changed around the turn of the millennium, when late later-CEO Brian Goldner saw how Hasbro's licensed IP lines (such as Star Wars) were more financially successful and realised they could make more money by aggressively promoting their own in-house IP, which they didn't have to pay licensing fees for. (For the curious, a similar thought process at rival toy company Lego was what led to their creation of BIONICLE.)

The guy basically singlehandedly managing the Transformers brand at the time, Aaron Archer, eventually set to reconciling all the self-contradictory lore surrounding Transformers, an endeavour which dovetailed into the creation of the HasLab internal think-tank (best known for Battleship, the 2012 store-brand Michael Bay knockoff which was a failure critically and commercially but not in my heart) and ultimately the creation of the so-called "Binder of Revelation", an internal story bible which cost over $250,000 to produce and has strongly influenced nigh on every piece of Transformers media released since, but which we hadn't actually seen until it got leaked a week ago. As it turns out, the document itself (compiled mostly by marketers and toy designers) is patently useless to any writer: it's a typo-ridden internally-inconsistent wishy-washy mess that mostly describes the characters in terms of a made-up form of Transformers astrology that has otherwise never seen the light of day.

So although the Binder is the baseline story bible for most modern Transformers media, its influence isn't direct per se; it's more accurate to describe it as being an elaborate game of telephone between high-profile cartoons, comics, and other internal documents, with the Binder itself apparently just sitting in a drawer somewhere at Hasbro; Eric Pearson says that he never received a "binder", with the "script" he mentions either being the earlier draft from Andrew Barrer and Gabriel Ferrari (the guys who originally pitched the story), or some other unseen internal document. Director Josh Cooley, however, definitely seems to have been physically handed the Binder or its mass-market adaptation:

I knew that there was a lot of origin to be told, and when I first started, [Hasbro] gave me the Transformers Bible. I could not believe how big it was. I was like, "This is way more than I ever anticipated."

When trailers first dropped for Transformers One, a lot of my friends who are savvy were immediately like: "Oh, this is a weirdly faithful adaptation of the Binder of Revelation, huh."

I. The One True Origin of the Transformers

Half of the people reading this are Transformers fans, and half of you literally could not give less of a shit about Transformers, so if you're in the 'former group (so to speak), you'll just have to bear with me while I bring the rest of us up to speed.

Before the Transformers' civil war begins, Cybertron is being oppressed by the Quintessons. The Quintessons are a race of five-faced aliens (as in, not Transformers), who execute everyone they come across, first introduced in The Transformers: The Movie, presiding over a kangaroo court on a castaway world. In the followup cartoon five-parter "Five Faces of Darkness", writer Flint Dille established that, gasp, they were actually the original creators of the Transformers! But basically nobody else at the time was particularly compelled by this idea, it seems, with most fans preferring the more mythological origin story conceived by Bri'ish writer Simon Furman for the Marvel comics. I think people kind of just didn't like to think of the Transformers as being robots—mass-produced, a fabrication, programmed—as opposed to an alien race of thinking, feeling beings like us. But because the cartoon was important to many kids, a lot of early-2000s media tried to reconcile the cartoon and comic origin stories by stating that the Quintessons didn't actually create the Transformers; rather, they simply colonised the planet early in its history and pretended to be the Transformers' creators, until the truth came out and they got kicked offworld. This is how the Binder of Revelation ultimately paid lip service to the Quintessons. In Transformers One, the Quintessons are just sort of here, they're these evil aliens secretly skimming Energon from its miners, they don't speak English (or whichever language the film was dubbed into in your market region), they're just these nasty societal parasites.

Energon is Transformers fuel. In the original cartoon, it was these glowing pink cubes the Decepticons were always trying to produce using harebrained Saturday-morning-cartoon energy-stealing devices. There was a Cold War going on, America had just been through an "energy crisis", maybe you're old enough to remember any of that. Transformers are these big, complicated machines, so I guess the idea is they need this hyper-compressed superfuel to run off, and their homeworld has run out. By the time of the Binder of Revelation, the concept had been telephoned to the point where Energon is like the lifeblood of Primus or some shit.

Primus is the Transformers God—but not the kind of God you have "faith" in, rather this actual guy whose existence is objectively known in various ways. He transforms into a planet, that's kind of cool, right? Where does Primus come from? Look, it doesn't matter, he's like, the God of Creation, he was there at the start of time. He created all of the Transformers. All the other species in the galaxy, though, they evolved naturally thanks to "science". Actually wait, didn't that Quintus Prime guy go around the universe seeding all the planets with different kinds of Cybertronian life? That's why they're called Quintessons. See, now you know. Who's Quintus Prime?

Okay, so the Thirteen Original Transformers, or the Primes, are the thirteen original Transformers created by Primus. Most of them correspond to different kinds of Transformer: Nexus Prime is the god of Transformers who can combine, Onyx Prime is the god of Transformers who turn into animals, Micronus Prime is the god of Transformers who are small, and Solus Prime is the god of Transformers who are women. You might remember the Primes from Revenge of the Fallen, although there were only seven of them there for whatever reason.

Honestly, The Fallen was the only one who mattered for a long time. The whole reason there's thirteen of them is because thirteen is kind of an unlucky number, right? Twelve would've been fine. But throw in a thirteenth guy, and he betrays everyone, he's this fucked up evil guy. In the Binder of Revelation, though, the Thirteenth Prime is his own special guy shrouded in mystery, because they kind of liked the idea that Optimus Prime would secretly turn out to have been the Thirteenth Prime all along, and he just forgot or something, because that means he has the divine right of Primes. In IDW's 2010s comic-book reboot, the Thirteenth Prime was called "The Arisen"—in reference to that one line in The Transformers: The Movie, "Arise, Rodimus Prime!" (this margin is too narrow to explain who Rodimus Prime is). Towards the end of his run, writer John Barber did some actually interesting stuff with the concept, playing with the ambiguity over whether-or-not Optimus Prime was actually the chosen one.

All of Optimus Prime's immediate predecessors as Autobot leaders, Sentinel Prime, Zeta Prime, the lineage seen in "Five Faces of Darkness"... they're all false Primes. They're Primes in name only. In fact, IDW had a whole procession of these cartoonishly evil dictators thanks to a few continuity errors leading to the addition of a couple of extra narratively-redundant fuckers. Transformers One tries to simplify it slightly by just saying that Zeta Prime was one of the Primes for real—occupying that thirteenth "free space"—and it was just Sentinel Prime who was only a normal Transformer pretending to be a Prime, then Optimus Prime who's a real boy.

But if he's not a Prime from the start, Optimus Prime needs another name in the meantime. In the '80s cartoon episode "War Dawn", before he was called Optimus Prime, he was called "Orion Pax". Have you noticed that Optimus Prime is kind of an odd-one-out amongst all the straightup-English-word names like "Bumblebee" and "Ratchet" and "Jazz"? That's because his name was one of a tiny handful from very early in the franchise's development, before writer Bob Budiansky came onboard and came up with identities for the vast majority of the toys. Practically everyone Bob Budiansky named is called like, "Bolts" or some shit, long before the characters even know of Earth, which has always just been a contrivance of the setting you're not supposed to think about.

Presumably to create a parallel with Orion Pax's transformation into Optimus Prime, someone at Hasbro in the 2010s came up with a new name for the bot who would become Megatron: "D-16". In real-world terms, this was nothing more than a dorky reference to the Megatron toy's original Japanese release being number 16 in the line ("D" stands for "Destron", which is what they call Decepticons in Japan). But in-universe, the name "D-16" was drawn from the sector of the mine where he worked. I don't get the impression it was originally intended to be part of a broader pattern.

Which is why I'm baffled as to what the hell the reasoning was behind Bumblebee's pre-Earth name, "B-127". There's this bizarre situation in the Bumblebee film, where the name "B-127" first cropped up, where literally every other bot gets a normal cool name with personality like "Cliffjumper" or "Dropkick" except for Bumblebee, who is stuck with this clunky sci-fi name until he makes friends with a human teenager on Earth and she gives him the name Bumblebee. I guess I don't find it confusing that the writers would (correctly) realise it's a bit weird for Bumblebee to be called Bumblebee on an alien planet where bumblebees don't exist. What I find confusing is that they didn't extend that logic to any other character.

So despite everything else in the franchise's direction pointing away from "robot" and towards "alien", Transformers One ends up with this ridiculous situation where two of the most important guys are, for practically the whole movie, simply referred to as "Dee" and "Bee", I guess because the writers correctly realised the numbers sound fucking stupid.

And if you squint, "Elita-1" sorta fits this naming scheme. But the great irony of it is that the very same cartoon episode which coined "Orion Pax" simultaneously established that Elita-1 also used to go by a different name: "Ariel"! Like the Little Mermaid. Y'know, because an "aerial" is a type of electrical component- oh, forget it.

By the time the script made it into Eric Pearson's hands, it's obvious that he simply was not thinking about it that deeply. He describes the genesis of a scene where Bumblebee introduces his imaginary friends, "A-atron, EP 5-0-8, and Steve." A-atron was impov'd by Keegan-Michael Key as a reference to one of his own skits on Key & Peele. Steve ("He's foreign.") was literally just because Pearson thought it would be funny. It's true that Steve is an inherently funny name, and I guess if you're struggling to come up with jokes of your own, it can be handy to fall back on something which is inherently funny.

And again, our silly answers to these silly questions beget yet more questions. If he started out as "D-16", then where did the name "Megatron" come from? And if all the Primes have epic made-up fantasy names, then surely that one guy can't just be called "The Fallen", right? That's not a name, that's an epithet. Unfortunately, someone at Hasbro had the bright idea to answer both these questions at once: The Fallen's real name was "Megatronus". Later, for consistency, they threw on the title, and we get "Megatronus Prime", which sounds like what a thirteen-year-old on deviantART in 2014 would call their Steven Universe fusion of Megatron and Optimus Prime. So you see, Megatron actually named himself after Megatronus Prime, famously the most evil of the Primes. In Transformers One, this is changed slightly so Megatronus is merely the strongest of the Primes, as part of its overall effort to make Megatron not look completely insane.

Which, it must be said, is a tall order. Better stories have tried and failed. Back in 2007, Scottish writer Eric Holmes came up with Megatron Origin, a perfectly-fine comic miniseries which drew heavily from the miners' strikes that took place in the UK from 1984-1985, coinciding with the inception of the Transformers franchise. In that comic, Megatron is a lowly miner who, through a series of chance events, winds up at the head of a dangerous political revolutionary movement.

For some reason—I guess because nobody had ever tried to make Megatron anything other than a bloodthirsty cackling madman before—this take on Megatron as a guy who rose up against a corrupt system became the defining interpretation of the character, copy/pasted pretty much wholesale into the Binder of Revelation. Orion Pax also opposes the system, and bonds with Megatron over it, but they disagree on how to fix it: Pax believes in peaceful reform, Megatron just loves to kill. In Transformers One, the problem everyone has with Megatron is basically "whoa, this guy's a little TOO angry!" and there's a point towards the end of the film where Megatron suddenly starts jonesing to kill literally anyone who stands in his way, because he's irrationally angry.

The core problem here—and it's kind of the Magneto problem, the Killmonger problem, whatever better-known example you care to insert here—is that these guys all fundamentally exist just to be a big villain who loves to kill people and who ultimately gets defeated, but the kids who grew up on this stuff in the '80s are now adults who are no longer satisfied with cardboard cutout villains. People like a complex villain, they like a villain who has a point. They like to root for both sides. And in fact, it's easier to sell more toys to people who are rooting for both sides, if your villain is just another kind of hero. But you don't really need to take the same effort with the good guys: they're good by design, righteous by nature. They don't need to stand for something, they just need to stand against the guy whose whole thing is that he loves to kill people.

But again, we're starting from a place where the evil faction—who half the planet will ultimately align themselves with—are literally called "Decepticons". It's a name you'd only ever call yourself ironically, maybe reclaiming it from your enemies. In this film, there's some tortured logic that implies they're called Decepticons because they were deceived by Sentinel Prime. Like if you met a gang of guys who call themselves "The Robbers", but it turns out to be because they got robbed one time, and they actually have zero intention of stealing from anyone.

The Autobots are easier, of course. "Auto" is a prefix that just means, like, the self, or whatever. And the most agreeably American ideal of all is selfishness the power of the individual, the freedom to seize one's own destiny. Prime's original '80s motto, "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings," is bastardised in Transformers One into the slightly less rolls-out-off-the-tongue "Freedom and autonomy are the rights of all sentient beings," because (I can only assume) they forgot to work the word "autonomy" earlier into the script. If they ever greenlit Transformers Three, I suppose the motto would have ended up as something like "Freedom, autonomy, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope are the rights of all sentient beings." Even though bodily autonomy is one of the most salient motifs present in the film—all but referred to by name—I suppose the filmmakers were worried that you might think, when Prime says "freedom", that he actually means something completely different. So now you see! "Autobots" is actually the descriptive name of a political movement which believes in obviously good things. Like "Moms for Liberty".

Okay, so the cannier among you have probably spotted the mean rhetorical trick I'm pulling with this encyclopedia-entry-ass introduction. By sarcastically relitigating all the storytelling choices I dislike from the last 20 years of Transformers lore, I can build up a negative association with Transformers One without even reviewing the movie itself! On a subtextual level, I'm deliberately misattributing these bad ideas to the filmmakers, conveniently ignoring the mountains of evidence to suggest that they were just trying to make the best of whatever Hasbro handed them from on high. If anything—you might think—the filmmakers deserve even more credit, for spinning this shite into something even remotely good on the big screen.

Like, you'd be wrong, but I can see why you might think that.

II. The Spider-Verse of Transformers

Okay, I can see that I've spat in your soup. I'm sorry. There are lots of good bits in Transformers One. I can even think of one or two of them off the top of my head, without really racking my brains.

Maybe halfway through the film, there is one specific moment where the story suddenly promises to get good. You can pinpoint it down to the word, down to the frame even. Our heroes have just discovered that their planet's leader, Sentinel Prime, is a complete fraud who's been secretly exploiting them ever since they were born—and worse, castrated them by removing their transformation cogs. They are all very cross about this. Orion Pax expresses that he wants to come up with a plan to expose Sentinel Prime. Megatron is too angry to listen. Orion Pax asks, "Don't you want to stop him?" And Megatron replies, "No, I want to KILL him!" And there's like, a little tint of red creeping into the glow of his eyes.

Whoa. Chills. Up to this point in the film, Megatron has been kind of surly at times, but he's otherwise a generic kids' movie protagonist. He's often chipper. He makes quips. He has this banter with Orion Pax where he's always complaining. It's literally that one "Optimist Prime"/"Negatron" comic, committed to film. Like I'm not even being facetious, one of the film's few obligatory "emotional moments" has Elita-1 sit Orion Pax down and say, "You know what I love about you? You always see the bright side. Like you're some kind of OPTIMIST or something." And then later completely unrelatedly God gives him the mandate of heaven and says "ARISE, OPTIMUS PRIME!" Y'see, as originally conceived, "Optimus" is the word "Optimum" if it was a name, which is why people sometimes localise his name as "Best #1". But it's genuinely kind of cute to reverse-engineer the etymology as coming from "optimist", I guess. Like, it's stupid, but it's cute.

Argh, I got distracted with naming minutia again! Entirely my bad. That's the last time, I promise. Where was I? Right, we'd just found out that Megatron is kind of scary. Brian Tyree Henry's line delivery as he growls "KILL" is his crowning achievement in this film.

Where Optimus Prime's character arc in this movie sees him change from a funny, rebellious spirit to a complete personality vacuum, Megatron's character arc is kind of the opposite. When we're first introduced to him, it's weirdly hard to get a handle on who he is. He's a fanboy for Megatronus, the strongest and most morally-unremarkable of the Primes. He looks up to Sentinel Prime. He likes sports. He doesn't like breaking the rules. In fact, we get the sense that, were it not for his friendship with Orion Pax, he would be literally indistinguishable from the legion of silent crowd-filling background characters he works with. But the moment he starts to become Megatron, it's like everything starts to click. Gears catch, where once they ground and idled. There is something in this guy that was made to fight, made to kill, made to rule. It's sick.

And the underlying tension in his friendship with Optimus suddenly snaps into focus. Megatron is mad at Sentinel Prime, but Sentinel Prime isn't there, he's somewhere else, far below... and he can't help but turn that anger on the next closest thing to an authority figure he has in his life, which is his peer-pressuring bestie, Orion Pax. There is a part of Megatron that wishes he'd never learned the truth, and he blames Orion Pax for his cursed knowledge, for constantly leading them into predicaments on his stupid flights of fancy. Now that he knows, he can't go back to how he was. He can't stop thinking about it.

I'll be honest, it rules. Obviously it rules. It's complicated and toxic and darker than this movie was marketed to be. In interview, Josh Cooley describes the draft of the script he was presented with when he joined the project as having been far more jokey, light-hearted, glib—and it seems we can credit him for saying "Look, this ain't right, the minute the credits roll these guys are going to be at civil war for millions of years."

So, they started talking about it in — what did you say, 2015? I came on board in 2020, and when I came on board there was the first draft of the script. So I don't think they'd been working on it that entire time, but they'd been thinking about it, for sure. And the script that I read was a little more comical? But it was clear that that wasn't the right tone for this film specifically, because we know there's gonna be a war, civil war on Cybertron, you can't have everybody making jokes and then all of a sudden there's a war. So, um, the stakes were really important for this film. And because our characters at the beginning are a little naive, and just on the younger side, not as experienced, it allowed more freedom for them to be a little looser and have fun really getting to know these characters. But once they realize something's going on and things are getting real, it needs to get real.

Cooley also describes his "in" on the film as being the brotherly relationship between Optimus Prime and Megatron (they're not literally brothers in this film, though they have been in the past), which perhaps explains why Megatron and Optimus Prime get to be characters, instead of just like, guys who are there.

That was always the goal from the beginning and what got me on board. It was this relationship between these two characters that was very human and brotherly. I thought about my relationship with my brother and how I could bring that in. It’s not like we’re enemies, but we grew up together and then went down our different paths, but we’re still brotherly. I became a writer-director and live in a fantasy land, and he became a homicide detective who deals with reality, so we’re two very different mindsets. I have always been fascinated by the idea of two people who come from the same place but end up in different ones. From the very beginning, I was like, ‘That’s something I can relate to.’

