Deg/Hasbro/Marvel/Kobal/ShutterstockThere was no need or expectation for a movie based on transforming robot toys to be as absurdly hardcore as it was. Forty years ago, in 1986, Transformers, a moderately successful animated series — connected to a wildly successful toy line from Hasbro — got into the movie franchise business with The Transformers: The Movie. Famously, or infamously, this film murdered several beloved heroic robots in the first 10 minutes, and then put the most heroic Autobot of them all, Optimus Prime (the recently departed Peter Cullen), in his grave before the first act was complete. For at least one generation of sci-fi and animation fans, The Transformers: The Movie was an oddity because of just how hard it went in terms of mortal stakes combined with a wild soundtrack. Was this kind of thing uncommon with ‘80s kids movies? Maybe, maybe not: In 1985, the Ewoks movie, The Battle for Endor, began with a young child’s entire family getting slaughtered in the first five minutes, but for some reason, that traumatic event didn’t prompt Lucasfilm to do a Battle for Endor “Apology Tour” when everyone who was freaked out by such an event was now old enough to worry about mortgage rates. However, Transformers is on a faux-apology tour, which was a tongue-in-cheek way for Hasbro to acknowledge, four decades later, that the demise of Optimus Prime probably was a little much at the time. So, should you go see the newly rereleased The Transformers: The Movie in theaters? The answer is yes, but not because anybody needs to heal any trauma. While the recent real-life passing of Optimus Prime voice actor Peter Cullen brings an unexpected poignancy to the re-release of this film, at this point, the discussion about shared trauma over Optimus Prime’s death is hardly the most interesting thing about the movie. Yes, having well-known robots be destroyed — or in the case of Megatron, morphed into a new character, Galvatron — was obviously a craven way of rolling out new must-have toys for kids. But the thing is, to this day, the original line of Transformers toys remains awesome, and the movie is interesting for other reasons beyond infamy.For one thing, the film is absolutely gorgeous, and if you’re a sci-fi fan with even a passing interest in animation, several shots in this movie will make you lean forward in awe, especially when seen on the big screen. Right away, the opening scene of Transformers kinda tells you why the movie is more than just a franchise film designed to sell toys. We see a spherical object orbiting near a sun, as solar flares seem to lick at the vastness of space. But this moment of calm beauty turns ominous as it becomes apparent that this spherical object is a dangerous monster. In fact, it's a planet-eater called Unicron, and we watch in horror as a planet full of friendly, kind robots is sucked up and devoured. Yes, we see some children robots on this planet too! Right away, this movie is not playing around. Very few humans are threatened in this film, but the casual assertion that the galaxy is populated by a variety of intelligent robots feels slightly more creative in retrospect.Judd Nelson in 1985 | Universal/Kobal/ShutterstockWhile the first two seasons of the TV series certainly floated several various sci-fi premises, the structure of The Transformers: The Movie feels very consciously interested in providing a massive space opera, a version of Star Wars but one in which robots are the heroes. This isn’t exactly what the TV show did, at all, and so, in a sense, the movie had to get rid of its Obi-Wan Kenobi-like patriarch, because Optimus Prime was like a TV show dad, who would have kept things grounded and predictable. Hot Rod (Judd Nelson) can’t go out and have his hero’s journey if the wise old mentor is still around.More should be said on this, but the casting of Brat Pack member Judd Nelson as the primary young hero in Transformers just one year after The Breakfast Club was a stroke of genius. Yes, there’s a lot of old-guard heavy hitters in this movie — from Robert Stack as Ultra Magnus to Monty Python’s Eric Idle as Wreck-Gar — but having a young, hip actor as a robot version of Luke Skywalker was very, very savvy. Plus, to this day, Nelson is great in the role, and the pairing of Hot Rod and Kup (Lionel Stander) is like if Luke Skywalker got stuck on a hero’s quest with Bones from Star Trek. In other words, it’s amazing. Want more proof that Transformers: The Movie is like a Rosetta Stone of pop culture? Not only does Leonard Nimoy voice the Decepticon leader Galvatron, but he does so just a few months before his directorial slam dunk, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, hits theaters the same year. On top of this, Transformers: The Movie is the last film Orson Welles performed in in which he had a major role, and it was released one year after his passing in 1985. Deg/Hasbro/Marvel/Kobal/ShutterstockThough famous for his Mercury Theater and immortal films like Citizen Kane, having Welles’ voice be the driving force of Transformers: The Movie was somewhat perfect, and an odd full-circle moment for the actor, whether anyone knew it at the time. And that’s because, similar to Peter Cullen, Welles’ career began as a very talented voice actor: He played The Shadow on the radio starting in 1937, and in 1938, terrified listeners with the infamous broadcast of The War of the Worlds.In short, The Transformers: The Movie may have been viewed as a cash-grab in 1986, and maybe trying to siphon nostalgia dollars from Gen Xers and aging millennials in 2026 is equally suspect. And yet, the movie is much more hardcore than it has any right to be, and to this day, it feels like the tip of the iceberg of an alternate dimension of animated sci-fi films where this movie wasn’t an oddity, but rather the standard. The Transformers: The Movie is out in theaters now in a limited release from Fathom Events.