Jarv’s Schlock Vault: Robot Jox

We are already dead. We are Robot Jox!

Jarv’s Rating: Two and a half Changs out of four. Fundamentally crap, really, but still damned funny on more than one occasion and it’s about people in big robot suits battling over the territory of Alaska. And to be honest, I’m never going to rate a film with a premise as incredibly stupid as that one with less than two changs.


Actually, I wish, but there’s still plenty of stupidity to be laughed at here.

My ongoing quest to see every Stuart Gordon film continues with 1990’s Robot Jox. Actually, I’m not sure how I feel about this film. On one hand, it’s about Giant Robots punching each other, on the other hand, well, they actually don’t do that much punching. Again, though, one of them does transform into a tank, and they do fight in space, but well, it’s all a bit lame and shit.

Inexplicably, martial arts training is essential to pilot a giant robot.

Robot Jox opens with a helpful voiceover. It’s the near future and humanity nearly managed to eliminate itself with a nuclear war (the only effect of which is that people have to wear cycling masks when outside- because flimsy wool is known to fend off radiation). As a result, mankind has come to an agreement: there will be no more war, instead 2 people will pilot giant robots and pummel each other into shards of metal before one is claimed the winner and the loser cedes territory. The Confed pilot, Alexander, is a bit of a bastard, and the film opens with him stomping the *whatever that’s blatantly America* robot into the ground. This, apparently, pisses off the US high command (which weirdly has a British geneticist and a Japanese weapons scientist) who think that there are two reasons they keep losing. Firstly, star pilot Achilles isn’t in the Robot and secondly there’s a no good dirty rat swapping secrets to the evil Ruski bastards. In the meantime, the US (I know they aren’t the US, but I can’t be arsed to look up what they’re actually called) are breeding test-tube Jox to gain an advantage and Achilles (Gary Graham) is training them, particularly star pupil Athena (Anne-Marie Johnson). They’re being overseen by “Tex”, the greatest Robot Jox of all time, Michael Alldridge- who is in a constant state of pissed off. Anyhoo, the battle for Alaska begins, and then Achilles shits it and retires. For reasons too stupid to go into, Athena ends up in the Robot for another big battle, but gets her ass kicked, forcing Achilles to hop aboard and clobber the Commie douchebag once and for all. It all ends in a draw. And I presume some spooning.

Think Rocky with Giant Robots.


This is, fundamentally, a pretty terrible film. The story is very, very fucking silly, and the script is a barrel of ludicrous macho clichés, wafer thin characters, obvious plot twists and all manner of nonsense. The acting is uniformly crap- with Johnson and Graham (his taking a dump “tragedy” face is fucking hilarious) being particularly culpable. On the other hand, Paul Koslo (complete with hilarious Russian accent) is fucking priceless as Alexander. Nevertheless, he gets all the best lines:  “I have killed you in my mind” being a cracker. Still, he does at least seem aware that this is a fucking stupid film, and as such plays it appropriately.

Nevertheless, who really gives a fuck? This film is all about the giant robot fighting- and to be fair, it does deliver on that level. Sort of. There are a few fights, and, brilliantly, because it’s a Full Moon production, they didn’t have 2 cents to rub together. As a result, all the effects are done with models- in this case, hilarious stop motion. Honestly, it’s like watching the bastard lovechild of early Godzilla movies and the fucking Power Rangers. Still, they fire fists at each other, fly off into space to fire rockets back and forth, shoot rubbish lasers and magnesium flares and whatnot. It’s all highly entertaining in its own crappy way.

Achilles was furious with himself when he realised that he'd backed his GIANT FUCKING ROBOT over his mum's Honda Civic.