Anyway, things I liked, what else. There's that joke at the very start, after the excruciating lore powerpoint, where Orion Pax does a fake-out like he's going to transform, the music briefly swells, and then it just cuts to him legging it down the corridor. In a similar vein, I liked the idea behind the Iacon 5000, where Orion Pax has them run in the race. I felt like the execution of the race left a bit to be desired—the only other participant who matters is Darkwing—but it's still honestly the best big action setpiece in the film. There's also that bit at the end where Megatron and Optimus Prime are both changing into their final forms simultaneously, and it's basically a Homestuck Flash (what would that be, "[S] OPTIMUS PRIME. ARISE."?), so obviously I liked that. Oh, and I really liked the environment design where the planet's landscape is constantly transforming, that's brand-new, someone had an Idea there, and it creates visual interest during the initial Energon-mining scene... even if I wished it had actually paid off in a more meaningful way than "the planet's crust opens as Prime falls to get the Matrix"—like, someone really should've gotten eaten by the planet, that's a cracking Disney death scene and they left it on the table! I also liked getting to see my blorbo, Vector Prime, on the big screen.

I think, as a Transformers fan who's had to sit through a lot of really quite sexist, racist, and plain bad films, you're well within your rights to come out of this one ready to give it a fucking Oscar. You should be ecstatic! It has none of those pesky humans clogging up the frame. It has plenty of robot action. It has jokes which- well I struggle to call many of them "funny", but they're at least trying to be funny in a different way to Michael Bay's films. The film is obviously a massive love letter to... honestly every part of Transformers except the live-action movies. It is an incredibly faithful and earnest adaptation of all the lore and iconography that has randomly accumulated the way it has over the last forty years of bullshit.

My main point of contention, then, is with the overriding sentiment I'm seeing from pretty much everyone else in the fandom: that this is not just the best Transformers movie, but that it's a great animated movie period, that it does for Transformers what Into the Spider-Verse did for Spider-Man, what The Last Wish did for Puss in Boots, and what Mutant Mayhem did for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. That, in effect, this film will make you "get it". That it's better-looking, better-written, and more meaningful than a silly toy commercial has any right to be.

I think you can definitely see some loose influence from Spider-Verse in the overall look of the film—particularly in its color grading, and in the design of its main setting, the underground city of Iacon, where the upside-down skyscrapers hanging from the ceiling evoke the iconic "falling upwards" shot from Spider-Verse. Like The Last Wish, it's an animated franchise film that spent much longer than you'd think in development, only for the release of Into the Spider-Verse to have an immediate impact on its visual style... without actually affecting the basic story to the same extent. Both Transformers One and The Last Wish, in many ways, feel like stories concocted using an older formula; in particular, Transformers One bears startling similarities to a similar toy-franchise-prequel, BIONICLE 2: Legends of Metru Nui, which was released twenty years ago! By contrast, Mutant Mayhem—which had a much shorter development period—is a direct reaction to Spider-Verse in both aesthetic and narrative, and it has a much more distinctive creative direction as a result.

If you look at how all these titles have performed in cinemas, I think you can make a pretty strong case that audiences are perfectly willing to go out and see this kind of flick. A glance at Wikipedia tells me that Mutant Mayhem, The Bad Guys, and The Last Wish grossed double, triple, and quadruple their budgets respectively. In terms of the pre-existing cultural cachet they were banking on, we're talking about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, a children's book series I'd never heard of, and fucking Puss in Boots. You cannot tell me that Transformers, as a brand, is on the same level as any of these properties. Meanwhile, Transformers One hardly broke even, while The Wild Robot—another DreamWorks film based on a children's book I've never heard of, which it ended up competing with in theatres—grosses three times its budget. My friends who've seen The Wild Robot say it made them cry.

Face it: Transformers One has not lit the world on fire. I've seen a lot of people cope with this by suggesting that it's to do with the film's staggered release, or even by claiming that the film's marketing was somehow misleading. I'll be honest, upon seeing it, it did not strike me as being at all dissimilar to the trailers. You can maybe say that the trailers undersold the depth of Orion Pax's and Megatron's relationship—which is its best aspect—but honestly, I think if they'd taken a lot of those scenes out of context and put them in early teasers, audiences would've laughed it out of theatres. Like, c'mon, it's toy robots, stop pretending it's Shakespeare. And otherwise, what you see is what you get; it's exactly what it says on the tin.

I wonder how many Transformers fans, on some level, have noticed that even when we're supposedly "eating good", and watching "peak cinema", our films just aren't as good as everyone else's. They're something you'll enjoy if you're already highly predisposed to enjoy them. But otherwise, they're not turning heads. They're not as funny, or as heartfelt, or as complex, or as exciting, or as charming, or as memorable, or as beautiful as these other films. Unlike with Spider-Verse, there's no word-of-mouth amongst normal people to say that this is a film worth seeing.

What I perceive in studios hoping to recreate the flash-in-the-pan success of Spider-Verse is a misunderstanding of what made people go crazy for that movie in the first place. Yes, it changed our conception of what an 3D-animated film could look like. Yes, the multiverse is very cool and all that. Yes, it had a huge IP attached to it. But on a more fundamental level, that movie has a fantastic story underpinning it. The script is razor-sharp. The story is beautifully complex. The vision of New York City it presents is a living, breathing place, populated by real people. It has the kind of craft to it that can only come from truly obsessive creators cultivating an absolutely miserable professional environment for a legion of passionate animators.

In interview, Transformers producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura actually spoke surprisingly candidly about his view on crunch:

I probably shouldn't answer this question, because I'm not exactly PC on my answer. I think the nature of filmmaking is, we're really lucky to work in a business that's about passion. Passion doesn't fit really well into a timeline, so inevitably you come to a crunch time. It's just true in the live action, it's true in every movie, and authors always tell me that about when they're writing their books — it's the same thing happens to them! There's something about the creative process that's not — it's unruly. So, I think if you're enjoying it, you need to recognize that. Like, you know, I don't wanna abuse anybody, and y'know — if you get into that period where people have to really work too hard, you gotta help them in that situation, then. 'Cause it's gonna come. It does on every movie. I've never seen it not come, no matter how well you plan, et cetera. 'Cause it's not a science what we're doing at all, and there's all these discoveries that happen near the end, which makes you go "oh, let's do some more, come on!". We discovered that on this movie, where we're calling ILM going "we've got a few ideas, you know, do you have enough man-hours?". [...] Like, you gotta be conscious of it — in live-action, for instance, there are some studios that are so cheap that when you're on — sort of medium location-distance and you're shooting 'til midnight, they don't pay for a hotel room. It's like, well, no-no-no, you pay for a hotel room. You protect the people.

According to everyone who worked on Transformers One, everyone who worked on Transformers One was very passionate about it. But there are parts of this film where I think you can say, pretty objectively, that it's falling short of its intended effect. So I guess maybe they weren't that passionate. I'm not saying that to be mean! It's just... isn't that better than the alternative—that this was the best they could do?

III. I did not care for The Godfather

At one point in the film, the gang's magic map leads them to a scary cave, which looks like this:

Bumblebee fills the dead air by saying, "A cave, with teeth. Nothing scary about that!" The joke here is that this is a cave that looks like a mouth. But as depicted, it's a cave that looks like a mouth that doesn't look like a cave! I get that this is an alien planet, but stalactites don't grow that way on Earth, so when you see the cave onscreen, your gut reaction isn't "oh my, what a frightening cave!". No, this is a cave that makes you say, "that's not a cave, that's some kind of alien monster".

(It's not like "cave turns out to be a monster" would in any way be a fresh twist. In BIONICLE 2: Legends of Metru Nui, there's a bit where a character swims into a scary cave, and it turns out to be the mouth of a massive sea serpent. In The Empire Strikes Back, the Millennium Falcon briefly hides in an asteroid tunnel which turns out to be a giant space worm. So I'm definitely not saying Transformers One would've been a better film if it had used this stock trope.)

Then once the heroes go inside, we're whisked off to an entirely different set of concept artwork, for this lush organic underground paradise. There's no danger there. The cave itself is reduced to a strange little footnote. Maybe it's only in the story because a concept artist drew it before they'd worked out the finer points of the narrative, and Keegan-Michael Key just ended up ad-libbing the "teeth!" line when he was told to vamp for a few seconds. Or maybe the teeth gag was fully written into the script from the start, and the environment artists just interpreted it way too literally.

Like, I'm sorry, I don't mean to start off on the wrong foot here by harping on about the cave thing—it's not a perfect example anyway—but to me it's a microcosm for my frustration towards what I perceive to be a lack of creative vision in this film. So much of the film feels like it's not there to be entertaining, or meaningful, or narratively load-bearing... it's just obligatory, something they threw in for the sake of having anything at all. It's colors and sounds. When you see the spiky shape onscreen, you think, "ooh, this film was pretty bouba earlier, but now it's more kiki!" They get the comedian to improvise a few one-liners while the characters walk from place to place. And it's like, yes, this is a film for children. Of course the heroes have an adventure map with a big red X on it. In many respects this is a glorified episode of Pocoyo, or the modern equivalent, which I guess is "Baby Shark | Animal Songs For Children".

Nowhere is this sense of "we are obliged to put this in the movie" felt more strongly than in its supporting cast. When you look closely, you notice that Bumblebee and Elita-1—placed prominently in the film's marketing and being technically present for much of its runtime—don't actually do anything of narrative significance. They don't make choices that impact the story; they're just there, and it would not take much rewriting to excise them entirely, so it's just Orion Pax and Megatron on their little adventure. In fact, I'll just come out and say it: I think Transformers One would have been a better movie if Bumblebee and Elita-1 were not in it.

It helps that, from a Doylist perspective, the motivations for their inclusion are perfectly transparent. Firstly, think of the merchandise! Secondly, in Bumblebee's case, it's fucking Bumblebee, he's the whole reason half the kids will be watching, you can't not have him in there. Whenever Bumblebee's not onscreen, all the other characters should be asking, "where's Bumblebee?" Also, I think the creative team felt that they could use Bumblebee tactically to balance some of the darkness in the story.

In the G1 cartoon, Bumblebee just has the default Autobot personality—good-natured, a little sarcastic—with the dial turned a little more towards friendliness. There's this iconic anecdote from the production that cartoon, where writer David Wise found himself in exactly the same situation Transformers writers are finding themselves in forty years later: he was told to write a story about something called "Vector Sigma", and he had no fucking clue what Vector Sigma was supposed to be. So he asked story editor Bryce Malek, who also had no fucking idea. Malek in turn asked Hasbro, and was told that Vector Sigma was "the computer that gave all the Transformers personalities". Upon hearing this, Malek said, "Well, it didn't do a very good job, did it!" Vector Sigma, in case you missed it, does actually appear in Transformers One, as the polygonal shape that transitions into the Matrix of Leadership in the opening powerpoint; I guess they're one and the same now. Some things never change: in Michael Bay's Transformers movies, there is again just a single default personality that every single Autobot shares, a braggadacious action-hero facade over genuine bloodthirst. Who can forget that iconic moment in Revenge of the Fallen where Bumblebee rips out Ravage's spine in grisly slow-mo?

Aside from the fact that he's small and yellow, Bumblebee in Transformers One bears very little resemblance to any incarnation of the character kids might be accustomed to. Instead, he occupies a stock comic-relief archetype, he's a zany guy who goes "Well, that just happened!" If anything, his one joke in the third act—wanton murder—reads like it could maybe be a reference to his many Mortal Kombat fatalities in Bay's films. Beginning in 2007's Transformers Animated, Bumblebee has sometimes possessed deployable "stingers" that flip out from his hands, as a fun action feature for toys. Clearly someone on Transformers One saw this and thought it was the funniest fucking thing that Bumblebee has "knife hands", because the character spends the third act of the movie just shouting "knife hands!" and cutting people in half like a medieval terror.

(In the UK, Bumblebee's lines were re-recorded at the last minute so he says "sword hands" instead. This is because in the UK, we generally aren't able to kill each other using guns, so it's knives that are the big armed-violence boogeyman. Everyone's always talking about how all the kids have knives. And look, I'm not someone to indulge in moral panic, but genuinely, when I look at Bumblebee chasing around people with knives, saying, "I'm gonna cut these guys, watch!", I'm like... what the fuck were they thinking when they wrote that?)

Frankly, whatever is going on with Bumblebee is just an entirely different movie to everything else that's happening. When Bee shanks his twelfth nameless lackey in a row, the movie's like, awww, you're sweet! But when Megatron tries to kill the one (1) evil dictator who's just fucking branded him, who's still lying to his face while his people continue to die to the guy's fuckin' honor guard, Optimus Prime is like, HELLO, HUMAN RESOURCES?

Bumblebee is solely here to be funny, but there's a point in the film where it needs to become a war story, and the best they can think to do with Bumblebee is to have him kill people but in like, a funny way.

As for Elita-1... look, to put it very bluntly, she is in this movie to be a woman. Transformers has had a long, long forty-year history of boys'-club exclusionism, if not outright misogyny, and each new series usually has a token female character, as a kind of fig-leaf for the fact that really, the only fucking thing Hasbro cares about is that the boys are buying the toys. Beginning in the 1986 movie, it was Arcee who got to be "the pink one" for many years of fiction—but not toys, y'see, when parents want to buy something for their beloved young lad, they don't buy "the pink one", no sir. In the 2010s, wow-cool-OC Windblade took over for a stint as leading lady, decked out in a commercially-non-threatening red color scheme. Recently, though, it's been Elita-1—Optimus Prime's girlfriend from the original '80s cartoon—who's been the go-to female character, and she's increasingly allowed to be pink.

There is a lot of love for these characters amongst creatives and fans alike, and especially in the last decade, female Transformers have been both more numerous and better-written than ever. Unfortunately Transformers One, which depicts Elita-1 as an arms-crossing career-obsessed buzzkill, whose arc sees her learn her place in deference to a less-competent man... well let's just say it struck me as a significant step back in this regard.

There's this great interview with Scarlett Johansson, voice of Elita-1, where she's trying to describe what makes her character interesting, and it's like she's drawing blood from a stone. She's like, "yeah, so Elita-1, I would say, she's on her own journey, because at the start of the film it's sort of like she's working at a big company, you know, and she wants to get a promotion, but then later on she learns that she can't, y'know, get a promotion". Look, it's not that Scarlett Johansson does a bad job—in fact, considering the material she's working with, she practically carries Elita-1 entirely on the back of her performance—it's just that I can't shake the impression that the filmmakers would rather pay Scarlett Johansson god knows how many thousands of dollars than try to think of a second actress that they know of.

As I've already complained, Transformers One has a pretty thin cast, but it effectively only has two other female characters who do anything. Airachnid is a secondary antagonist, Sentinel Prime's spymaster/enforcer, and it's clear that some concept artist really fucking popped off when designing her. She has eyes in the back of her head, and it's ten times creepier than that makes it sound. Her spiderlegs also create some visual interest during fight scenes. As a character, Airachnid has zero internality and is not interesting, but she is cool, so you'll get no complaints from me there.

The film's other other female character is Chromia, who wins the Iacon 5000 race at the last moment. She really comes out of nowhere to clinch it. It's funny, because the leaderboards show this one guy, Mirage, hovering near the top of the rankings for almost the whole sequence. And Chromia's character model really looks suspiciously like Mirage's. In fact, there's a different character who stands around in the background a couple of times who looks much more like Chromia. Funnily enough, that background character is even called Chromia in concept art! So if you connect the dots, it really seems that the "Chromia" who is the best racer on Cybertron was originally meant to be Mirage, a guy, until they switched the character's gender at the very last minute, and didn't bother changing the leaderboards to match.

There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that Mirage was the dark horse of Rise of the Beasts, and for some reason they felt like his depiction in Transformers One would've gotten in the way of their plans for the character somehow. It's plausible, I guess. The second, infinitely funnier option, is that at some point someone working on the movie realised that they only put two women in the film, scrambled to look through the feature to find a suitable character to gender-swap, only to discover to their horror that they'd forgotten to put in any characters whatsoever. Fuck it, the racer guy! He can be a girl. Diversity win, the fastest class traitor on Cybertron... is a woman!

In case you were wondering about the Transformers One toyline leaderboards, by my count, Orion Pax has ten new transforming toys currently announced or in stores, Bumblebee and Megatron have six each, Sentinel Prime has four, Alpha Trion has two, Elita-1 has two, Airachnid has one, Starscream has one, Wheeljack has one, and the Quintesson High Commander has one. In fact, one of Elita-1's toys—the collector-oriented high-quality Studio Series release—isn't scheduled for release until some undetermined point later next year, and she was entirely absent from leaked lists of upcoming releases, which to me smacks of "we realised last-minute that it would look really really bad if we didn't bother to release a good toy of the one woman in the film". Oh, and obviously, Chromia has no toys—but there is an "Iacon Race" three-pack consisting of Megatron, Orion Pax... and Mirage. Go figure.

The thing is, all of the stuff I'm grousing about here is pretty much standard fare for kids' films targeted more at boys. Hell, even The Lego Movie—which is basically the gold standard of toy commercials—gave supporting protagonist Wyldstyle a pretty similar arc to the one Elita-1 gets here, which was probably the weakest element of that film. Evidently conscious of this, Lord & Miller redeemed themselves by devoting the entirety of The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part to deconstructing common narratives surrounding gender roles. I guess I just wish the young girls who presumably comprise some portion of Transformers One theatergoers could actually get anything out of Elita-1 as a character. Ah, what do I know, maybe it's still considered countercultural simply to depict a woman punching people.

Still, to give credit where it's due: Transformers One doesn't remotely touch the gender-essentialism prevalent in the Binder of Revelation, treating female Transformers no differently to their male counterparts in lore terms. Solus Prime is, it seems, just a Prime who happened to be a woman, rather than the mythological Eve after whom all women are patterned. There's a scene where our heroes are gifted the Transformation Cogs of the fallen Primes, and the Primes named thankfully bear no particular relation to the characters; in other words, Elita-1 isn't given Solus Prime's cog. As Alpha Trion puts it: "What defines a Transformer is not the cog in his chest, but the spark that resides in their core." Dude really remembered nonbinary people exist halfway through that sentence huh.

(Actually, the bigger mistake would've been with Megatron: if he was given Megatronus Prime's cog from the start, then this would've created the unfortunate implication that his descent into evil was only the result of Megatronus Prime's fucked up and evil cog, rather than a choice Megatron made of his own free will. The film instead has it the other way around: Megatron's radicalisation into a "might makes right" philosophy is what causes him to covet Megatronus Prime's transformation cog, to steal that power from Sentinel Prime, who stole the cogs of both Megatronus and Megatron in the first place. That's cool! This does create a bit of unfortunate narrative dissonance with Alpha Trion's words, alas, as it does seem like Megatronus Prime's cog really is more powerful than the others, because it gives both Sentinel Prime and Megatron a powerup.)

There's just something that I find so dreadfully mercenary about this movie's cast—honestly, everyone except Orion Pax, Megatron, and maybe Sentinel Prime. Take Darkwing, for example. Bro was clearly designed from the ground up to fill this stock character role of "bully who pushes our guys around and later gets his comeuppance". For a more interesting take on that exact same archetype, look no further than Todd Sureblade from Nimona, a bigoted knight who gets a whole damn character arc in the background, which directly complements that film's main themes.

Again, I'm not playing some kind of guessing game here, the authorial evidence is right there: Darkwing didn't even have a name until Hasbro designer Mark Maher was shown a picture of the character and asked, "If this was a Decepticon flyer, who would it be?" This is actually par for the course with ILM; most of their concept art is labelled with very basic descriptions, with the exact trademarks being picked in conjunction with Hasbro at a later point. Darkwing just stands out in Transformers One because he's the only recurring speaking character who's an OC in all but name (unless you count Bumblebee), he's the one guy who's been invented from scratch with total creative freedom, and he's boring as sin. It's like the filmmakers just couldn't conceive of a children's movie without that stock character—and they clearly had no idea what to do with him once they'd invented him, because he disappears entirely from the film at the start of the third act, when Orion Pax throws him into an arcade cabinet, which they have in the mines on Cybertron for some reason.

In a film with as painfully few named speaking characters as Transformers One, there's really no excuse for having this kind of one-dimensionality in their portrayals. Genuinely, I ask—who are Orion Pax and Megatron fighting to liberate? Jazz, one of the biggest personalities from the original G1 cartoon, who gets all of two boilerplate lines here? Cooley seems to think so:

As you’re designing them the background characters are almost like Lego pieces where you put different heads on different bodies just to fill in a crowd. But some of them would be brought forward and be painted specific colors so that it represents a character that I didn’t know was such a big deal. But there was stuff—like Jazz, for example, has a pretty big role. It was important to have a relationship with a character that we know gets to be saved.

To me, the idea that casual cinemagoers would be invested in any of the Transformers as characters is laughable. Michael Bay's characters are famous for being hateful non-entities. In terms of the films, Jazz is best remembered for dying at the end of the first one, seventeen years ago; he looks completely different here. The one breakout character in recent years—Mirage, as played by Pete Davidson in Rise of the Beasts—was, as I've already mentioned, written out so that the movie could reach its girl quota... not that he would've had any lines anyway.

And I just don't buy the idea that the complete dearth of compelling characterisation in this film is just an unfortunate side-effect of its clipped one-hour-thirty runtime—that, given even half an hour longer, the film would suddenly be crowded with rich portrayals of all your Transformers faves. Bumblebee and Elita-1, ostensibly two of the most important characters in the film, are not in this movie because the movie is interested in telling their stories. They are in this movie for the sake of being in this movie. It insists upon itself.

IV. No politics means no politics

In fact, putting aside merchandising considerations, Elita-1 and Bumblebee serve one very specific purpose in narrative terms. The trait Optimus Prime and Megatron have always had in common is that they are both leaders—and what is a leader, without anyone to lead? Without Bumblebee and Elita-1, you'd have this farcical situation where the only person Optimus Prime ever gets to boss around is Megatron, until the very end of the movie when God makes him king of all Cybertron. The High Guard, Starscream's gang of exiles, serve a similar narrative purpose for Megatron; they're a ready-made army who've just been sitting around waiting for him to show up and take charge.

Towards the end, the movie does actually take care to show both Orion Pax and Megatron rallying groups of Cybertronians: in Pax's case, he reveals the truth to his legion of interchangable miner friends, while Megatron riles up the High Guard mob. Again, there's a bit of that narrative sleight-of-hand, a bit of a thematic cop-out, where the question of "how do Optimus Prime and Megatron come to be leaders of their factions?" is answered only in the most literal possible interpretation. Yes, we technically see the exact chain of events that lead to this point—but both characters are portrayed as born leaders. We don't see them grow into the role, except physically. The moment Megatron decides he wants to rule, he's able to take charge. Likewise, Optimus Prime just gets divinely appointed by God. At a key point, Megatron loudly declares "I will never trust a so-called leader ever again", and the movie plays a fucking scare chord like this is supposed to be ominous. Like, oh no! Optimus Prime is a leader! And they're friends! Whatever will Megatron do when he finds out his friend, Optimus Prime, is a leader?

I don't think the movie has given any real thought to what a leader actually is. It seems to take a stance that power cannot be taken, i.e. through violent action, as Sentinel Prime and Megatron do. That one scene with Elita-1 suggests the most important trait for a leader to have, above and beyond any particular competency, is simply hope and optimism. What I just can't wrap my head around is the fact that the counterpoint the movie presents to Megatron, in the form of Orion Pax becoming Optimus Prime, does not support a belief in collective action or basic democracy—rather, it's a boring sword-in-the-stone divine-right-of-kings fantasy.

Except I do have a theory for why the film is like this. Let's look again at that interview with Eric Pearson, who came onboard in the "late middle" of production:

One of the first things that I did was a big pass on Sentinel Prime. I just felt like he was too obviously telegraphing his wickedness in previous versions, and I felt like, “No, he’s a carnival barker.” He’s got to be a big salesman. He’s a bullshitter, honestly is what he is.

(Honestly, if this is Sentinel after a "big pass" to make his villainy more of a twist, I shudder to think what the earlier drafts were like.)

Now, let's see how WIRED introduces their interview with Josh Cooley, titled "Transformers One Isn't as Silly as It Looks":

He liked the script, which traces how Optimus Prime (Chris Hemsworth) and Megatron (Brian Tyree Henry) went from friends to enemies. But as the world went into lockdown as Covid-19 spread, Cooley found his story changing, if only slightly. Trump was still in office when Cooley started working on the film, and he was having meetings with the producers and they’d “start these meetings off on Zoom just going, like, ‘Holy crap what is going on in this world?’” he says. Ultimately, the infighting they were seeing between Democrats and Republicans in the same family became an undercurrent in the film’s friends-to-enemies storyline, “because that’s what Transformers is.”

So it's like, oh, this is a 2016 election thing. This is just that one election that broke everyone's brains. Of course this movie about a made-up political struggle on an alien planet being developed from 2015-2020 wouldn't be like, hey, you know what might fix our society's problems, is if we had an election. Of course the main villain is a "big salesman" "bullshitter" who says things like "The truth is what I make it!". Wow, guys, your film is so-o-o politically-conscious, and very pretty.

The fantasy is more or less that Donald Trump's army of reactionaries is marching on Washington to seize power through violent means, and on the way he drops Joe Biden into the Grand Canyon, but just before Joe hits the ground a giant fucking bald eagle swoops in to catch him and squawks, "God finds you worthy! Arise, President Biden!"

In our escapist little morality play, our best friend slash allegorical dad gets made king of the planet, and we all get jobs in the government. As in, one of the funniest lines in the movie is straightup Bumblebee exulting, "This is the greatest day of my life. I get to work for the government!" When Prime met Bumblebee—an hour ago—the dude was talking to imaginary friends, and honestly the only fucking skill he's demonstrated since then is cold-blooded murder. We have this dissonance in the storytelling, where it's mostly a story about four friends going on an adventure (are they even friends? Most of them hate each other!), but it's also a founding-fathers political origin story, which means there comes a point where our hero just suddenly starts bossing his friends around in a deep voice, and they're like, "Yes, sir!" It creates this unhinged situation where the "good" faction on Cybertron is ruled by the biblical chosen one and his nepotism buddies.

Per that quote from WIRED (or are they just putting words in Cooley's mouth? I can't help but notice they don't give an exact quote!), the film is ultimately sympathetic to the bad guys (the Republicans, I guess). It deliberately suggests that there is really nothing that should divide the Autobots and the Decepticons: their political goals, it claims, are identical, and they only disagree on the means by which to achieve them. The Decepticons, who are angry and hateful, have simply been misled by a power-hungry liar with charisma—first Sentinel, then Megatron—and so the tragedy is that they are artificially pushed into conflict with their fellow men, when really they should be uniting to stand against their common enemy, the foreigner illuminati trying to steal Cybertron's wealth.

Now, I know I've just handed you a get-out-of-jail-free card. My political allegory here is chock full of holes. What, are Sentinel Prime and Megatron both Donald Trump? Get a grip. Obviously any real-world commentary in Transformers One was only intended in the loosest sense imaginable: things like, "people should be free to change into whatever they want!" I'm being unfair, I'm reading too much into it, this is a cartoon movie for children, and if I want politics, I should start reading some fucking books. Also, come to mention it, my whole argument about that cave earlier really didn't hold water, and- I know, alright? I know.

V. Place / Place, Cybertron

I'm not mad at this toy commercial because its politics don't quite align with mine. I'm not mad at it for having a boring-ass supporting cast. I'm not mad at it for reheating a bunch of half-baked lore I didn't care for from the early 2010s. I've actually spent a lot of time mad about Transformers media that I've thought was bad. There's Transformers: Armada, where the English translators are fully asleep at the wheel and render even the most basic cartoon plots incomprehensible though constant mistranslations. There's Transformers: Micromasters, where two white guys wrote a downtrodden race of tiny Cybertronians who greet each other like "Wattup, my micro!". There's the recent series of Transformers: EarthSpark, where there's an episode that I can only describe as "the Wonka Experience but it's an episode of a children's cartoon", with a plotline that mostly revolves around our child heroes straightup robbing a Onceler-looking businessman of his most valuable possession. There's Transformers: Age of Extinction, with that one scene, and also the rest of that movie. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most Transformers fiction is some combination of bad, offensive, and offensively bad.

So even though I've just spent thousands of words whinging and moaning about how I didn't like Transformers One, the truth is that I had a perfectly nice time at the cinema. I got to go see it with five of my pals who love Transformers just as much as I do, and we had a blast. It is easily in the top 50% of all Transformers fiction.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I guess I've always given a lot of thought to what Transformers looks like from the outside. Maybe it's that I'm compelled to spend so much time and money on it, that it somehow compels me to vomit up these kinds of essays, and all I want is to be able to make it make sense to anyone in my life. It would be so, so nice if I could just sit down in the cinema with a friend or family member for a couple of hours, and at the end of it, they'd be able to walk out and say, "Okay, I guess I see what you get out of it." Rise of the Beasts was kind of that movie for me, but Rise of the Beasts is also the seventh instalment in a blockbuster franchise. It kind of takes for granted everything about Transformers.

It doesn't answer, "what the fuck is a Transformer anyway?"

For many years now, fans have noticed a marked aversion to using the word "transform" as a verb, or even as a noun. Optimus Prime no longer says, "Autobots, transform and roll out!", he just says, "Roll out!". Transformers no longer transform, they "convert". In fact, Transformers are no longer Transformers at all: they are "Transformers bots", the italics here serving to distinguish a registered trademark. This is because the worms in suits at Hasbro are worried that, if they continue to use the word "transform" by its dictionary definition—that is, to change—then rival toy companies will be able to make the case that anything that transforms can legally be described as a Transformer. It will become a generic trademark, like Velcro, or Band-Aid, or Dumpster.

Yet in Transformers One, "Transformers" is not just the noun by which the characters are referred to—rather, it's used in a descriptive sense to specifically mean "Cybertronians who can transform"! Characters are constantly talking about whether they can or can't transform. Prime gets to say his catchphrase in full. It's a miracle. Not only that, characters even get to say the word "kill" instead of "defeat" or "destroy".

Transformers One has a level of unrestricted creative freedom not seen since the 1986 animated film. This is a film unconstrained by location shooting, or licensing deals, or uncooperative actors; through the magic of CGI, for every single frame of its one-hour-thirty runtime, the filmmakers can put literally whatever they want on the screen. They were given the assignment, "Make an animated prequel set on Cybertron telling the origin story of Optimus Prime and Megatron", handed an estimated $147 million and a blank page, and told to go nuts. Like those born with transformation cogs, Transformers One had the power to become anything it wanted to be.

The 1986 animated film took that carte blanche to do whatever the fuck it wanted, and basically singlehandedly defined the direction of the franchise ever since. On a lore level, in terms of tone, I would say that Transformers owes practically everything to The Transformers: The Movie. Cartoons, comics, films, and video games have adapted every single one of its scenes countless times over. I'm not necessarily saying that it's a good film, or even that it's a particularly original film—much of it is ripped off from Star Wars—just that it took the franchise somewhere it hadn't gone before. It was looking to the future. As in, literally, it was set in 2005, at the time two decades into the future.

What gets me down about Transformers One is that—like most major franchise media released since The Force Awakens—all it can do is think about the past. Swathes of it are devoted to painstakingly recreating or setting up the various bits of iconography which have arbitrarily come to define the franchise. Even when it appears to be taking things in a new direction, it's not long before it course-corrects back into familiar territory: Steve Buscemi invents a surprisingly fresh take on Starscream's voice, and then Megatron half-strangles him to death, saddling him with a post-produced rasp to emulate Chris Latta's iconic performance from forty years ago.

The very title of the film, Transformers One, is an allusion to the line, "Till all are one," which originates in The Transformers: The Movie. In an early script for that '80s feature, it was actually "Till all life sparks are one", referring to a literal metaphysical process in that draft whereby one Transformer's life force could be passed on to another, presumably with the belief that they would all eventually be merged into a single afterlife. In the finalized story, it's just this kind of mystical phrase vaguely evoking concepts of togetherness and unity.

Transformers One brushes up against the phrase a couple of times. Alpha Trion almost says it at one point, when passing on his dead siblings' transformation cogs: "They were one. You are one. All are one!" Whatever that means. Later, Orion Pax starts a chant amongst the miners: "Together as one!" And finally, at the very end of the movie, during his obligatory film-ending monologue, Optimus Prime again goes: "And now, we stand here together... as one." (Half of Cybertron has just been banished to the surface forever.) "[...] Here, all are truly... Autobots." (Again, half of Cybertron- Optimus, what the fuck are you talking about?) Regardless, this is inexplicably the one instance where the movie doesn't twist itself up into knots trying to nail the exact phrasing.

Actually, there is one other sideways reference like this I can think of. Early in the film, Orion Pax is chatting up Elita, and he remarks, "Feel like I have enough power in my to drill down and touch Primus himself." To which Elita replies, "You don't have the touch or the power." This is kind of a nonsensical retort unless you know that in the 1986 movie, one of the most iconic songs on the soundtrack was "The Touch" by Stan Bush, which had the chorus line: "You got the touch! You got the power!" It's a banger. Anyway, remember when I said Darkwing gets chucked through an arcade cabinet? Well, here's Cooley revealing why that arcade cabinet is in the film:

I actually wrote [that exchange between Orion Pax and Elita] because I love that song. [...] And we had this one version where D-16 and Orion were playing a video game, like a stand-up old arcade game—it was inspired to look like that, but a Cybertonian version of that. They’re playing that together like friends and the song, like the 8-bit song that’s playing is ["The Touch"]. But that scene got nixed. And so I wanted to work it in there somewhere. And I just felt like a natural place for it. But that was one where I’m like, "I just love that song and those lyrics and that’s Transformers to me so I want to get that in there."

(I've had to amend that quote to fill in the blanks where the article has redacted "spoilers" for the movie. Spoiler culture is an absolute pox, I swear. Can't have the audiences knowing about one (1) mid joke in advance—the movie barely has enough jokes to fill a "Transformers One Funny Moments" compilation as it is!)

This actually isn't the first time Hasbro has "nixed" a reference to "The Touch" in major Transformers media. In the Transformers: Cyberverse episode "The Alliance", a character references "The Touch" right before a training montage which is clearly supposed to have the track playing, except instead it's been replaced by a generic rock instrumental, presumably because they couldn't afford the license. And in Daniel Warren Johnson's Eisner-award-winning bestselling comic run, there's one panel where he clearly wanted to include the song's lyrics as a sound effect, but wasn't allowed, so the final sound effect famously reads "YOU KNOW THE SONG". But that's a random episode of a bargain-bin cartoon, and an indie-darling comic series—not a $147 million blockbuster. You really have to wonder if it came down to money, or if it was something else. God knows Transformers One would not actually be improved for having a chiptune remix of "The Touch" in it, anyway.

The most egregious misplaced bit of fanwank in the film isn't even in dialogue. In the 1986 film, there's this one iconic moment when Optimus Prime arrives at the besieged Autobot City, drives through a crowd of Decepticons in truck mode, then fires some afterburners, launching his cab up into the air, where he transforms mid-leap, drawing his blaster to shoot a couple of Decepticons before hitting the ground. It's a fantastic bit of original animation. It's the Akira slide of Transformers. And, surprise surprise, it crops up in Transformers One. In the climactic final fight, Orion Pax shows up to save Megatron, and he does the thing.

But the problem is... he's not in truck mode! The film just cuts to him standing there in the middle of some anonymous mooks, then he does a standing jump into the air, the movie momentarily goes into extreme slow-mo like he's doing a fucking quick-time event, then he shoots a couple of guys and drops to the ground. There's no momentum. It exists purely to create that simulacrum, to take the single most iconic frame from that bit of 1986 animation, and stretch that one frame into infinity. The context is discarded, irrelevant. All that matters is that brief moment of recognition: "I know what that iiis!" God knows Transformers One has precious little in the way of impactful fight animation of its own; the choreography is stiff and uninspired, while the shots themselves are nauseatingly cluttered. Often, the best it can do is pilfer from older, better stories.

"Did you clap at any of the new moments and memorable characters?" "Were there any?"

Look, I get it. Transformers One is a prequel. By definition, it can't change the future. It has to play with the characters that are already in the toybox. But I do think it had this really special opportunity: to show theatregoers where the Transformers come from. To show us Cybertron not as a distant star or a barren scrapyard, but as a living, thriving alien world, unlike Earth, something special and worth protecting in its own right. Something new and memorable. In Rise of the Beasts—probably the best Transformers movie by default—when Optimus Prime is at his lowest, he wants nothing more to return home... but home is something we've only ever seen as a cold dystopia, ruled by Decepticons. The version of Transformers One I had hoped to see was one that would have imbued Optimus' homesickness with greater meaning. I wanted to feel his loss, and to hope that one day the war will end, and Cybertron can be restored.

I think Transformers One sincerely tries to achieve this effect. The concept artists have clearly put a great deal of time and thought into Cybertron as an environment. When the artbook comes out, I'm keen to see how much stuff didn't make it into the finished film. You have to assume most of it got cut, because there's next to nothing left!