I’m actually a bit disappointed in Stuart Gordon here. This is the first film of his that I’ve seen with a ZERO boob count. What the fuck? You’re making something as intrinsically silly as a film about elite pilots in giant robots punching each other, and you include several training sequences (the best of which is, easily, the fucking absurd jungle gym thing. Honestly, it looks like it’s out of South Park) and there’s even a shower sequence. Not one boob, though. This clearly, is a massive blunder. Not that I’m boob obsessed or anything, but, fuck, this is a Stuart Gordon film. What the fuck? Even Stuck has boob. Leaving aside this inexplicable lapse in his dedication to showing tits on screen, this is still solidly directed within the confines of the technology, and the idiotic script (that, er, he wrote). It doesn’t lag, and the pacing works nicely in the context of the film- we all know how this has to go so credit for not making it boring.


Overall, I do kind of recommend this in a really cheesy retro way. It’s dumber than a sack of rocks, and there’s many a giggle to be had from the terrible dialogue (they tell the Jox to “crash and burn” before they get in the robot) and downright awful acting. Nevertheless, really, the trump card of this film is it’s about GIANT FUCKING ROBOTS hitting each other and is filmed in glorious stop motion. How can you not like something as silly as that?

Needed more fighting and less jibber-jabber though.

Until next time,


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

About Jarv

Workshy cynic, given to posting reams of nonsense on the internet and watching films that have inexplicably got a piss poor reputation.

86 responses to “Jarv’s Schlock Vault: Robot Jox”

  1. Bartleby says :

    there’s an easy way not to love something like this..its called Robot Wars, and was made in 93 by Albert Band, dad of Charles. It was intended (maybe is?) a sequel to Robot Jox (the IMDB credit has one of its working titles as Robot Jox 2) and Barbara Crampton is in the film.

    But it;s absolutely hideously awful and racist, if I remember. Boring as all hell. So, yes its possible to make giant robots boring. I think Crash and Burn–another dubious Band classic–was similarly sucky and involving giant robots.

  2. Bartleby says :

    Jarv, Im suggesting a schlock title for you. I don’t have a deep memory of it as far as quality, but there was a movie called ‘Knights’ circa 1993 I think–an Albert Pyun classic–with Kris Kristofferson as a wandering warrior who was actually a cyborg facing off against an evil cyborg warlord played by Lance Henrickson. I dont recall much, just a scene where Kristofferson was torn apart and the female lead was hauling his remains around in a backpack while he fought with a sword, fending off baddies from the knapsack.

    • Jarv says :

      I think I’ve seen that.

      First I need to get hold of the remaining Gordon/ Yuzna films (Dolls has come down the pipes and I’ve also laid my sticky fingers on something I can’t remember).

      Then The Resurrected

      Then I’m starting the hideous birthday series.

  3. Continentalop says :

    Jarv, Bart – have either of you ever seen War of the Gargantuans? Don’t ask me why, but this review made me think of it.

    • Bartleby says :

      War of the Gargantuas FTW! I’ve been fiddling with the idea of doing a kaiju/Honda series. Conti, you want to help out with that? Cover a wide slate of the schlocky giant monster genre?

      I definitely need help. I haven’t even been able to get the PCN summer series up and running due to time.

      In the American dub, I seem to remember some inane pop song. ‘The Words get stuck in my throat’ or something?

    • Toadkillerdog says :

      Just love war of the Gargantuas! One of my all time favorites. The Japanese Frankenstein movies, just tremendous.
      Highly recommend it.

      I a;so recommend Daimaijin. Great movie. One of the best made of all kaiju

  4. Continentalop says :

    Someone really should do a SHOGUN WARRIORS movie.

  5. Frank Marmoset says :

    I remember being very disappointed by this one. It took a long time to get a release in England and I was really looking forward to it, then it turned out to be a silly kids film with crap robots.

    Out of interest, have there ever been any good films about big robots hitting each other? I can’t think of any.

    • Jarv says :

      It’s not a kids film at all. There’s swearing, violence and some ass.

      The fighting is comical, though.

      For the record, I can’t think of an actually good film with Giant Robots hitting each other.