At the end of the film, battle lines are drawn, the civil war is about to start... but strangely, the movie's setting does not convey the sense that anything beautiful is being lost. Nobody is unwillingly turned to violence, innocence-lost; they're all too eager to get to killing, friggin' Bumblebee is gleeful about it. There's no beautiful, iconic landmark, which gets tragically destroyed, like in some kind of Transformers 9/11—"What have we done! Where will this war take us!". There's no part of Cybertron's natural ecological environment to be ruined by the war, because the surface world is already turbofucked by the Quintessons to begin with. No, rather, we have the total opposite: Optimus Prime finding the Matrix (which was just, like, hanging out in the core of Cybertron or whatever) actually restores Energon to the planet, removing the unnatural scarcity which was the entire impetus behind the film's dystopia. He made Cybertron great again. So again, Transformers One fails to answer one of the most fundamental questions one might expect of a Transformers prequel: "When did things on Cybertron get so bad?" The movie ends with the planet in better shape to how it started!

The big original idea that Transformers One has is that Cybertron, the planet itself, should be in a constant state of transformation. I've already talked about the beautiful shapeshifting landscapes, but it's also the moving buildings, the complicated mechanisms, the roads and rails that magically lay themselves between the vehicles and their destinations. I've already mentioned how odd I find it that none of these environmental transformations have any significance to the story; the closest it comes to some sort of payoff is when Orion Pax falls into the hole that makes you king.

What I find most perplexing are the deer. When the gang makes it to the surface, the idea is to show the natural beauty of the surface, which the cogless have been denied their whole lives. The mountains glisten as they move. Nebulae glow in the night sky. The surface is blanketed in organic (?) plantlife, like a watering can forgotten in a garden. And, most strikingly, there are deer: mechanical animals, just like those found on Earth, being hunted for sport by the evil Quintessons. When the cruisers near, their glowing horns turn red with alarm, and they prance around in fear.

I'm reminded of a brief gag from the third season of Transformers: Cyberverse—one of very few shows to have devoted any serious effort to Cybertronian worldbuilding—in the episode "Thunderhowl". Bumblebee and Chromia stumble across a "singlehorn" (read: unicorn), and when it senses danger, it neighs, transforms into a rocket, and blasts out of frame. And apart from being really cute and funny, it's like, oh, of course that's what animals are like on Cybertron! Everything on this planet transforms. Why not the animals?

For whatever reason, the deer in Transformers One are like the one thing that don't transform. Why the hell not? If Cyberverse could find the budget for its split-second sight gag, surely this blockbuster could, I don't know, have them turn into dirt bikes with antler-handlebars. That would've been something, right? If not, then at least could we maybe see some other animals on Cybertron, to really get across that alien biodiversity? Of course not. See, the deer exist to communicate one very specific story beat: a single moment of trepidation, where the heroes know there's danger nearby, but they don't know what. And all you need for that is a single kind of prey animal, with some kind of warning light to let you know, hey, there's danger! Once this purpose is fulfilled, the deer have no further significance to the story.

We need only look to BIONICLE 2: Legends of Metru Nui to see this exact same beat play out with a modicum of competence and creative flair. Also in the second act—in fact, at practically the exact same timestamp—our heroes, the Toa, have a run-in with the bad guys, and they're nearly captured... but then there's this sudden rumble of danger approaching, we don't know what. It turns out to be a herd of giant Kikanalo! They send the bad guys packing, except they nearly trample our heroes too! But then, Toa Nokama's mask begins to glow, and she discovers that her mask grants her the ability to talk to animals. They learn some vital information from the Kikanalo, and are able to ride the creatures for the next stage of their adventure. Finally, when they can go no further, the Kikanalo cave in the passage behind the heroes to ensure they won't be pursued. Holy shit, that's like, five different story beats with just that one type of creature!

It's not just that Transformers One struggles with that kind of basic narrative flow, where a single element serves multiple purposes. It's that often, it wastes precious time creating redundant setups to achieve the same effect twice.

For example, Megatronus Prime's face happens to look exactly like (what we know will be) the Decepticon insignia. At the beginning of the movie, Orion Pax mollifies Megatron by giving him a rare decal of Megatronus Prime's face. Traditionally, Megatron wears his insignia in the middle of his chest—but in this film, nearly every character has a big hole in the middle of their chest, where their missing transformation cog should go. So Megatron sticks the decal on his shoulder instead.

Later, he gets a cog, and the hole in his chest is filled. When Sentinel Prime captures Megatron, he notices the Megatronus sticker, and rips it off. Then, he re-applies it on Megatron's chest—purely so it's in the "right" place for the iconography. And then, he uses his gun to crudely brand Megatron with a tracing of Megatronus' face, inadvertently creating the Decepticon symbol. Finally, in a post-credits scene, Megatron has fashioned a proper Decepticon brand with which to brand himself and his followers. So in effect, there are four separate moments where Megatron gets the symbol! Orion sticking it on his shoulder, Sentinel moving it to his chest, Sentinel mutilating him, and finally Megatron branding himself. You can make an argument that the symbol starts out meaning one thing, but ends up meaning another thing, which has a kind of tragic significance—but I think you would struggle to distinguish subtle shades of meaning from all four of these brandings. Considering the movie only has an hour and a half to work with, I find this lack of narrative economy to be honestly embarrassing.

(My friend Jo also points out what a misstep it is to just have Megatronus Prime's face perfectly resemble the Decepticon symbol from the start. Had it been a looser, more stylised—that is to say, original—design, the moment where Sentinel Prime roughly carves it into Megatron's chest could be a shocking reveal, as the basic outlines are abstracted and simplified. Gasp, that's the origin of the Decepticon symbol! Instead, from the very moment that sticker first shows up, it's like... oh, well, there it is I guess.)

In a similar vein, both Optimus Prime and Megatron undergo two different transformations at different points in the movie: first, when Alpha Trion gives them transformation cogs, and second, when respectively they obtain the Matrix of Leadership/Megatronus' cog. The gun that sprouts from Megatron's arm in his intermediary form bears a much closer to resemblance to his iconic "fusion cannon" than the triple-barrelled cannon he ends up with in his final form. Again, in such a short film, can we really say whatever subtlety this brings to Megatron's arc is worth all this fanfare? Now, Redditors ask: "What is the EXACT moment D-16 became Megatron?"

In fact, probably the only point of criticism I've seen levied at Transformer One from within the Transformers fandom at large is that Megatron's arc is maybe a little "rushed". He starts out being best bros forever with Orion Pax, and by the end of the film, he's ready to drop the guy into a bottomless pit. The film takes a lot of time to justify his anger at Sentinel Prime, but the deterioration of his friendship with Orion goes much more unspoken, and is framed more as a point of irrationality: psychologically, Megatron comes to conflate his bossy friend with his oppressive ruler. I liked this, personally. I liked that it's as if a switch gets flipped in Megatron's head. But you do just kind of have to buy into it. The film itself does not put in the work to really sell you on the friendship souring, because again, it's too busy fucking around with two (2) magical girl transformation sequences for each of them.

Everything in the film is like this. They go into the cave and meet Alpha Trion, then leave the cave so they can watch a FMV cutscene with Sentinel Prime and the Quintessons, who've coincidentally arrived at that exact moment, basically just to rehash what they've just been told... and then they go back into the cave so Alpha Trion can resume his infodump, and then they end up clashing with Sentinel Prime's forces once that's done. At the beginning of the movie, they're at the very bottom in the mines, then they get banished to an even lower level, then they banish themselves all the way up to the surface, then they return to Iacon, and then Megatron gets banished to the surface again so he can be mesmerized by the beauty of the world and/or get gunched by Quintessons depending on what the film wanted me to take away from this. Compare to Minecraft but I survive in PARKOUR CIVILIZATION [FULL MOVIE], where the theme of class struggle is pretty efficiently depicted in the vertically-stratified setting.

I just find it so wasteful. Outside of the one scene where they're introduced, the Quintessons—ostensibly the true architects of Cybertron's oppressive status quo—may as well not exist. If not for Orion Pax addressing his closing remarks to the Quintessons, almost as an afterthought, I'd assume the film wants us to forget about them entirely, as it knows full well that its paltry runtime does not give it time for a second action-climax against the aliens. Even as sequel bait, it feels halfhearted at best; Josh Cooley is clearly already bored of Transformers, and seems unlikely to come back for another round unless the money is really really good (which *glances at the box office* it's not). So what the fuck are the Quintessons here for? Was the idea that Sentinel might just have pulled off his coup singlehandedly really so hard to stomach? Could the conspiracy not have been simplified to just involve Sentinel and his Transformer cronies? Hang on, are all the Transformers seen at the start of the film in on it, or just some of them? How's it decided who keeps their cogs and who doesn't?

VI. Into nothing

Why does this movie, where the main selling point is ostensibly that we're getting to see Transformers civilization for the first time, mostly focus on all these guys who can't fucking transform? Surely the entire thing that makes the setting fun is the Zootopia angle of, look, they're all different animals! Or the Elemental angle of, look, they're all different elements! Or the Emoji Movie angle of, look, they're all different emoji! Or the Cars angle of, look, they're all different cars! This is a Transformers film which features several significant sequences involving these cool trains, and there is absolutely zero indication that these trains are themselves Transformers. This is a Transformers film which extensively focuses on miners, and none of them transform into mining vehicles; they're holding, friggin', space jackhammers. Even the premise of "isn't it sad that these ones can't transform" is kind of undercut by the fact that all the miners get to wear fucking jetpacks, which is a frankly much cooler and more effective method of locomotion than driving.

I'm just sick of Transformers stories having zero interest in the basic premise of Transformers, which is to say, they transform into something. I also think this is the biggest dissonance between casual audiences, who think "oh yeah, Optimus Prime, that guy who turns into a truck", and Transformers fans, who think, "oh yeah, Optimus Prime, the messiah or something". Normal people love to know what the Transformers turn into. They ask, "Wait, is there a Transformer that turns into [insert silly vehicle here]?" Of course people are interested in that angle! Vehicles are such a huge part of our daily lives—honestly, for those of us living in cities, more so than animals, the classical elements, or emoji—but the closest Transformers One comes to engaging with this lens is that aforementioned Iacon 5000 race sequence. By and large, it presents a world which is made for standing up and walking around. And personally I do think that's an insane approach to take?

Is the excuse that cars can't emote? Nonsense. If you've ever seen a traffic jam, you'll know that cars can sure as hell emote. Pixar, where Josh Cooley cut his teeth, famously spent a lot of time working out how to put a facial expression on a car. No, the problem dates back to the very start of the franchise.

In the 1980s, two main people were responsible for writing the comic stories: American writer Bob Budiansky, and British writer Simon Furman. Budiansky approached the premise of the franchise from an external, human perspective, writing about culture clash, and taking delight in the Transformers' mechanical alien nature as "robots in disguise". Meanwhile, Furman wrote the Transformers as giant people: he focused on their own internal conflicts and motivations, and the grand history of their war. Pretty much every Transformers story ever told can be boiled down to one of these schools of thought: Budianskian, or Furmanist.

Budiansky quit the comic after fifty issues, allowing Furman to take the reigns as sole writer, and Furman basically got the final word on what the Transformers are. They did not evolve from naturally-occurring gears, levers and pulleys. They were not designed by a supercomputer, or built by an alien race. They are the chosen sons of God. The Thirteen are, of course, an invention of Furman's. And Transformers One is perhaps the most Furmanist story ever told. It's the culmination of years and years of lore building up, ossifying into something you can no longer describe as the history of a universe—no, this is a mythology. It's the most perfect form of brand alignment imaginable: this is not an origin story, this is the origin story. It's been the origin story for a better part of the decade—and now that everyone's seen it in theatres, it will be the origin story forever.

It's not just the fiction, either, by the way. These days, if you go into the store to buy a Transformers toy, chances are it'll turn into some misshapen made-up futuristic concept car with unpainted windows and wheels that don't even roll—and that's terrible.

There's truly a lot to hate about Michael Bay's Transformers films, but with each new entry that's released following his departure from the franchise, I feel like I only find myself appreciating them more. In the 2007 Transformers movie, we see the Transformers crash-landing on Earth in their "protoforms", and their movements are animated like they're shy, like they're naked until they scan an Earth vehicle and adopt a disguise. The visual impact of Megatron, meanwhile, is that he doesn't adopt a disguise in that movie: he's a horrible metal skeleton that turns into a jet made of knives. It's weird and alien and it rules.

In the 1980s Transformers cartoon, and in the last-minute Cybertron-set prologue added to Bumblebee, and now in Transformers One, the Transformers look basically the same on Cybertron as they eventually do upon their arrival to Earth. Optimus Prime turns, unmistakably, into a truck. He has windows on his chest, and smokestacks on his arms. He doesn't have these features because he disguises himself as an Earth truck. He has those details because that's just what Optimus Prime looks like. They're his "essential brand elements", or "trademark details", which "identify the must-have elements in character design to be carried across all creative expressions". Prime may take any form he wishes, so long as it looks exactly like himself. A mask of my own face—I'd wear that.

What I find fucked up about the reception towards Transformers One is that a lot of people seemed very invested in its success—and not its popular success, certainly not its artistic success, but rather its commercial success. They wanted this to be the first film to make one bumblebillion dollars. They wanted Hasbro to line its fucking pockets and make movies like this forever. So if you express any kind of negativity towards this film online, which might theoretically affect some other person's decision of whether or not to go and see it, which might theoretically affect the profit it makes at the cinema, which might theoretically affect the future of the franchise in some unknown way, then you're some sort of fandom traitor who oughta be executed.

If you're so worried about the future of the franchise, the fandom really isn't where you should be looking. Like, c'mon, the Transformers fandom has been good as gold, we buy so many toys. Meanwhile, Hasbro just got finished laying off around 100 employees with no warning to make their books look a bit better. Transformers designer John Warden—who'd worked at Hasbro for 25 years, is widely credited with inventing the modern paradigm of Transformers toylines, and ultimately became the creative director of both Transformers and G.I. Joe—was on assignment to a convention in the UK with the rest of the Transformers team when he heard the news. Suffice to say, he did not end up making a public appearance at the convention. With his work's health insurance snatched away without notice, he's had to resort to crowdfunding to pay his family's medical bills. As a well-known figure in the toy industry, he will presumably find a new job and land on his feet, but the same cannot be said for all 99 of the remaining employees we're told have been unceremoniously dumped.

The Binder of Revelation, which has been something of a holy grail of behind-the-scenes material for over a decade, has finally been leaked—presumably by one of these guys, presumably out of spite.

Now, I'm not going to pretend to have been paying particularly close attention to Hasbro's financials, but from where I'm sitting, it sure seems that ever since the sudden death of then-CEO Brian Goldner in 2021—credited for saving the company in 2000, and overseeing the explosive growth of its intellectual property ever since then—his replacement, Chris P. Cocks (or "Crispy Cocks", as we're all now calling him), has been dead set on gutting the company for all it's worth. The Power Rangers franchise, which the company acquired for $522 million in 2018, is dead in the water, with huge quantities of physical assets being flogged at auction for quick cash. In 2019, they acquired the entertainment company eOne for $4.0 billion, and now they're selling off the whole shebang (except the cash-printing Peppa Pig franchise) for just $500 million. I guess maybe they just fucked it big style?

Because now, Crispy Cocks has proudly announced that Hasbro is going to stop financing movies altogether.

I'm sure that in the wake of this announcement, many of those aforementioned fandom pundits will be drawing a correlation between this announcement, and the box-office figures for Transformers One, and the fact that you personally failed to convince your Mom to go see it with you or whatever. "Ah, you see! They didn't make enough of their money back, and now they're consolidating. Simple economic cause and effect. Market forces." And look, I'm not going to sit here and claim these things are wholly unrelated. Of course they're very related. But I am going to make the case that, in truth, nobody at Hasbro really cared how Transformers One did. Unless it turned out to be some pie-in-the-sky runaway hit, I don't think the future of the Transformers film franchise would've been particularly different if only the film had done better.

With Paramount, Hasbro has been making these movies and having them underperform ever since 2017's The Last Knight—which apparently lost Paramount $100 million—and that's because at the end of the day, what they're most interested in isn't making movies. It's making toy commercials. And on that level, the Transformers films have clearly been a success so far.

Now, Crispy Cocks' skinsuit fashions itself as a gamer, so he can personify Hasbro's hardcore pivot towards digital and tabletop gaming. While we await the release of the assuredly-dogshit, assuredly-hell-to-have-worked-on, assuredly-never-coming-out Transformers: Reactivate, the brand has been whored out to a procession of mobile games you've never heard of, glorified gambling machines designed to hack the monkey part of your brain with bright colors and Things You Recognize. The exact content of these games is irrelevant; all that matters is the announcement, on every single pop culture news outlet simultaneously (naturally—they're all owned by the same company, talk about Monopoly), of New Collaboration Between Transformers And Goon Warriors Free To Download Now. Your daily, weekly, bi-annual reminder to think about that thing you can buy.

That's all any of this stuff is.

All these words spilled about what a good movie Transformers One is, and how bad it is, and why the marketing failed it, and what the next one might be like, and- none of it mattered! It does not matter. From the beginning, this movie was always going to be too preoccupied with its own mercenary interests to be something anyone would ever be able to seriously talk about as a work of art, even corporate art. The actual content of the movie is irrelevant; I've spent very little of this review talking about it, because there's nothing there to talk about. It is the mere fact of the movie's existence that serves its purpose. Like the Optimus Prime Fortnite skin, it's enough for it to occupy our attention.

Maybe that's why they staggered the film's release date: because some marketing exec watched the rough cut and realised, if everyone saw it at once, we'd be done talking about it within a fortnight. And in ten years' time, after it has been paraded around whichever streaming services survive 'til then, and nearly every last cent of revenue has been squeezed out of it, the kids will be able to watch it on YouTube with ad breaks, and decide what they want for Christmas.

To the Transformers fans reading this, I am begging you, unless you happen to own shares in Hasbro for some fucking reason, to disabuse yourself of the feeling that you owe any kind of loyalty to a toy franchise. It shouldn't matter to you one jot how Transformers One did in theatres. The people who actually make the product you care about, the friendly faces paraded before you on livestreams and press tours, don't see this money anyway—they too are merely assets, who can be fired and replaced with cheaper, inferior equivalents.

I'm sure many of you will have, from the very start, seen this review for the foolish endeavour it is. I've wasted all this time criticising Transformers One for its lack of artistic vision, when the truth is, Transformers One is playing an entirely different game. Like the Disney Channel running "Fishy Facts!" segments to subliminally get kids interested in fish a full year and a half before the release of Finding Nemo, this is not a product—it's an ad for a product.

...

Okay I'll be honest, I don't entirely love where this review has ended up. It ends on kind of a "bummer note", I guess you could say. Flashing back to sections I. and II., I feel like things started out so fun. We had that whole bit at the start where I was telling you about the Transformers, remember that? We learned so much together. And there were even a few moments where I was able to express some kind of sincere joy and appreciation over this thing that I supposedly adore so much. Sure, I did a lot of complaining, but it was fun complaining, right? It had like, a sarcastic edge to it, sort of.