      • just pillow talk says :

        Transformers is horribly boring. Really, the whole movie should be like the last battle.

    • Droid says :



      • Droid says :

        Robocop did have some awesome regular sized robot vs giant robot hitting each other action.

      • Jarv says :

        Robocop is awesome.

        Transformers is not.

      • Droid says :

        You’re right. Transformers isn’t awesome. It’s good though.

      • Jarv says :

        You know, this is another one that I seem to be at odds with the world in general. I just really disliked it.

      • Bartleby says :

        Transformers was tolerable, but it wasn’t quite ‘good’. The script and dialogue and middle of the film weren’t accomplished enough for that. But, I’ll give you that the first thirty/forty minutes–leading right up to the scene where the Autobots meet Sam–is pretty fun. As are the last twenty minutes or so.

        Everything in between is what they made the sequel based on, except expand that to 345 minutes.

        I’m optimistic that the new one will finally bring the giant robot dream home.

      • Droid says :

        Nah, Trannyformers #1 was enjoyable. It’s the kind of dumb silliness I can kick back and relax to. Sure, Overlord Bay seemed to take note of all the clangers from the first one and successfully found a way to make an entire movie out of them for the second one. I think the third one will be back to dumb silliness goodness.

      • Jarv says :

        It bored me absolutely rigid, aside from where it was actively embarrassing (wank/ piss jokes) and I thought the big last battle was a heinous mess.

      • Bartleby says :

        I didnt say it wasn’t enjoyable–that is a better word than tolerable–but I just think there are too many willfully dumb/amateur things done in TF1 to call it ‘good’, but that’s coming from a critic perspective. I’m still ‘thumbs up’ on the first one. I just wanted more character focus on the robots and less crass stupid human behavior.

        I’m going into the new one hoping for the best. After GL disappointed, I feel like TF3 is my last hope for big dumb sci-fi fun for awhile.

      • koutchboom says :

        Whats funny is the more and more I see Transformers 2, like just in snipets here and there…..I enjoy it.

      • Droid says :

        The last battle is good. And I like the tone of the movie. It’s goofy and lighthearted. It knows its a kids movie (raping your childhood or not, it’s not meant for us). I like the relationship between Sam and Bumblebee. And I even like some of the goofy stuff with Sam and Megan Fox.

        There are clangers of course, like any time Anthony Anderson is onscreen, urinating stuff and that hip hop transformer, but overall it’s just a silly good time.

        Trannyformers 2 however, it’s abysmal. There’s no defending that one.

      • Jarv says :

        No strong childhood feelings about TF at all. None. Just didn’t like it and found it uninteresting/ embarrassing. I thought the clanger rate was way too high.

      • Droid says :

        No strong childhood feelings about TF at all. None.

        You missed the point. I’m saying that stuff is inconsequential. TF is a movie whose target audience is 10-12 year old kids. If you don’t understand that, you won’t enjoy it.

        It’s not the same as say TDK, which is clearly aimed at about 16 and over.

      • Jarv says :

        I don’t think it is though- the wank jokes surely preclude that. A guy I worked with at the time who took his kids to it came out mortified that he had to explain the wank gag to his 11 year old daughter.

      • Bartleby says :

        yea, most who dont like transformers has nothing to do with the fact they have fond memories of transformers, but rather they have affection for movies, and were embarrased by TF.

        I wasn’t embarrassed and my very vague and fuzzy memories of liking transformers is probably more responsible for my enjoyment of the first than any sort of negative feeling.

      • Bartleby says :

        while I agree about the 10-12 year old fact about TF (it’s the same with GL, btw), when the movie fails is when it actually steps outside of that mindset. Megan Fox’s skeezy stripper and the whole ‘shia’s masturbating thing’ didn’t feel like they belonged in a true ‘kid’s movie’ and the pissing felt like kid pandering, not something a ten year old actually wants to see in a movie. Too many useless humans too. Kids want to see the robots.