What happened? Why am I suddenly talking like I want to cut someone's head off? As I grow more bitter, I type this essay with increasing difficulty. The massive gun that's sprouted from my forearm keeps colliding with my monitor.

Hasbro descends from on high to reward @TFHypeGuy, a grown-ass adult who has spent untold unpaid hours fearlessly replying to every single viral tweet to tell people to go see the film, somehow netting himself 80,000 followers in the process, with a crate of toys, which was probably his end goal from the start. He and I duel. We trade blow after blow. Finally, he clobbers me with a Walmart-exclusive light-up Ultimate Energon Optimus Prime figure. "It didn't have to end this way," he says. Then he banishes me to the surface world to think on my sins.

VII. The Wrong Trousers 👖 | Train Chase Scene 🚂 | Wallace & Gromit

When Eric Pearson came onto the project,

It was late middle of the game. They had a script that had the outline of the story, which is still very much the structural bones of the story now. But what I found interesting about animation is there are certain things that were far along in the process. The train escape to the surface was very far along, so that was just kind of locked. Maybe you could change a line here or there. Meanwhile, the opening, the whole first 10 minutes, was all storyboards and sketches, which changed a bunch of times.

And I do think that's a really difficult position for a scriptwriter to be in. Sure, the parts of the screenplay I feel able to attribute to Pearson, I wasn't particularly impressed by. But I think this anecdote goes to show how unnatural the constraints can be on a story like this. When you think of like, a scene that's key to Transformers One, you're probably imagining something like the Megatron/Optimus fight, or the scene in the mine—not the train scene, which is basically a bit of arbitrary connective tissue bridging the two main locations in the film.

Josh Cooley, the film's director, the face of the film on the press circuit from a creative standpoint, came onboard after five years of previous development work was already done. Writers Andrew Barrer and Gabriel Ferrari, who originally pitched the film and presumably wrote the early drafts of the story, might have already left the project by that point. Aaron Archer and Rik Alvarez, the creative forces behind the Binder of Revelation, left Hasbro years before the film was even pitched. It's no wonder to me that the final result feels incoherent, disjointed, and oddly stilted. It's certainly no wonder that nobody at Hasbro today really seems to care about the film; it's not their baby. If any of the people credited with bringing the project to completion had been given full creative freedom to make whatever Transformers movie they wanted, it would've looked completely different.

Luckily, there are still plenty of areas of the franchise where creators have just been allowed to go ham. Over in Japan, TRIGGER has taken a modest budget for a music-video and produced one of the most visually-striking bits of animation in the franchise, a true love-letter to all the weird parts of its forty-year history. And in America, comic creator Daniel Warren Johnson is halfway through his Eisner-winning new run on the title, which is the kind of thing I would basically recommend to anyone without caveats as being a phenomenal story, period. If that comic can be said to be an advert for anything, it's for Skybound's other, nowhere-near-as-good comic series, or for the unofficial unlicensed copyright-infringing Magic Square Optimus Prime toy Daniel Warren Johnson apparently used as reference the whole time.

I dunno, maybe Hasbro stepping back from financing these films is a good thing, in the long run. Maybe we can do without Transformers movies for a while. And however many years down the line, maybe Paramount or some other studio will put together a new team of talent, and they'll get to do whatever it is they want. And maybe the movie they make will be the one that knocks everyone's socks off.

Truly, I don't know where the road leads from here. It hasn't been built yet. It could turn out to go anywhere.

If you made it this far, I hope some of what I've said has been entertaining or interesting. Thanks for reading!

Time to for me to come clean. There is one other reason why I've waited so long to release this review... and that's because I have a special announcement to make. Last month I set myself a little challenge: to write something that's at least as long as this review, but which isn't another negative-nancy tirade. It's a story.

The working title is "Ice Road Transformers". It's like an episode of that one reality TV show about Canadians driving trucks across frozen lakes—except the truck is Optimus Prime.

Early reviews say it's good! It'll be going through several rounds of revisions, to turn it into a well-oiled machine, hopefully in time for a seasonally-appropriate wide release in February. I'm very excited for you to be able to read it. You can follow me here or on Bluesky to be the first to find out when it's ready!

I'd like to thank my friends Jo and Umar for their work interviewing Cooley and di Bonaventura during the film's press circuit, along with Viv, Callum, and Omar for allowing me to enjoy this film much more than I otherwise might have. I wouldn't have been able to express many of my feelings about this movie nearly so cogently if not for the conversations I had with them. Additional thanks go to Chris McFeely, as his Transformers: The Basics videos (linked throughout this essay) refreshed my memory on a lot of the Aligned stuff, sparing me from having to read The Covenant of Primus again.

[newlabournewromantics]

okay so i'm not british (i'm just a teenage girl hungry for knowledge 😔✊) but i watched one video and as a result i've been consuming an insane amount of new labour media for the past week even though i've never been interested in uk politics besides keeping up with global news LMAO i genuinely wanna know more so where do you think i should start with books films etc 😭

hiii!! excellent question id be more than happy to help! this will be sort of an overview with general recs for newlab beginners (why am I treating this like its a profession omg) so just lmk if you want more specific recs + I've highlighted my favs

books (from the outside)

(by from the outside I mean written by people not directly involved in newlab, so historians/journalists etc)

the two classic newlab texts are servants of the people and the end of the party, both by andrew rawnsley from the observer. provide nice, extensive but not overly fussy histories of newlab from opposition to 2010. good balance of gossip and actual information!

my personal favourite is rivals by james naughtie (bbc reporter), I find the prose in it far more compelling than any other book on this list.

brown's britain (robert peston) is also very good!

you've mentioned that you're not from the UK, so I really really really would recommend reading a book/a few articles on the broader history of the British Labour Party, just so you can understand why newlab was so revolutionary. I quite like keeping the red flag flying

autobiographies/diaries/books from ppl directly involved:

(these will inevitably be more biased)

the new machiavelli by jonathan powell is my absolute favourite self-written newlab book - and you might learn some stuff ant machiavelli whilst ur at it so this is an essential imo

my life our times by gordon brown is another one I really enjoyed, although it's less gossipy than some of the other books on this list. admittedly I do agree with basically everything gordon brown has ever said so this is a very biased review, but I would give it a go!

obviously alastair campbell wrote a load of diaries. I would be careful with which volumes you choose to get - go for the ones published 2010 and onwards bc he made the choice to omit stuff from the first few volumes he published so that it wouldn't' hurt gordon's premiership. also, they're really long and really extensive, so pick which volumes you want to read based on which specific period of newlab you find yourself drawn to!

as a comms/polling fan (boo) I really liked unfinished revolution by philip gould, but this might not be the best book to start with.

damian mcbride's power trip (more diaries) is also interesting

big fan of point of departure by robin cook asw!

I found tony's books excruciating to read but that's bc im crazy and think I know the inside of his mind like its my own so they might be good for you. his new book is FASCINATING but only in the sense of it exposing how big his messiah complex is. don't read any of his books if you're not down to hear about sex and/or technology.

oh a note: mandelson has written books but I don't like him so im not going to recommend them <3

tv/film

tony and gordon aren't really all that into big heartfelt chats about newlab, esp not together, but a few good docs have been made

blair and brown: the new labour revolution (bbc, 2021) - this is a classic, it's where I got my newlab start as a tender sixteen year old politics student u can't beat it! watch this one first

the blair years (bbc 2007)

out of the shadows and we are the treasury (here and here)

blair's thousand days (1 2)

if you're into tbgb, please please please watch the deal. I don't like much of the michael sheen as blair content, but the deal (2003) is so good.

if you want me to rec bits of tv from the newlab years that I think r cool and worth watching then send another ask and ill tell u! but obv theyre not much use if you're just getting into newlab :)

alastair did interviews with tony and ed miliband 6/7 years ago. not all about newlab, but very interesting to watch and observe the dynamics!

podcasts

matt forde of the political party has done interviews with a lot of newlab figures, from tony all the way to the more junior spads. I especially like the joint one he did with ed balls and alastair campbell, and the first tony one. these r less good for actually learning facts about newlab but really like listening to them as a way to sort of get into these ppls heads and observe them in a more casual setting. also a gordon interview asw !

if you can bear listening to george osborne talk (I can but others r more sensible) then political currency is also a good place to get lil tidbits of newlab gossip, bc ed balls is one of the hosts and he's super messy he loves chatting abt gordon.

ideology/boring stuff etc!

ok u can ignore this section if you want but these r some books about the ideology that underpinned newlab - I think it's fascinating!

the third way by giddens (literally the newlab bible and I think the only theory that blair took seriously)

crosland’s the future of socialism!! influenced gb and caused so much internal labour drama so evidently its excellent

if you want a really interesting essay on Iraq I recommend this

podcast on centrism that touches a lot on clinton/newlab/blair etc

oh and just for fun!!!!! here's a playlist of all the songs written canonically actually irl about tony blair.

lmk if you want any other recs!!!!!

[shiny-jr]

Hi Shiny! I’m not new to your blog but I have been reading up on the works I’ve missed since I haven’t been the most active on tumblr for like, a solid year, (possibly more?) and I forgot just how amazing your writing is; you are definitely one of my favorite writers, and I greatly enjoy every one of your works.

That’s why- as a reader who really wants to get into writing- I would love to hear what stands to be your biggest inspirations, and especially what media (whether it books, songs, films, etc.) has influenced your writing. I’ve been looking to develop my writing style by taking in the works of others, so any recommendations are appreciated!

Welcome back, anon! Let me see what I can think of off the top of my head.

As I sit here, the first thing I thought of is vocabulary. I think having a good VOCABULARY is key to making a good story, especially when it comes to the flow. I grew up reading a lot, and recently, I began reading more again just books and articles. Through that process, it's easy to learn words, see a new one, and look it up. You might remember said words and use them later.

I've actually been told that I speak kinda eloquently at certain times, like in a professional-business like way, which I totally don't mean to. But yeah, I digress, vocabulary is very important. I'll give you an example.

I started writing this chapter for a new series, and it was late at night, and my heart wasn't really in it. When I reviewed it, I immediately hated it. Why? Because of the vocabulary. It was all simple words, repetitive, and without any variety. I'm not saying your vocabulary has to be great or anything, but when I write, I always have a site called wordhippo open. Just for when I can't remember a specific word or I'm looking for a synonym to change things up and prevent that annoying repetitiveness.

CHARACTERIZATION is also a huge deal. Writing for characters that are not yours is not easy. It's difficult. One thing I do is if I'm not sure about a character's decisions, actions, dialogue, is I look for reference points from what they're from. Voicelines, art, anything helps. If its lacking, I try to think of another character they're similar to and ask myself what would this other character do? Would it be the same as the first character? That usually helps.

Of course, this includes character development and conflicts and relationships and such. I think some of the best characters I've ever seen in media, are from the animated Avatar: The Last Airbender. That series has such solid personalities, variety within the cast, good interesting conflicts, and one of the best character development arcs in modern day animated media.

As for songs, I usually just listen to instrumental songs when writing. I found that lyrics tended to distract me, which is why I try to avoid it when writing. No series or novels come to mind immediately, although I do write personal reviews for those I read. Most of which is either praise or criticizing (mostly criticizing) the writing style of the author, the characters, or the plot. I'm glad to share some of those, but I've written a good number of them and they're lengthy, just me yapping.

Anyways, that's a lot. I'm not sure if I answered your question as you wanted? I hope I did. Let me know if there's anything else.

[crascet]

Honest Thoughts: The Penguin

So, I absolutely love Reeves' The Batman. First movie where I repeatedly watched it a total of three times within the same year. It is absolutely fantastic and is probably up there with The Dark Knight as my favorite Batman film (I haven't seen Mask of the Phantasm, and I heard that's the best Batman film, but I promise I'll watch it as soon as I get it). Now as it is the beginning of a new cinematic universe for the Reeve's Batverse or just the Reevesverse, there would be some spin-offs and of course the eventual sequel with Part II coming out in 2026. As for spin-offs, there has been two of them, or at least one of them being canon. Th first being the DC Black Label series, "The Riddler: Year One" that follows the origins of Paul Dano's Edward Nashton from his childhood in one of Gotham's rundown orphanages to his adulthood and him discovering the corruption of Gotham and his terroristic ways as the Riddler. It's a pretty good series that is also written by Dano himself to give a more authentic feel for the character, although I have heard that this series might be non-canon, but I did enjoy this series as I really loved Dano's performance in the movie, especially in that Arkham interrogation scene. And now, there was the release of the Penguin series on Max that started last month just had its finale last Sunday.

Spoilers for the series itself, so if you haven't seen it yourself. Also, this isn't really much a review but rather just showing my thoughts on the show, hence "Honest Thoughts."

I should probably start by saying this: there is absolutely NO good guy in this show. There is a protagonist and an antagonist in here, but they're not heroes at all. Starting with Oz Cobb, which sidenote: yes, I know that there are some people that are mad that his last name isn't Cobblepot, but I always headcanon that as Cobblepot being an ancestral name that was then shortened down to Cobb when Oz's ancestors immigrated to the U.S. so there. Now with the name debacle aside, Oz is a scumbag. He is the worst character in this show with what he does to get more power, but when you watch the show, there will be times where you may sympathize or even cheer for him, but that's the sort of thing with him. He's a massive manipulative, megalomaniac that wants what he wants while pretending to be selfless to those around him. he would say how joining his gang would be beneficial to you and will help the lower class in how "Gotham belongs to us!"... before shooting you and tossing your body under the bus, just so he can make a quick escape. Now at first glance, there could be some merit to why he does this as he could've done it just to have his mother live a better life while making her be safe, especially since she's suffering from dementia. So maybe there is a noble cause to this, right? And then in episode 7, it revealed that Oz killed his two brothers as a kid, just so he can stay much closer to his mom and that his loving relationship with his mom is way creepier and disturbing than it seemed. It also doesn't help that his mom actually figured out that Oz killed her two sons and never said anything about and even thought about having someone kill him. AND TO TOP THAT OFF, that excuse may be false as he still denies that he killed them, even after knowing his mom found out the whole time. Meaning that this whole journey is just him being the most delusional and selfish guy who just wants more power to himself. There's also just the fact where he just gets lucky at times that just gets lucky out of confrontations, he's a cunning guy which why there's times where his metaphorical dominoes he sets up falls down as part of his plan, and then there's that time he gets out of a fight because his opponent gets a heart attack. There is just so many ways he seems to get caught and possibly get killed, but those moments never come to him. Colin Ferrell did a great job being oz again, he was already great in The Batman and seeing him come back is fantastic.

So, can Cristin Milioti get an Emmy for Best Lead Actress or at least a nomination, because holy crap, she is fantastic as Sofia! Starting as a simple revenge story against her family as they did nothing for her when she was sent to Arkham because of her father framing her for the multiple murders of female workers in the Iceberg Lounge that he actually committed as well of the death of her mother. There was her brother, Alberto, who actually shows up during visiting hours and telling her that he would get her out of there, although I do have a theory that he may be in on it too and was just saying that, so he won't end up like Sofia or worse. But I guess I won't know if that's true since Oz killed him in the beginning of the series. Sofia then kills her whole family, only sparing her cousin's daughter so she could live a better life away from the Falcone family, while Sofia becomes the new head of the crime family. HOWEVER, Sofia then realizes how when she was trying to make her young cousin stay in one of those rundown children's home with her not revealing that Sofia killed the Falcones (which is a "better" option than letting someone else go there and kill her) that Sofia is not that different than her father at that point. So, she ultimately decides to say screw it all and just leave Gotham after she kills Oz, only it to end with Oz and the rest of the gangs that work for him to kill Sofia's men and Oz frames her for all the gang wars in Gotham, which then ends with Sofia going back to Arkham, essentially full circle for her. Sofia is by far the most tragic character here in how she just wants to break free from the corruption in Gotham and how she won't change anything even if she tries hard enough, only for her to just stay in this living hell. She was also the main focus of my favorite episode in the whole series with episode 4, C'est Anni (if that's how it's spelled), that is about her first time in Arkham as well as her mass murder of the Falcone's. Also, shoutouts to the make-up and costume designers in the show for Sofia's transitioning in looks from a cleaner look during the flashback to how she ends up looking as in the show, with her frazzled hair and scars, just a dirtier and more weathered look. I also just liked her dresses and coats as well.

And then there's Vic. Poor, poor Vic. The heart of the whole show and the audience surrogate in viewing this big dark world of Gotham. The one person who can see some good in Oz and is still loyal to him, helping out with whatever he wants in the name of finally being remembered from this city. The one who can call Oz family after the death of his family from the citywide flood in the beginning of the third act in the Batman and would sacrifice everything for him, including breaking up with his girlfriend. All for it to end up with Vic to get killed by Oz himself. A pretty sad yet completely expected way for him to end up since again, Oz doesn't care about anyone, even those close to him. In the end, Vic was just another victim in this whole thing.

One final shoutout to Clancy Brown as Sal Maroni here. Clancy Brown is one of my favorite character actors, he is just great in everything. I mean c'mon, he was the best portrayal of Lex Luthor in Superman: TAS and the Justice League cartoons in the DCAU, of course he's great!

Great show, 9/10. Give Milioti her Emmy, she freakin deserves it. And can't wait for The Batman Part II in 2026 and whatever other series is being set in this universe as well.

[kathleenkatmary]

Screwball September: Ratings, Reviews, and Rankings

I wanted to watch so much more this year than I did. I was really hoping to fit in at least a few more that I've never seen or hadn't seen in awhile. But that just didn't happen.

View the list on letterboxd

01. My Man Godfrey (Gregory LaCava, 1936) - 5/5

In my opinion, the greatest screwball comedy of all time, and with Carole Lombard's greatest performance. She remains perhaps the greatest comedic actress of all time, and all of the reasons why are perfectly apparent in My Man Godfrey. Her timing was impeccable, she wasn't afraid to look silly or ridiculous, and she had an innate understanding of when to go big and when to keep things a bit more subtle.

She and William Powell were also such a great pairing. They actually made a few films together, and we briefly married in the early 1930s. It's a bummer the movies they made together during the pre-code era aren't better known, but it's an even bigger bummer that this was the only screwball comedy they made together. Both are absolute legends when it comes to screwball comedy, so it really is just such a shame that they didn't make more together. Powell's more lowkey demeanor was such a perfect fit for the archetypical screwball leading lady that was Carole Lombard. That contrast lends itself to fantastic comedy.

The rest of the cast is amazing, too. I love Alice Brady as the flighty mother type, and she's probably at her best here. It's also one of the best Gail Patrick performances. She's such an awful person, and she really captures that sort of high class, unrepentant shittiness. Eugene Pallette played a lot of befuddled, frustrated father types, and this is one of the best roles of that type. He gets to be a sort of straight man played against his family, but since Powell is the movie's real straight man, he still has plenty of screwball moments to shine. Jean Dixon is pitch perfect as the seen-it-all maid, hitting a note that fits perfectly between the batty insanity of the Bullock family and Godfrey's more reserved world weariness. And of course there's Mischa Auer as Mrs. Bullock's 'protege', a ridiculous man who's made all the more hilarious by the way that Auer plays it kind of straight.

The script is perfect. It's just so packed full of jokes that you really need to watch it more than once to catch them all. And the characters really are so well written. I know some people struggle a bit with a lot of screwball comedies (and I admit, I do to), because for all the commentary on the wealth gap and how completely out of touch the rich are, the almost always end with the rich people finding better meaning for their lives, or understanding the plight of the poor, or the important of their family, whatever, without any suggestion ever being made that they maybe shouldn't have all that wealth when so many people were starving, and the poor main character usually ends up achieving wealth. That issue is still present in My Man Godfrey, but the writing for all of the characters does a really good job at making the ones that are meant to be likeable likeable, and giving the ones that really deserve it a very real comeuppance that humbles them. So I think it at least makes the ending feel consistent with the character writing at the very least. And it's an issue I never want to specifically hold against any individual movie, as it's a genre-wide problem, unless the writing really falls down at justifying it in any way.

02. The Lady Eve (Preston Sturges, 1941) - 5/5

Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda are one of the most underrated screwball pairings, and really just screen pairings, ever. It's a shame they only made three films together (and that one of them is the pretty lackluster You Belong to Me). Both The Lady Eve and The Mad Miss Manton are screwball classics, and so much of what makes both movies work is the insane chemistry between Stanwyck and Fonda, as well as how good they both are at screwball comedy.

The Lady Eve has one of the sexiest film scenes to be made during this era, when the Production Code was probably being the most strictly enforced. The scene with Stanwyck and Fonda in her room, when she's on the bed and he's on the floor next to her and she's just kind of got her arms wrapped around his neck. Compared to what we get today this set up probably seems wildly tame, but Preston Sturges, along with Fonda and particularly Stanwyck, create such an amazing atmosphere for the scene. So much of that does come from the chemistry between the actors, but Stanwyck's performance in this scene is essential to just how sexy it manages to be. Add to that the way Sturges lit and framed the scenes, and it all comes across as being so intimate and sensual. But thanks to Fonda's performance, it's still perfectly screwball.

While The Lady Eve does dig into topics with some depth to them, particularly ideas of perception and how our pre-conceived notions of what's 'good' or 'respectable' can lead us to treat people in ways they don't deserve, the way it does that is so much fun. Stanwyck just feels like she was having such a good time. She and Fonda make such a good pair in this movie because they each bring something to the comedy. Stanwyck brings her incredible line delivery, her ability to make the character very much the cunning criminal she is while also having an unmistakable classiness to her, even when she's not posing as a member of the British aristocracy. Really, it's the fact that you can feel that class coming from her even in the beginning that makes her imitation of a British lady being so convincing so, well, convincing. The whip smart, clever wit of the screwball comedy comes from her, while Fonda brings a really impressive skill for physical comedy. And it's not just the bigger bits of physical comedy, like the pratfalls. It's his entire physicality. So much of Fonda's performance here IS physical. You can feel every bit of his nervousness, his anxiety, in the way he holds his body. It adds so much to the comedy of the movie.

It really is interesting to look at the things they each bring to this movie as a pairing, because when you look at their other stellar screwball comedy The Mad Miss Manton, their dynamic is extremely different and they bring very different things to those roles than they do here. It just makes it even more of a bummer that they made so few films together because clearly their chemistry was ridiculously versatile and adaptable.

This is simply one of the best romantic comedies and screwball comedies of all time. If you haven't see in it, you must.

03. Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Alfred Hitchcock, 1941) - 5/5

Hitchcock's only straight-up comedy is vastly, painfully underrated. The whole thing feels like an exploration on subverting the Production Code. The Code prohibited all kinds of things from the America screen. Anything that might have been too sexual was an automatic no go. Subjects like adultery and premarital or extramarital sex were off the table for years. A lot of writers and filmmakers started to get creative in trying to find ways to slip prohibited topics past the censors, and I think Mr. and Mrs. Smith is one of the funniest and most elegant attempts of subverting the code.

Basically, Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery are married. But kind of not really because they find out that thanks to some bureaucratic, clerical messiness involving the place where they were married, their marriage isn't valid. Though only sort of because it's really just a clerical thing. But when Lombard finds out and learns that her husband has already been informed, she's expecting the excitement of their younger years and something like a romantic re-proposal. Montgomery, on the other hand, who doesn't know that his wife has been informed, is hoping to recapture some of the excitement of his unmarried years by taking Lombard to bed without remarrying her. She takes exception, leaves him, starts up a thing with his best friend, while he wallows in misery, has bad dating experiences, and tries to win his wife back.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith is quite audacious in the way it approaches its subversions of the Code. It definitely seems to take an Air Bud approach to the whole thing, getting around certain rules and restrictions based on the idea that if there isn't a rule specifically saying they can't do it, it's fair game. The script is very blatant in the way it not only has Montgomery and Lombard locked together in their bedroom in the morning, but also shows them in bed together. And Hitchcock's shooting of the scene takes great care to show the physical connection between them as they lay in bed together in each other's arms. That physical aspect of their relationship is shown again in the next scene, as Lombard slides her feet up the bottom of Montgomery's pant legs, until he says something to upset her.

That physicality is extremely important. That physical/sexual aspect of the relationship has to be clear, because that physical closeness has to be in your mind when you find out that they're kind of not really married. Following up the scenes that demonstrate that aspect of their relationship with the scenes where they find out they're not married highlights the first subversion of the code: This is essentially a story about a couple that had been engaging in premarital sex for years. This is only underlined by the fact that Montgomery is so excited by the idea of having sex with her before fixing the error and that Lombard is so horrified.

But they have to still mostly technically be married in order for this to get a pass from the Code office. So then they use that fact, too, to further subvert the code. After Montgomery's attempt, Lombard leave him, and quickly takes up with his best friend and partner. Which means, since their marriage issue is really just a technicality, we've got one of the main characters of the movie committing adultery.

And those really are just the most prevalent ways in which the movie lays with the Code in order to subvert it.

The movie, both in the ways it subverts the code and more specific aspects of it, really is about exploring gender roles, the way those roles might lead to certain behaviors being assigned within a marriage, the way certain attitudes that might be common with on gender or the other can impact a marriage, and how those kinds of things can impact the way a man and a woman might see each other. But rather than adhere to those more traditional ideas about what a husband is and what a wife is, both the husband and the wife turn out to be pretty awful people, and perfect for each other in that awfulness. This isn't an uncommon ending in remarriage comedies, but I think Mr. and Mrs. Smith is easily one of the best at really highlighting and even reveling in that awfulness, and really developing it in an interesting way.

This movie gets dismissed as a Hitchcock piece because the general idea seems to be that there's not much Hitchcock in it, that it's 100% about the script and that there's none of Hitch's touch, that his voice was not an important part of making the movie what it is. I don't think that's true. Sure, Hitchcock is mostly associated with suspense, but his films were more than that. There were some major themes that Hitch explores in most of his movies. Relationships between men and woman, the ways in which they're compatible and the many, many ways in which they're incompatible, as well as all the reasons they're drawn together. That is Mr. and Mrs. Smith all over.

When it's needed, their relationship, particularly their physical connection, is filmed with a similar softness and sensuality as some of his other films from this era. He might not be building suspense, but this movie is a series of situations where things like tension and awkwardness are made to build, and build, and build. And just as Hitch is a master at building suspense, he's able to build the tension and the awkwardness, sometimes to almost unbearable levels.

Lombard and Montgomery deserve so much praise. Montgomery is so funny. He just slides into the role so well, becoming more and more funny the more his character unravels. Lombard is, of course, masterful. She's one of the funniest women that's ever lived, and she's able to make her character likeable even as she's behaving in endlessly frustrating ways. They have great chemistry, and are and excellent comic pair, bouncing off of each other so well. Sadly, they'd never get a chance to make another movie together as Lombard died the next year.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith is one of Hitchcock's masterworks, and it deserves to be far better loved than it is.

04. The Mad Miss Manton (Leigh Jason, 1938) - 5/5

I love this movie so much. It might be my favorite screwball mystery. These screwball mysteries almost always have a love story happening along side the mystery, but how well that love story is developed and integrated into the story can vary wildly. I think The Mad Miss Manton manages the perfect formula for that.

A big part of that does come from the fact that Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda re the leads. They're one of the best screen pairings of all time who, sadly, did not make as many movies as they should have together. They had crazy chemistry, and it was pretty adaptable. Their best remembered pairing is probably The Lady Eve, and they are AMAZING there. But I think the fact that their characters - and their relationship - in The Mad Miss Manton are so different from those in The Lady Eve really does show how incredibly and malleable their chemistry was.

But it's not just Stanwyck and Fonda that make it work. The script is really good. The trajectory of the relationship makes sense, and the way their feelings are developed and revealed thanks to specific points of the plot is what makes it all work together so well.

The mystery itself is also pretty good, which is something that can sometimes be an issue with screwball mysteries. It's intriguing enough to keep the viewer's attention on it, but it's not so overwhelming that scene that veer away from the mystery break up the momentum. And the resolution makes sense and it's easy to put the pieces together to understand how and why things went down.

There's so much else I could say about The Mad Miss Manton. In addition to its leads, it has a ridiculously good ensemble, all of whom get a chance to shine. There are some romantic scenes between Fonda and Stanwyck that have such an warm and intimate atmosphere. There are so many funny jokes. This is just such a gem of a movie, and it deserves to be as loved and revered as something like The Thin Man.

05. Carefree (Mark Sandrich, 1938) - 5/5

I LOVE Carefree. It's one of my very favorite Astaire/Rogers movies, and I think one of their most underrated. It has a sort of unique feel to it - not so much that it feels wildly different to the rest of their movies, just enough that it feels a bit refreshing - because, I think, Fred doesn't play a dancer in this one. He plays a psychiatrist, and that alone really does kind of shift the dynamic between his and Ginger's characters. It makes the plot have a little more going on than a lot their movies.

In my opinion, most of Fred and Ginger's movies do have distinct /feel/ to them thanks to their simplicity, which I think is a good thing most of the time. (and this is referring to the movies where they're the leads. Stuff like Follow the Fleet and Roberta, while similar, are kind of a different matter.) Even as there are often cases of mistaken identity leading to confusion, or Fred and Ginger being sort of forced together reluctantly (at least on her part), the stories usually end up being pretty simple and streamlined, and their relationship dynamics tend to be pretty similar in these situations.

Carefree, on the other hand, actually feels more like a romantic comedy of the era. Yes, there are some great songs and dances (I think Change Partners is one of the best songs from any of their movies, and The Yam is one of their most fun dances), but the movie is a lot less dependent on the musical numbers than their other movies. There's just more to this story, where Fred is a psychiatrist who agrees to treat his friend's fiancee, who seems to be struggling with the relationship and committing, and they fall in love. It allows for more to happen with the relationships in the movie outside of Fred and Ginger (Tony and Amanda, in the film), as they both have strong emotional ties to Stephen (Ralph Bellamy) and their relationship has an impact on that, and all of this in a way that you don't really see in other Fred and Ginger movie. It also ends up making Fred and Ginger's relationship so much more complex and interesting. It all makes for something that feels quite unique among all of Fred and Ginger's movies together.

I also think it deserve praise specifically for Ginger Rogers. This is easily her best performance out of any of their movies. I think at least some of that has to do with how much she's actually given to do, and I think that's also at least somewhat another thing that sets the movie apart. Not to say that Ginger has nothing to do in the other movies, but there's a lot more to her character and story here. I do think this is true of Fred as well, but I feel like, generally speaking, the way the characters, stories, and relationships are usually written in their films Fred just has more to do and is often centered a bit more. Carefree really takes Ginger's skills as both a comedic AND dramatic actress and leans into them. I think it's probably one of her top 5 best performances.

Of course, none of this is to say that all of the other movies that do have more simple storylines aren't good movies. Carefree isn't even my #1 Fred and Ginger movie. I still rank Swing Time and Roberta ahead of it, and I'd say it's tied with Top Hat for my #3. But it is refreshing to have something so different in their collection of movies.

06. Ruggles of Red Gap (Leo McCarey, 1935) - 5/5

One of Charles Laughton's best performances, if not his very best. He plays everything so understated, which ends up working brilliantly both comedically and emotionally. The cast around him helps to bolster his performance with their wonderfully over the top and boisterous performances. Taken all together they provide such a perfect balance to Laughton's more subdued presence, and that makes for great comedy on both sides.

Ultimately, Ruggles of Red Gap is about a changing world and how a person can find their place among those changes. This movie came out smack dab in the middle of the Great Depression, and even though it takes place around the turn of the 20th century, the influence of the Depression can be felt all over it. Ruggles moving from the world of the upper class in Europe to the American West mirrors, in a way, the way the economic crash had upended so many people's place in the social structure. Ruggles is the product of a world of tradition. His family had been in service to the family of his original master (played by Roland Young, who himself gives a really lovely performance that's kind of muted and even naturalistic in a way that's quite effective) and his devotion is born of that tradition and expectation. It's not until he travels to the new world with a new master whose behavior and manners are completely foreign to him that he starts to learn who he might actually be when allowed and even encouraged to follow his own path rather than serving someone else's. And like so many screwball comedies of the era, it's also a pretty scathing takedown of the pretentious arrogance that can come with wealth. Ruggles of Red Gap really is a movie made for Depression times, examining the freedom that could exist in breaking free from the traditional social structure and the idea that wealth is not by any means the thing that determines a person's value.

It's also funny as hell, so it's pretty much just firing on all cylinders.

07. Four's a Crowd (Michael Curtiz, 1938) - 5/5

I am so deeply fond of Four's a Crowd. So often with classic romantic comedies, even screwballs, the story would present a love triangle, or sometimes love square, but there would never be any question of who was going to end up with whom. Even if it's not blatantly clear from the writing, the fact that there are two megastars as the leads, with the other sides of the triangle or square played by much lesser known stars usually serves as a good enough hint of how things are going to play out.

That is not the case with Four's a Crowd. Right down to the very ending where we get a double wedding, it really does feel like a toss up when it comes to who's going to marry who. And while a good chunk of that is because Rosalind Russell, Olivia DeHavilland, and Errol Flynn were at roughly similar levels of fame, the biggest reasons it really works is (1) the script does such a good job of making the connections between the characters and the reasons they might be attracted to each other or see each other as viable options solid and easy to grasp, (2) there amazing chemistry going on between literally every possible pairing of these four people, and (3) the whole story and so much of what happens is just chaotic and frantic in the best way. It really does make it so that any combination of the characters feels viable in the end.

I really do think this is one of the most flat out fun screwball romances. It never once takes itself too seriously, the stakes established are relatively low, so the chaotic nature of the story and pacing feels fun and silly rather than stressful and nail-biting.

08. Wise Girl (Leigh Jason, 1937) - 5/5

Wise Girl is a seriously underrated screwball romance. Miriam Hopkins actually made a number of screwball comedies, but unfortunately she isn't really remembered much for them. And that's a shame, because she was ridiculously good in comedies. She could pull off a sort of natural sophisticated high society type, and then make that type perfect for screwball comedy by making her just a /bit/ ridiculous. I think that's best on display in Wise Girl.

I remember being surprised the first time I watched this by how good she and Ray Milland are together. I knew that Milland could handle comedy from movies like The Major and the Minor, but I wasn't expecting him to have so much chemistry with Hopkins. It's a typical opposites clash and then attract screwball romance, with Hopkins as the judgmental rich girl, looking down on the community of bohemians Milland lives in, and Milland as the judgmental artist, looking down on the conspicuous wealth and out of touchness of the the wealthy class of which Hopkins is a part. They both fill those roles really well, and it makes their chemistry work beautifully.

One of the things that I think is really special about Wise Girl is how much it creates this really great world with the bohemian community Milland lives in, and that Hopkins comes to live in, undercover as a poor artist. Most of the movie takes place in the Greenwich Village community, and it's imbued with such a sense of place that it really does feel like becoming a part of that community when you watch it. The set design is really great and goes a long way toward how successful this is, but it's also the supporting characters, the inhabitants of this world, that really make sit feel real. They're all so specifically and clearly drawn, and it doesn't take long to really understand who most of them are, and what their relationships to each other are. Which goes such a long way in making this community feel like a living, breathing thing.

This is such a good, underseen movie. If you get the chance to see it, you must.

09. By Candlelight (James Whale, 1933) - 4/5

James Whale is really not remembered for comedy at all, but he actually made a few really great comedies in the 1930s, By Candlelight being one of them. It's an extremely light and frothy romantic screwball comedy starring Paul Lukas and Elissa Landi. Lukas himself isn't particularly remembered for comedy, either, and while I do think his dramatic performances are the ones from his filmography that really stand out, he's quite good here. He seemed to understand just how light and fun the material was and matched his performance to it. Landi is also a lot of fun. I think her performance probably ends up being the most comedic in the movie, and she was really willing to do things that were pretty unflattering, but very funny.

Nils Asther is, IMO, the real treat here. He'd been a pretty big leading man in the late 1920s and early 1930s, particularly in roles where the character was "exotic" or otherwise foreign, by the time the pre-code era was starting to wind down in 1933-1934 his star was already dimming. So he's in a supporting role here, but it's a great role. He's Lukas's boss, who is a prince and a womanizer, but probably also the most likeable character in the movie. There's a clear affection between Asther and Lukas's characters, and it's kind of sweet to see the lengths Asther's character will go to in order to help Lukas's out. The character is really charming, but there's obviously a big heart there, and Asther really captures that.

But what makes the movie really work so well is the chemistry between Lukas and Landi. Because of the premise, both characters could easily end up feeling unlikeable, and the relationship between them would then be a pretty hard sell. But thanks to their performances and how much chemistry there is between them, it just works.

By Candlelight is a real treat of the late-pre code era, and one of the most underappreciated screwball comedies.

10. Make a Million (Lewis D. Collins, 1935) - 2.5/5

Okay, I just have to start by saying that if the headline 'Radical Professor Named in Charges by Girl Student" was in a paper today it would almost certainly be a very different type of story.

Make a Million is actually really interesting, especially for something from the 1930s. It as pretty common for screwball comedies to take the wealthy class down a notch or two by poking fun at the ridiculousness of wealth and how out of touch it makes people, but they're usually still quite light on their politics. Make a Million is pretty different in the way that it blatantly discusses political ideas surrounding wealth that were common at the time (and that are still sadly quite relevant). Most people think about the 'Red Scare' and the behavior and ideas of McCarthyism as being pretty firmly set in the 1940s and 1950s, but paranoia surrounding communism, particularly from those in charge and in particularly privileged positions, started way further back than that. And it was pretty prevalent in the 1930s, as the Depression had led to a lot of people wondering if socialism wouldn't be a better way.