        So, I’d argue that where TF –and particularly TF2–fail is in their inability to consistently pitch to the kid demographic.

      • Bartleby says :

        and yes, I know MF wasnt a stripper in the movie, just a high school girl, but she;’s clearly fetishized to the point she might as well be.

      • Jarv says :

        Has Megan Fox ever actually gotten her tits out in a movie?

      • Droid says :

        Oh, please. Wank gags? They’re the most harmless thing in the movie. And they’re not explicit. It’s one gag, which the mother says something embarrassing about Sam. It’s actually pitched perfectly at 12 year olds. They will get Sams embarrassment and laugh along knowingly. You guys must’ve forgotten what it was like to be a 12 year old discovering titty mags and the like. If I saw TF and in particular Megan Fox as a 12 year old I wouldn’t have been able to sleep for a week. I think TF nails it’s target audience.

        I think your mate should be mortified that his daughter didn’t ask about the hundreds of human deaths that must’ve occured during the movie.

        I do agree that it’s overstuffed with characters, and it’s Overlord Bay battling his own ridiculous tendency to go OTT in every aspect.

      • Jarv says :

        Disagree. It’s blatant.

        And we’re talking about an 11 year old girl here (admittedly from an orthodox jewish family).

        I still maintain that wank gags are inappropriate in a movie aimed at kids. Regarding violence, well, this is generally the strange thing- provided they aren’t bloody deaths, then Kids tend to be fine with it. Even if they are messy, they can still be fine with it- see Raiders of the Lost Ark.

        I think it’s a dreadful film, actually.

      • Droid says :

        The second one however, completely misfires on it’s target audience. Because the kids don’t know or care about college, or long distance relationships, or pot, or complicated government conspiracies.

      • Droid says :

        You’re out of touch if you think that jokes like that are “inappropriate” for kids of that age. Try to remember yourself at that age. Would you have been uncomfortable, or confused? I personally would’ve laughed. Which is why it works for it’s target audience.

      • Jarv says :

        I’m not talking shit about this-

        I work in an environment with kids in that precise age range, and they aren’t as worldly as you make out. 13+? Sure, but only a very mature minority of 11-12 (and certainly NOT a 10 year old) would either understand the joke or be comfortable with it. For example, one of the teachers I work with had to give a Lifeskills/ Sex-Ed lesson to Year 7 the other day (would be 11/12) and the lack of basic knowledge on this subject was astounding- Kids of that age just don’t think about sex and whatnot for the most part. Certainly not about wanking.

        You’re overestimating it. I’d actually argue that I’m if anything more aware of it than you- because when the film came out I heard this exact complaint that I’m making and dismissed it on the same lines you are. Since working here, though, my opinion has changed.

        I’m not arguing in some kind of “Won’t someone please think of the fucking children” fashion- just that a joke like that is beyond them.

      • Jarv says :

        Also, actually, this is why applying age restrictions on films is so fucking difficult. I can think of a kid that left one of the schools I cover last year, and he was way ahead in terms of maturity and quite fine with watching all sorts of 15/18 rated material. However, his sister in the year above wasn’t.

        This is why the 12A rating is both a good and a terrible idea. The parents should know what is right for their kid, but so many of them are inept so take kids to the “wrong” stuff- There were 2 9 year old kid’s crying in the showing of TDK that I went to.

      • Droid says :

        Fine. You guys must be repressed over here. Growing up I was aware of this kind of thing from that age. It’s not surprising that you guys are up to your necks in shit like teenage pregnancy and the like. You’re so terrified of imparting knowledge on kids about sex that they have to discover it for themselves and when they do it becomes taboo and they sneak around doing dodgy shit and getting into trouble.

        I remember having a sex-ed class at primary school. I was 10 or 11 years old. It was very basic, very simplistic. This is the anatomy of a man and a woman. Maybe something about reproduction. But it was an introduction. We don’t (or didn’t back then, not sure about now) sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn’t exist.

      • Jarv says :

        That’s not at all what I’m saying.

        Fine- you were ahead of the curve at 12. Great. That isn’t the case for the majority.

        Most 10 year olds out there simply will not understand about masturbation. Not at all- and I’m talking about a wide spectrum of kids, that isn’t to say that all won’t.

        I look back at being 12 and I would have “got” the joke, but that’s because I was exposed to all manner of films etc. Other classmates with stricter parents wouldn’t have. The concept of masturbation for a pre-pubescent is too abstract to understand in anything other than the broadest way- “they do this because it feels good”.

        Also for many adults that period of life tends to blur into one in the memory and they tend to look back at it with a greater understanding than they did actually have at the time.

        The first sex-ed lesson is in Year 4 (8-9) and is as basic as you say. Masturbation is not covered at that level- how the fuck do you explain to an 8 year old how/ why people wank? It’s something children just lack the maturity to understand.

      • Droid says :

        I remember seeing Batman when I was 10 or 11. Scared the shit out of me. I loved it, but it was pretty intimidating. I can only imagine what I would’ve made of TDK at that age.

      • Jarv says :

        I was at the UK Premiere of Batman when I’d have been about that age. Didn’t scare me in the slightest. Made my sister cry, though.

      • Droid says :

        I watched lots of stuff like that growing up. My dad kept renting me Arnie movies, so by the time I was 12 I’d seen Commando, Predator, The Terminator, Raw Deal, Running Man and probably Red Heat. So that stuff didn’t phase me, because they’re mostly just cartoony violence. I do remember watching Aliens through my fingers when I was about 12.

      • Jarv says :

        Yeah- Me too.

        By age of 9 I remember being traumatised by Aliens and wondering why you couldn’t actually play Rollerball.

      • Jarv says :

        Finally on this- when I say “not appropriate” I say it because you can’t measure that on the most mature of the age range- you have to go lower down. You can blame the parents/ schools/ society but it isn’t the kids made of sterner stuff that will be upset by something like this.

        Basically, if parents weren’t shit, then ratings could properly work as guidelines. As parents are shit the BBFC slaps a rating to preclude even the mature kids as the more immature ones can’t take it. It isn’t fair, but people are so fucking stupid you’d otherwise end up in the situation you have in America with fucking 6 year olds in Crash.

      • Droid says :

        What’s not at all what I’m saying?

        In my experience (based on my own personal experience) boys, in general, discover girls around that age. My mates and I started discovering Playboy and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition etc at that age. I’m not saying (never have) that I was a world-weary expert on all things sex, but I was certainly knowledgable enough to understand that joke or appreciate the implications of the situation. If I was ahead of the curve, I was only ahead of your curve. Because all my mates at that time (which was my entire world view) were discovering girls etc.

        Like I said, repressed.

      • Jarv says :

        It’s not my curve, because I remember seeing things like Youngblood (Rob Lowe ice hockey film) when I was younger than that.

        Until I started working here, I’d have entirely agreed with you, just my experience since then has changed my opinion and what I remember as being accurate wasn’t as year specific as that. At 12, for example, we were discovering girls as well (School discos and shit). That’s a pretty standard thing for the more mature in the year.

        However, not all kids are that mature- I can give you examples of 12 year olds that would “get” the joke but not really, and I can also give you examples of 10 year olds that would again “get” it.

        Puberty isn’t a set age with kids, and neither is emotional maturity. Therefore a wank gag in a film aimed at the 10-12 age range is entirely inappropriate. There is no set age when you come into that knowledge, let alone understand it.

        It’s not repression, it’s just a realistic summary of what children are actually like. Also, and this is a good point, socio-economic background does play a part in this. You can take a rough as fuck estate kid at 12 and he’s probably already dealing (I remember a horrible story from when Mrs. Jarv worked for Camden Social services that I’ll put in the next post to illustrate this), and will more often than not be aware of, for want of a better expression, the facts of life. Then you can take a kid with the exact birthdate from a middle/ upper class family with stricter parenting and he won’t be anywhere near as aware.