Make a Million, for all its faults (and there are plenty), does a really good job of capturing that conflict and the downright ridiculous response those in power had to socialist ideas, and how quickly people in power would jump to and push absurd conclusions to bolster their position, even if it meant spreading around shit that wasn't true. Early on in the movie we see a group of those with power talking about the main character's, a professor, ideas and the 'radical' politics he espoused during a speech that was put on by a group called the World Improvement League. One character insists that the group is quite dangerous, as if he's already heard of them, only for us to find out just a minute or two later that The World Improvement League isn't really a group, and certainly not one with any influence or that could pose any 'danger', as it's something the professor made up to boost the profile of his speech. Which makes the other character look even more ridiculous when he later arrives at the professor's house and sees the address, declares it to be the headquarters for the 'dangerous' group. It's such a succinct but completely accurate piece of satire about the way those in power will rely on half truths, or even flat out lies, and reactionary behavior to shut down dissent. It's a sign that, again, for all its flaws, Make a Million had someone quite clever at least somewhere behind the wheel.

At the very same time it's blatantly pointing out that because the professor is poor he has no recourse if those in power want to go after him for his politics. By putting himself in their crosshairs simply by talking about politics that threaten his power he put himself at risk of not being able to afford to feed himself. The movie does a really great job of setting up the wild power imbalance between the haves and the have nots. It also highlights the way those in need are often demonized by those in power, who wield the press like a weapon, as a way to distract from how much the status quo hurts the common man.

Of course, even with how well so much of its politics is handled at points, there are some issues on that end. There's a bit where a panhandler decides to fake disabilities in order to get money in a way that feels like it was probably offensive even for. Considering what a good job this movie does at demonstrating the issue of the haves vs. the have nots and how capitalism is built to keep those without wealth down, it's disappointed that the poorest characters in the movie are presented in that way. Especially because it remains a thing through the whole movie.

The humor is hit or miss, with a lot more misses than hits. While I think most of the satire is really sharp and work incredibly well, the more general "screwball" bits tends to fall pretty flat. There's the aforementioned scene where the panhandler is faking disabilities that's pretty horrible. But there's also a pair of scene that I think are pretty solidly funny where those panhandlers are learning to behave like a wealthy board of the directors, and then their attempts in action. The panhandlers trying to mimic rich people is a lot funnier than them trying to mimic disabled people. There's one moment that I laughed out loud at where they're all talking with the bank about ways to invest the money, and at one point one of the bankers asks how they feel about copper, and one of the panhandlers responds by saying "I don't want anything to do with coppers! I'd rather not take a change with them!" In general, the movie seems pretty anti-cop. It's a very funny series of set ups and punchlines that works really well. Which just makes it all the more disappointing that there's so much humor here that just does not work.

There's also absolutely nothing about the romance that works. Initially it seems like there might be a fun rivals to lovers thing, and their mutual hatred for each other did allow for a fun chemistry early on. But the female lead character is just so unlikeable. She's a wealthy little capitalist whose ideas and behavior are downright hateful. And then all of a sudden she just magically disagrees with her father and is on the professor's side now with pretty much no reason. The thing she ends up objecting to isn't anything different than things she'd said herself. It also just feels entirely shoehorned in, as romances were kind of mandatory when it came to movies from this era for the most part.

The ending is... pretty disappointing, but unsurprising. For all their criticism of the wealthy, screwball comedies usually still end with a pretty soft touch. The wealthy people might have learned to appreciate things other than money or something like that, but in the end you never really see any wealthy character deciding to redistribute their wealth, and usually the poor characters end up earning wealth. So the ultimate message still ends up being that being a part of the wealthy class is the ideal, and sadly Make a Million follows the same path. In the end, the professor finds that he can create wealth for himself by turning his charitable fund into a business, which just feels like an ending that smacks every single bit of political satire in this movie in the face. It feels like an ending that had to have been mandated by the studio because it's so out of pace with everything preceding it.

This is a tough one to rate. I think I'm going to settle on 2.5/5. When it's really digging into the satire it's one of the most sharp and clever movies from the 1930s I've seen, and one of the most unflinching in its liberal politics. But almost everything outside of that satire falls pretty flat, and the ending almost feels like a betrayal of everything that came before it. I am going to go ahead and give it a 'like' though, because its satire is so damn good.

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

“MaXXXine” movie review

Short review:

As a love letter to horror and B-movies, I can’t hate it. But still, I can’t deny that the script felt very uneven.

6.5/10 (okay, I’ll be nice and round it up to 7/10)

Long review:

I have a feeling that Ti West is a huge fucking horror/B-movie/grindhouse nerd. Because as someone who loves shitty horror movies (I say that affectionately), this felt like a love letter to the genre. It’s weird, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie about Hollywood that is centered around horror movies. Usually, if a movie is about glamorizing Hollywood, it’s about the more “refined” genres like musicals or dramas (La La Land comes to mind). So I really appreciate the movie’s focus into this side of Tinseltown.

While I’m on the topic, this whole movie feels nostalgic. Of course, it’s obviously trying to replicate the 1980s aesthetic. But as someone who grew up on horror, you can feel the love that the creators have for the genre. I mean, there’s literally a character who’s a horror nerd in the movie. So I can’t hate this film on principle. For all its shortcomings, I can’t hate it because of the passion behind it.

Now, I’m not saying this was a bad movie. It’s definitely entertaining and manages to hold your attention from beginning to end. It may not be a scary film, but it’s oddly mesmerizing to watch. The movie is so slick and stylish that it hooks you in, and the mystery behind the killer is enough to keep you engaged.

If I had to make a comparison…forgive me if this is too obscure, but it feels like the Phantasmagoria games. Those games may be cheap, cheesy, and not very well written, but they’re oddly engrossing because of the style. Same with MaXXXine, the style/direction is truly the highlight of the movie.

All that being said, I can’t lie. The movie does fall apart on one major aspect; the story. Even though the movie keeps you hooked in with its campiness and style, the story doesn’t really hold up. If I had to pinpoint what the main issue with the story was, it’d probably be the unevenness of the plot.

The movie has one theme that they repeat over and over; do whatever it takes to become a star. Maxine is a pornstar who wants to be an A-lister, so most of the movie is about her struggle to be taken seriously. And that’s completely fine as a premise! The problem is that when we get to the final act, the story abruptly shifts into a different theme. When we figure out who the villain is, the theme is suddenly about the evils of pornography, horror, and Hollywood. That Maxine is a corrupt soul who has turned her back on God, yadda yadda yadda.

Again, the morality angle is not a bad premise. In fact, I liked how the movie deconstructed this trope by setting up the villain as a Satanic serial killer, only to be revealed as a Christian fundamentalist cult. It’s a nice reversal of the evil cult trope. The problem is that it doesn’t work with the rest of the movie.

Let me explain it like this. When the movie revealed who the killer was, my reaction was, “Wait, did the story just change? We’re doing THIS now?” Before the villain reveal, I legitimately thought the killer was going to be some failed actress or the #1 actress trying to protect her spot. Yes, I know that’s too close to the previous movies, but still, that’s what it felt like the story was building up to. So the final act ends up being both the best and worst part of the movie. It’s the best since it’s the most exciting section of the story. It’s the worst since it highlights just how disconnected the climax is from the rest of the movie.

But even with the climax not being justified by the story, the rest of the movie still feels uneven. There’s not enough focus on the actual serial killer. There’s too much focus on the private investigator. The flashbacks to Pearl don’t really go anywhere, especially since the climax has nothing to do with Pearl. Maxine is sorta just reacting to the events that are happening around her, not really knowing what to prioritize. The Christian fundamentalist stuff, which was just background noise for most of the movie, is then suddenly the focus of the climax.

So yeah, the story needed a lot of editing. It’s too meandering and listless that by the time you get to the climax, it feels unearned. Which is a shame since the movie is well made. Anyways, I’d recommend at least seeing the movie once, especially if you’re a horror movie buff.

[marybeatriceofmodena]

What was that crazy music video type thing you included on that post about ALW being an ass to Patti Lupone? I have never seen that before and I am both intrigued and horrified. I only recently got into Phantom, and all this craziness is just delighting me. 😂

For context, this is the video referred to in this ask:

This was a promo video done in 1985 (I think), to promote Phantom. Those are the original lyrics by Richard Stilgoe, which he wrote before Charles Hart was involved. You'll recognize a few here and there, but a lot of them are... weird, to say the least (weird enough for Cameron "Satan" Mackintosh to tell ALW to either find someone to help out Stilgoe, either outright fire him, or else he wouldn't produce Phantom anymore. And given it was proving to be a VERY costly show to make, even ALW knew losing CamMack was a no-no).

The staging is also different, because Trevor Nunn was the director at this point. And that's another funny (HA) story: ALW and Cameron Mackintosh had initially got Hal Prince to direct. And for those of you who don't know, Hal Prince is basically to musicals what Steven Spielberg is to cinema. He directed some of the most successful musicals of the latter half of the 20th century: Evita, Sweeney Todd, Fiddler on the Roof, West Side Story, Cabaret, Company... and that's the list of musicals I know even the uninitiated will recognize. So one day, on a whim, ALW decided to fire Hal Prince, which went about as well as you might expect: ALW chickened out of the dinner where he and CamMack were supposed to break the news to him, which led to CamMack having to sheepishly break the news to Hal Prince, who stormed out furious (AS HE SHOULD). Again, imagine yourself firing Steven Spielberg from making Saving Private Ryan and replacing him with, I dunno, the Russo brothers because The Avengers made a shit ton of money.

Why? My guess is that Hal Prince had the balls to tell ALW to stick it whenever he'd bring bad ideas on the table, so ALW basically decided to replace Hal Prince with the director for one of his previous musicals, Trevor Nunn (who is a decent director, mind you, making the comparison to the Russo brothers a little harsh).

Which musical was it, mind you? CATS.

IT ALWAYS COMES BACK TO CATS.

And Steve Harley? He was a rock singer who got picked up along the way because they urgently needed someone to play the Phantom in the music video, and full offense but he's a worse singer than Gerald Butler in my opinion, and at least the latter could actually act. ALW realized that they needed someone else, and he basically smuggled the score to a comedic actor called Michael Crawford, who had some prior experience singing in musicals (he's in the film adaptations of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum and Hello Dolly, if you're interested), but he wasn't exactly the guy you'd think of for the Phantom? Thankfully, he proved everyone who might have doubted him wrong, and amazingly at that, but he was a gamble at the time nonetheless.

And as you may guess, the music video was kind of poorly received, and Trevor Nunn worked on a little musical called Les Misérables, which got piss poor reviews and ALW was at the head of them (CLASS ACT, THAT FELLOW). But the uneducated, unwashed plebs loved it so I guess that's the reason why it's still playing today, and not because it's one of the most beautiful scores ever written for musical theatre, summing up a 1,000 book perfectly and conveying emotions that could make angels cry, nah. /s Anyway, that led to ALW firing Trevor Nunn, and begging Hal Prince to come back, and he agreed - which really goes to show how gracious he is because I would have laughed in ALW's face.

And what happened to Steve Harley, you may ask? He found out with a call from CamMack that he was fired, with no explanation whatsoever, and it was only later that he found out Michael Crawford had replaced him. I mean, was it for the best? Yeah. Do I still feel kind of bad for Steve Harley? Yeah.

So yeah, thank your lucky stars Hal Prince, Charles Hart and Michael Crawford agreed to be in this. I'd also add Maria Bjornson, but I really wonder now how she got involved in the first place because if that came from ALW, that might be the single best decision he ever made in his entire life. But I don't have any trust in him whatsoever to pull that off lmao

[purplecelestial-buddy]

I've come to learn that I love listing stuff so, let me share my:

top best movies I watched in 2024

This is based on the things I've reviewed as 5 stars on letterboxd so the possibility that I watched a masterpiece and forgot to log it is very real ... so let's not think about that!

(I've listed them based on how serious the subjects at hand are. So keep that in mind and check content and trigger warnings for the last two )

✧ Ernest and Celestine:

This movie looks as if someone decided to animate the lovely watercolor strokes from a children's book. And actually, that's exactly what happened! Based on a book by the same name, Ernest and Celestine is the tale of two unlikely friends: a little mouse and a bear.

Belive it or not, to me, this movie is for the the beaten and the damned. Both protagonist are seen as good for nothings forgotten by a society that couldn't care less for them. There's literally a scene where the building of a very important legal institition burns and crumbles, so when I say that they bring down the system, I mean it.

Despite the multiple hardhsips, they are very talented artist. There's this scene where paintings are made based on the feelings a symphony gives and that "artist synesthesia" scene alone makes it worth watching.

✧ Life after Pi:

You know the amazing movie Life of Pi? The one about the guy in the boat with a tiger? Have you ever wondered how it was made?

If you answered yes then today is your lucky day because YouTube has a whole documentary on the trials and tribulations the crew went through. And let me tell you, the production of this movie was an adventure almost as perilous as the story depicted.

I had to watch this for a class on project management so after viewing it we had to take a quizz, one of the questions said "how would you have solved the problem?"

And that kinda broke me down. Watching it and trying to answer the question while in the context of the writers' guild strike was an experience.

So I consider it a must watch for anyone that happens to work in a creative field. Don't let companies screw you over.

And if you aren't in a creative field, I still have to ask you to think about all the work that goes into making any sort of story. Be it a film or not.

Be thankful for any narrative that gets to your life because I know that there's a thousand of amazing stories we'll never get to see, because stingy business people don't trust artist and sometimes they don't even trust audiences.

✧ Arrival:

Everyone knows this one. Amy Adams saves the world via *checks notes* alien communication?

But I discovered this movie the past year and I cannot but love all it's implications. It questions the way we understand time, the way we use language. And that might not seem like a grand thing to you but, have you seen people discussing about whether dates should be given in a dd/mm/yyyy format or a mm/dd/yyyy format? Language, symbols and time are everywhere. They are very much the basis of how we understand the world.

Additionally, not only did the movie challenges some of the foundation of our understanding but it also depicts aliens in innovative ways. And I'm not talking about their visual design, I couldn't care less if you think about aliens as green guys with big eyes, but Arrival manages to do something that I had only previously seen in Nope (2022), directed and written by Jordan Peele (that's another great movie), and that is to treat their aliens as living beings.

Not gonna mention much so you can experience it by yourself, but it had won my "realism" points since the moment it showed the aliens in a ton of countries, this time not only the poor and suffering USA is getting invaded.

✧ Society of the snow:

I've never been one to say that there's movies "everyone should watch". I refuse to adhere to that idea. A movie can be good but it cannot be good for all the population.

Now, imagine my conflict when I'm about to recommend you a movie based on a real life tragedy. But, perhaps, there's were I'm making a mistake. Sure, this story has a tragedy. But this story also has a joy.

I saw this at the start of the year so there's little I remember. But the coldness of the snowy landscape and the warmness of the human spirit, are fresh in my mind.

There are other movies depicting the same aviation accident. But this one isn't about the accident, this one is about the people and their will to live.

✧ Monster:

This is a movie I don't know how to recommend....

Most people will tell you that it's the spiritual succesor to Akira Kurosawa Rashomon (1950) due to it's storytelling with a scattered plot that only makes sense once you get the different points of view of each character.

I will tell you that it's a thriller, mystery, drama that had me on the edge of my seat. I saw the trailer and started the movie all cocky, pretending I had discovered the answer to the big mystery because "it's gonna be so cliché" and it wasn't.

You spend a good chunk of it's runtime being confused and it's absolutely blissful. The story will led you to draw harsh judgements upon the characters and the events. To them reveal that it wasn't like that and that, perhaps, judgement is the worst monster of them all.

Please go in blind. But also ponder on it. Half of the fun is having your theories wreck by the time the next recount of the events shows up.

But also, this is all that Close (2022) wasn't, if you know you know.

[alpinelogy]

📓 - some fic ideas with George? :D

Put "📓" or some other version of a book emoji into my inbox and I'll explain the plot of a fanfiction that I haven't written but daydream about.

Hello I swear I did not mean to take this long but unfortunately time is fake and I only have one (1) real concrete idea with George and I am 99% sure you know it already but I am also rotating several other ideas at any point in time so let me introduce you to the shooting at the sun lore and the actor au I built around it (For those not in the know or no remembering rn, shooting at the sun is a graphics set I made a few weeks back, linked above)

There is a lot of yapping about actors gewis starring in a fictional adaptation of a fictional novel down below the cut :3c

First of all, context on Shooting at the Sun, the book, in the universe I'm playing around in here because it matters to me.

The way I imagine it is that it is a sort of film noir detective novella from the 1950s, set in a (then) contemporary Monaco. I'm not really familiar with European literature of that time but I would imagine that the themes prevalent then were similar to the ones prevalent in American literature, that is (iirc) not fitting in. So I would imagine the novella is thematically somewhere there. And really that isnt important, the important part is that it has two protagonists, a pair of detectives, who arrive in Monaco to investigate a fire. The plot and everything is largely irrelevant, what is important though is that the two detectives have a lot of sexual tension between then, though nothing explicit romantic or sexual ever happens on screen, though it is largely understood that the tension is intentional.

There was a movie adaptation of the novella released a few years after it came out which came out to middling reviews, though since then it has become a sort of a cult classic amongst movie fans.

Present day, Toto Wolff is a well established director of the more arthouse end of the spectrum movies, and he announces a new adaptation of the novella and thats where the gewis bit actually starts. Well a loose adaptation, loose enough that some points are more important than others.

Okay lore out of the way actual gewis yapping now:

Lewis is cast almost immediately and it makes sense. He is a regular collaborator of Toto, he fits the role to a T, and he is also working on it in terms of production (asdfg forgot the term for it lol). He is also a well respected actor who has done his fair share of roles in popular franchises and successful one off movies, both within and outside of the UK. He is a shoe in for the role of the older and more experienced detective no questions asked.

George meanwhile, is a bit of a disaster, as George always tends to be. He is UKs newest theatre darling but this is his will be his first time acting in a movie and the only reason he even took that role is because Alex practically shoved him into it. Cause you see, he grew up admiring Lewis but somehow ended up as a theatre actor on accident. And well, this is a possibility to co-star with his childhood idol, but he has read the script and Alexander I cannot co-star in this with Lewis he is literally my gay awakening. Alexander. ALEXANDER.

Alex, by the way, is Georges childhood buddy just like irl, and is also a stage actor, slightly less successful than George but still a well established guy. And in the spirit of being Alex he is also a little shit and is the one who pushes George into taking the role. Payback for spending his teenage years watching George deny he is into Lewis or something.