        Basically, what I’m saying is that if you aim a film at the 10-12 age range, then there should be some care taken, and wank gags are at the wrong side of it. At the very least it’s inappropriate and crass, which in a film as shit and slapdash as that one isn’t surprising.

        On a different note, this is partially why Pixar are so fucking good. There’s plenty for adults to enjoy in their films without anything that may step over the maturity line.

      • Jarv says :

        The story is, and I’ve forgotten her name, about a 17 year old girl that used to have to pitch up at Social Services once a month for an evaluation.

        This girl was a stone-cold psychopath. She put herself on the game at 12, and by the time she was 14 had a stable clientele of kiddy fiddling cunts paying big money to her- she got one of them to put a flat in trust for her. At 15 she’d had enough saved up to move from prostitution to dealing, and recruited 10-12 year olds from the school she was meant to be attending to deal to the kids for her. By 16 she’d moved far enough up the ladder to basically be clear of all bustable activity, but just coin it in from the kids pushing for her.

        We bumped into one of the social workers that Mrs. Jarv worked with about 2 years after she left that crappy job, and just out of interest asked how she was doing- apparently, she’d “retired” from crime and lived as a private landlord. She’d made enough from peddling her body and drugs in 7 years to never work again. Rumour had it, though, that the Met were looking at her for a very nasty GBH she ordered when she was about 16.

        Scary girl.

      • Jarv says :

        Because I’m waffling about this now- I tell you one thing to NEVER stop a child watching for: Because it’s too “dark”.

        Fucking Watership Down is one of the darkest things out there, and completely appropriate for kids. That’s just a pussy reason, because you can’t think of a proper one.

      • Droid says :

        I do also concede that my parents did answer questions about sex when I had them. I only remember asking a few, but they were always quite frank about it. So sex has never really been a mystery to me.

        The mystery was alway how to get it.

      • koutchboom says :

        Hehehe whats funny about this is Drew McWeeny’s review of Green Lantern where he talks about how excited his boys are to see it….but they won’t be seeing it because its too dark??????????????????????????????????????????

        Didn’t all these fucks watch everything as a kid, now they are going to fucking be batshit crazy about what their kids watch? I don’t know how old his kids are but its not like they are 2 year olds, I think they are somewhere between 4-10…..seems fine. Its just funny these people that grew up watching whatever and now are all uptight about what their kids watch. My parents tried to not let me watch some more sexual stuff, all I can really remember not being allowed to watch though was The Specialist and Basic Instinct?

        But yeah Jarv I had the same experience with Aliens, my brother forced me to watch it when I was young.

      • Droid says :

        There are certainly limits on what I would show my kids, but a movie like Green Lantern, which I know will be fairly harmless, would not worry me.

        I also plan on mindfucking my kids when they reach the age of about 14 by showing them Requiem for a Dream and simply stating that this is what happens when you do drugs.

      • Jarv says :


        Someone (probably me) should do a Top 10 movies to traumatise kids with.

      • Droid says :

        I still don’t understand why it’s inappropriate. It’s a verbal wank gag based around a mother embarrassing her son. It’s not Shia LeBouf jackhammering himself making euphoric facial expressions while his parents walk in on him. If a kid isn’t mature enough to “get” it, then they will either allow it to go over their head, or do what a naturally curious kid will do (like your earlier example) and ask their parents. Educating your kids is one of the responsibilties of being a parent. If you don’t want that responsibility, then you don’t have the kid in the first place. Or take them to G or C rated movies. Or don’t allow them to see any media whatsoever.

      • Jarv says :

        Educating your kids is one of the responsibilties of being a parent. If you don’t want that responsibility, then you don’t have the kid in the first place

        Completely agree.