Initially, the filming is sorta shit. Both George and Lewis do their best but it just is not working, George thinks he is not doing his best, he would almost say he is getting stage fright if he was not trained out of stage fright years ago, but maybe being so starstruck by Lewis is doing things to him still. He is doing his best but his best is not enough and he is ready to pull out of the movie for an actual film actor to fill his role.

The thing is, Lewis is the guy that suggested for George to take the other leading role and even tho Toto did not object, Lewis really, really wants George to succeed. This is where I start loosing the plot however the point is, plot happens and gewis do get close, and George looses some of his starstruck stage fright and actually the scenes start sounding good. Sure he still lives in fear of the latter scenes of the movie where the tension is really high but the first part at least is nice, fun even, he would go so far as to call Lewis a genuine friend.

Alex, for the record, is having a field day with Georges fumbling. In the background in between filming days George is still absolutely loosing it, even after getting close with Lewis. Probably because of getting close with Lewis. Professional actor but cannot act for shit in his personal life, he is not fooling anyone that his crush on Lewis is still not very much a thing and Alex can and will be seated here with his popcorn. He is already threatening to sneak himself into the premiere just so he can see George absolutely fumble it in a movie. Affectionate, of course.

The lost plot continues but somehow or something they get to the more tension filled scenes, struggle, and solve the struggle by fucking. How? Idk man, like I said, here the plot is lost beyond vibes and gewis dancing around each other. Oh yeah at some point the tension is actually real and then it is also real but less tense and more… anticipatory? Idk how to say it lol.

Anyway, the movie is successful, Gewis get praised for their tension and chemistry on screen as if they did not make out on set every single chance they got, probably get an award for their acting at some point on the film festival circuit. George gets asked if he’s planning to return to stage or stay in movies, he says he does not know (he fully knows that he would do another movie with Lewis in a heartbeat. Otherwise? He has no idea), Lewis idk what he does

[affiliateinz]

5 Laziest Ways to Make Money Online With ChatGPT

ChatGPT has ignited a wave of AI fever across the world. While it amazes many with its human-like conversational abilities, few know the money-making potential of this advanced chatbot. You can actually generate a steady passive income stream without much effort using GPT-3. Intrigued to learn how? Here are 5 Laziest Ways to Make Money Online With ChatGPT

Table of Contents

License AI-Written Books

Get ChatGPT to write complete books on trending or evergreen topics. Fiction, non-fiction, poetry, guides – it can create them all. Self-publish these books online. The upfront effort is minimal after you prompt the AI. Let the passive royalties come in while you relax!

Generate SEO Optimized Blogs

Come up with a blog theme. Get ChatGPT to craft multiple optimized posts around related keywords. Put up the blog and earn advertising revenue through programs like Google AdSense as visitors pour in. The AI handles the hard work of researching topics and crafting content.

The Ultimate AI Commission Hack Revealed! Watch FREE Video for Instant Wealth!

Create Online Courses

Online courses are a lucrative passive income stream. Rather than spending weeks filming or preparing materials, have ChatGPT generate detailed course outlines and pre-written scripts. Convert these quickly into online lessons and sell to students.

Trade AI-Generated Stock Insights

ChatGPT can analyze data and return accurate stock forecasts. Develop a system of identifying trading signals based on the AI’s insights. Turn this into a monthly stock picking newsletter or alert service that subscribers pay for.

Build Niche Websites

Passive income favorites like niche sites take ages to build traditionally. With ChatGPT, get the AI to research winning niches, create articles, product reviews and on-page SEO optimization. Then drive organic search traffic and earnings on autopilot.

The Ultimate AI Commission Hack Revealed! Watch FREE Video for Instant Wealth!

The beauty of ChatGPT is that it can automate and expedite most manual, tedious tasks. With some strategic prompts, you can easily leverage this AI for passive income without burning yourself out. Give these lazy money-making methods a try!

Thank you for taking the time to read my rest of the article, 5 Laziest Ways to Make Money Online With ChatGPT

5 Laziest Ways to Make Money Online With ChatGPT

Affiliate Disclaimer :

Some of the links in this article may be affiliate links, which means I receive a small commission at NO ADDITIONAL cost to you if you decide to purchase something. While we receive affiliate compensation for reviews / promotions on this article, we always offer honest opinions, users experiences and real views related to the product or service itself. Our goal is to help readers make the best purchasing decisions, however, the testimonies and opinions expressed are ours only. As always you should do your own thoughts to verify any claims, results and stats before making any kind of purchase. Clicking links or purchasing products recommended in this article may generate income for this product from affiliate commissions and you should assume we are compensated for any purchases you make. We review products and services you might find interesting. If you purchase them, we might get a share of the commission from the sale from our partners. This does not drive our decision as to whether or not a product is featured or recommended.

[albertonykus]

"Which Doraemon Movie Should I Watch First If I've Never Seen/Read Doraemon?"

In reviewing the Doraemon movies, I've gone over which ones are my favorites, but ranking a movie highly doesn't necessarily mean I'd recommend it to someone who has never seen Doraemon before. Of course, the obvious way to experience the Doraemon movies would be to watch them all in the order they were originally released in, but seeing more than 40 movies from an unfamiliar franchise is understandably a daunting commitment. One of the nice things about the Doraemon films (at least from a newcomer's perspective), however, is that they generally don't contain any plot-relevant references to the events of the other movies, so for the most part they can be viewed in any order without missing much context (with a few exceptions that I will cover shortly).

After giving it some thought, I have narrowed down my suggestions for "someone's first Doraemon film" to the following three:

Nobita and the Birth of Japan (2016): Doraemon helps Nobita and his friends run away from home to… 70,000 years ago, before humans lived in Japan. (@killdeercheer can attest to the effectiveness of this one as an intro to Doraemon!)

New Nobita's Great Demon (2014): Doraemon and friends explore Central Africa and discover a secret civilization.

Nobita's Little Star Wars 2021 (2022): Doraemon and friends help tiny aliens overthrow a dictatorship.

As it happens, all of these are recent remakes of classic Doraemon movies, so they're based directly on stories written by the original manga author, but have a more "modern" art style and often flesh out certain aspects of the plot. That wasn't something I had in mind while coming up with this list, but in a way, it makes sense: I think these movies combine the strengths of both the current and classic Doraemon series.

My main reasons for recommending these three:

I expect their storylines to be of relatively broad appeal without requiring much prior knowledge.

They're a good showcase of the main characters and their dynamics.

They offer a good sense of what to expect from most Doraemon movies (i.e., they don't deviate much from the usual formula).

I personally find them enjoyable (obviously).

I think any of the three would also be solid choices for one's second (or third) Doraemon movie, but some other candidates I'd pick for those roles include:

Nobita and the Legend of the Sun King (2000): Doraemon helps Nobita switch lives with a prince from a Maya-esque civilization.

Nobita and the Windmasters (2003): Nobita keeps a small typhoon as a pet, leading Doraemon and friends to discover its connection to a hidden village.

Nobita's Chronicle of the Moon Exploration (2019): Doraemon helps Nobita make an alternate reality where rabbits live on the moon.

For those who have gained some familiarity with the franchise, my top recommendations would be:

Nobita's Great Adventure into the Underworld (1984): Doraemon helps Nobita create a world where magic exists, which results in them having to fight literal demons.

Nobita and the Steel Troops (1986): Doraemon and friends defend humanity from an army of alien robots.

Nobita and the Kingdom of Clouds (1992): Doraemon and friends build a kingdom in the clouds, only to find an actual civilization hidden in the clouds. (This is an unusual one in that it references events from the regular Doraemon series, but I think enough context is provided that one can still appreciate it without having read the relevant manga or TV episodes.)

There are a few movies that I suggest a first-time viewer avoid. As previously mentioned, some movies do contain explicit continuity references to older films:

It's best to watch Nobita and the Galaxy Super-express (1996) before Nobita and the Spiral City (1997).

It's best to watch Nobita's Dinosaur (either the 1980 or 2006 version is fine) before Nobita's New Dinosaur (2020).

It's best to watch Stand by Me Doraemon (2014) before Stand by Me Doraemon 2 (2020). (I suppose that one's obvious.)

A couple of movies I don't recommend because I honestly think they're terrible and not worth anyone's time. I'd only suggest watching these two if one either is a completionist who wants to see all the Doraemon films or really enjoys riffing on bad movies:

Nobita's Great Battle of the Mermaid King (2010)

Nobita and the Island of Miracles (2012)

Last but not least, though I've seen other fans suggest otherwise, I very much do not recommend Stand by Me Doraemon (2014) as an entry point into the franchise. Regardless of my personal opinions on its quality, I maintain that its primary target audience is viewers who are nostalgic for Doraemon and the specific manga chapters it adapts. It certainly does not provide one with a good idea of what the other movies are like.

If anyone does end up taking these suggestions, I'd be interested in hearing whether or not they hit the mark! I'd also be interested in hearing from other fans which movies they'd recommend to someone unfamiliar with Doraemon.

[rottenfleshnbones]

saw vi review on letterboxd i actually forgot 2post (written on august 9)

alright, this one was really good. i mean, really! probably the best so far if you don't consider the fact that peter isn't alive (such a shame!). anyway, it's always about the ending — the ending is always very nice. i suppose hoffman will live, i mean, a bit scarred but alive. didn't like it that they brought perez back only to kill her for real this time 🤨🤨🤨 but that's alright. curious bout the next film!

[dmitri-smerdyakov]

It's 23:58 on Sunday 10th September as I begin writing this (though it's being posted a few minutes after midnight on Monday 11th) and I have, after seven months of writing, 195 minutes of film, 40 minutes of deleted scenes, countless hours of research, 174 pages of fanfic writing, over 100k words and 182 pages of a script written by James Cameron... finished the first draft of the final chapter of the Newtina/Titanic fic.

It needs a major editing session still and I'm still debating over certain things I've added, but this is it. I started doing this for fun in late-February of this year, published the first chapter in April, and we're now approaching mid-September - this is by far the biggest fanfiction project I've ever undertaken. I'm feeling pretty emotional about it to be honest, and I don't even mind if it gets read or review bombed or whatever because I actually did it and I'm proud of myself for it.

Life has not been great for me recently but my special interest has kept me going, and this fic is a product of that love I feel for the special interest that is Titanic. Even though I'm sure it's probably not my best work, it's one that means a lot to me and for that it's my favourite thing I've ever written.

[agentnico]

The Vourdalak (2024) review

Bet A24 are kicking their shins for missing this one.

Plot: Lost in a hostile forest, the Marquis d'Urfé, a noble emissary of the King of France, finds refuge in the home of a strange family.

In my childhood my dad would always read to me various stories at bedtime, and the one that really stuck out was the little novella “The Family of the Vourdalak” by Aleksey Tolstoy (that’s the other Tolstoy, not the madman who spent however long writing the over thousand pages of War & Peace), and the reason this one really left an impression on my little brain was how it held this immersive element of dread and terror that didn’t let go until the end. For this is a vampire tale, yet interestingly enough this was actually written near half a century prior to Bram Stoker publishing his famous Dracula novel. So this is very much an early folkloric interpretation of what vampires were, that came from myths and tales spun around villages, so look, all I’m saying is these old school villagers had a wild imagination and Tolstoy utilised that well. Anyway, if you’ve never read the original 1839 novella, do yourself a favour and seek it out, as it’s truly spectacular.

With that in mind when I heard there was a new French movie adaptation being released of Tolstoy’s story I knew I had to seek it out as I always thought that material had so much cinematic potential. Truly I was expecting some gruesome dark visually striking in-yer-face shocker of the level of Hereditary or Evil Dead Rise, because honestly I could totally see that working. But to my surprise director Adrien Beau has gone a completely different direction.

The Vourdalak is a film that does not belong in the 21st century. Seeing this in 2024 is really odd, and I mean that in the best way. Reminiscent of a time gone by, The Vourdalak was shot on film, truly embracing the vintage look with real grain and harsh shadows, envoking the feel of a period piece from the 70s/80s. As such I can see many viewers be put off by this thinking the movie looks cheap or dull, but I truly think this stylistic choice was a nice change of pace for a modern day horror, and a nice way to get by its low-budget. The setting of the sparsely populated European forest also allows for the threat to feel more effective due to how confinding and inescapable the situation is.

In terms of negatives I didn’t give two craps about any of the characters. The main French aristocrat we follow who refers to himself as the emissary of the King of France is a pompous face-covered-in-white-make-up narcissistic dandelion who can only think about the next woman who’s pants he can get into. The family in the forest he comes across are all varied introverts who have their eccentricities, but none of them were likeable as such. You know who was great though? The main vampire!

So the titular Vourdalak (a vampire-like being with Slavic origins that prefers to feast on blood of relatives rather than strangers)…… he’s a puppet. No joke, this is a 2024 horror movie where the vampire is portrayed by a puppet. It’s actually done really well too, with the life-sized marionette moving in uncanny strange ways, eyes bulging out, rictus grinning and with a disembodied voice, it all comes to a pretty immersive effect. It makes for a good reminder how solid and effective practical effect instead of CGI can be. But also the vampire itself, though creepy, was actually kind of a stand up fella? Like yes he wanted to suck everyone’s blood and kill and so on, but when he spoke he was always super polite, had a nice level of sass to him too. Honestly I’d hang out with the guy. I’d grab a pint with him for sure.

Overall the movie is an interesting nostalgic view of horror from a bygone era, with old school visuals and a fantastic vampire puppet performance, and though I would say there were times the film did drag a bit, as a whole this was a delightful peace of Gothic fairytale. This may just be the bite in the neck the genre needed.

Overall score: 6/10

[scereplop]

portrait of a lady of fire (yay movies)

The reason why I decided to watch ‘The Portrait of a Lady on Fire’, or even found out about it in the first place, is because of a citation in the footnote of a fanfic. The movie had been rotting away in my ‘to watch’ tab group for months, and when I’d finally gotten around to actually give it a go, I wasn’t as interested in that particular fanfic as I was at first. I feel that a huge reason for this is that I actually quite dislike the very ship it is about, however I liked it a lot back then, and with every morsel I got I was bursting at the seams. It doesn’t change the fact that it is still fairly well written, but upon rereading it, the spark in me failed to burst into flames. I blame the characters, not the writer nor the idea. The important thing, however, was for me to be as impartial as possible when watching the movie (I can never be fully unbiased but I can try my best to. I’m also far from a trained film critic of any sort, so feel free to take any of this with a pinch of salt. But I’ll really try my best.) and so I didn’t read any reviews of any sort before watching the movie or writing this, and I had no clue what I was in for. I also had completely forgotten which scene from the movie that part of the fanfic had been based off of, so I really was going in helpless. And honestly, I was and am glad of it. It’s always best that way. (Warning: spoilers ahead)

Of course- the cinematography. I don’t think I have to say much because the gorgeous shots throughout the entire movie speak for themselves. I’m sure that there’s some deeper meaning to the placement of the characters in each frame and an art to the delicacy of the lighting that I am sorrowfully unfamiliar with, but to me it was simple, it was plain and there for me to see. And there was a charm to that simplicity. It felt like I was watching it through the eyes of the very characters in the movie. I was never bored, each pause was purposeful. It felt like life. It felt real. When I wake up on holiday, I have no backing track as I brush my teeth or walk along the seashore. I have no special effects or superhuman powers as I play in the sea. I have the the sounds and things I and the people around me make. The movie never really was silent, just like life never is. There was the sound of the sea cushioning sparse dialogue, and with the sparsity of dialogue I treasured every word, I mulled on them and I understood them like they were spoken to me. There’s always the risk of me getting incredibly bored when I watch these kinds of movies, but I am so glad that I wasn’t with this one. Not once.

Then there was the fire. There was the portrait itself on fire, there was her dress on fire, the very image of Héloïse that Marianne had remembered, and not just remembered but held so dear to hear that she had to see it again, had to paint out and stow away, there was the bonfire that boomed with song and the art done by candlelight. It felt like an ever pressing, omnipotent presence throughout the film, but despite its destructive nature, never once did it feel threatening. Just like fire, I don’t think it ever stood for a specific, concrete definition, never bloomed for specific purpose but served one nonetheless. A means of communication, of warning, of foreshadowing. To share a pipe, it must be lit first before two pairs of lips can touch the same mouthpiece. To see faces (or the lack of one) in the dark passion of night, we must play with fire to keep those impassioned stares held no matter the destruction it may bring. Because fire is bright and burns with a hope that demands attention, it was a perfect constant because it never felt constant- it grew, like their love with time, and longing too.

Even though I’m not a huge fan of the horror genre in films (mostly because most of the time all it composes of are jump scares and no substance that disconcerts me at my core), when included in subtle amounts in films that you’d think have no reason to have it really is the cherry on top. I don’t know if these scenes would even be considered horror per se, but it really did give me fucking chills because of how unexpected it was, even though I wasn’t scared out of my skin. The white garbed vision of Héloïse that appeared before Marianne twice in the film before the actual scene from which it was from (before she left for good), felt like some sort of warning. It always appeared right before a key moment between the two of them like some ghost of futures past and was genius. Whatever it was meant to do, I think it did perfectly.

______________________________________________________________

from here on out i kind of went a little mad and and completely ditched paragraphing and sentence structure and grammar laws and any sense at all. i don't know what happened because i wrote this like ages ago and left it to wither and die for some reason that has now escaped me, and i'm way too lazy to figure out what on earth i was trying to say. hopefully it makes sense for someone out there!

______________________________________________________________

their relationship. the secrets. the fights. the PIANO i mean harpsichord scene. the OTHER FIGHT. the whole dynamic in relation to the rest of the film. ever moving never stationary

THE STORY. the looks back. that was so genius and the new take on it n stuff DAWG

(i suspect i was talking about the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. i do remember that there were so many overlapping themes in the film itself, and every time i managed to pick the likeness of one of them out, it was so satisfying. and especially for this theme in particular. i had only vaguely heard of the myth before but after watching it i think that story has been seared into my mind for good. and i agree with past me- it was such a genius move to have the story be a reflection of their life. the shots of their last goodbye were STRAIGHT OUT OF THAT STORY. fight me. and the uncertainty of it all. LITERAL GOOSEBUMPS.)

the ending and teh conceert! is it a sad ending it s not happy but typica l sad ending - someone dies boo hoo but no theyre alive and they seem well but the thought of what couldnve been if if if

it just lies dormant and with these kinds of things you cant really forget (LIKE THE MOVIE NUOVO OLIMPO - where no one dies and theres no tragedy but instead this slow descent into, not madness, but like sadness and stuff and like you can do somethig but you cant at the same time and like UGUGUGUGUH)