        It’s basically that some kids just aren’t ready to be educated about sex/ wanking/ whatever at that age. That’s all. A question of maturity. I’m not suggesting locking them in a fucking attic and feeding them fish heads or anything, but there is a question about when kids are emotionally ready for this knowledge.

        Really, though, as a parent, it’s your fucking job to make sure they see stuff that’s right for them. There are just far too many shit parents out there.

      • Droid says :

        Watership Down is a very challenging watch as a kid. I don’t think I’ve seen it for 20 years.

      • Jarv says :


        But I saw it as a kid, fine. Then saw it as an adult because Mrs. Jarv hadn’t seen it.

        It made her cry

      • Droid says :

        I tried to do the double a couple of months ago. I got through TF1 just fine, but I fell asleep halfway through TF2. Just after the forest fight, which is easily the only good thing about it. It’s an incredibly shit movie.

      • koutchboom says :

        Yeah I think TF 2 like sitting down trying to watch all the way through….bad idea. But just flipping to it for like 10-20 minutes and its awesome, you just can’t leave it sit too long. Its like a slurpee you drink too much of it you’ll get brain freeze.

      • Droid says :

        The thing is, if they’re ready, they’ll be curious, and they’ll ask. If they’re not, then they’ll just let it go over their heads. Dodging a question because it makes you uncomfortable just makes you a bad parent.

      • Jarv says :

        There’s a third position- where they aren’t ready, but do ask.

        You’re essentially right, though, they should just bite the bullet and be honest. However, by the same score, they should know enough about a film that they’re going to take their offspring to to make sure that it is right for them.

        Anything else on either spectrum is shit parenting.

      • Droid says :

        Here’s a question…

        Over here and in the US, do the ratings have descriptions of the films content?

        For example

        MA15+ (Mature Accompanied) – The content is considered unsuitable for exhibition by persons under the age of 15. Persons under this age may only legally purchase or exhibit MA15+ rated content under the supervision of an adult guardian. This is a legally restricted category.

        And then it will go on to describe the content. As in strong violence, sexual something or other, nudity, language etc.. But it goes into detail. Like I remember the remake of Lassie has the classification of PG, but came with the rating “an instance of underage smoking” or something like that. It’s quite descriptive. Do you guys do that. I’ve never looked to be honest. I wonder what TF got. I’ll try to find it.

      • Droid says :

        Answered it for the yanks.

        Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, brief sexual humor, and language

        It’s rated M (recommeded for 15 and over) in Australia and 12A in UK. So you have to be 12 to see it. If that guy is taking his 11 year old daughter, knowing that it’s not recommended for kids of his daughters age, then he can’t blame the fucking movie on his daughter wanting to know about that films content.

      • Jarv says :

        That used to be the case- but they watered down the 12 rating because of Spiderman. So 12A nowadys= PG but we advise that you don’t take anyone under 12 to it.

        Point being, that TF is a film aimed at those aged at 12-14 not 10-12. Which I think is totally fair enough, and as a result, totally different.

        As I say, parents should know damned well what is in the film that they are taking their kid to see. It isn’t hard to find out.

      • Jarv says :

        Biggest search of the day, funnily enough, is a film that is totally inappropriate for 12 year olds:

        mechanics bi day, lube job bi night

        That makes me sad that Evil Ed went on to that. Not cool brewster, not cool.

      • koutchboom says :

        Are you talking about in gerneral? Or like in the little ad before the trailer letting you know the movies rating?

        Like some will say RATED R, then at the bottom it’ll put : Violence/Sexual Content/Male rear nudity. Stuff like that?

        Or Rated PG for some mild peril and rude humor

      • Jarv says :

        Here’s what it says for TF3:

        Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
        Rated PG-13 For intense prolonged sequences of sci-fi action violence, mayhem and destruction, and for language, some sexuality and innuendo.

        Now, if I had a 10 year old kid who was interested, I would check this- and therefore expect to see a film with GIANT ROBOTS HITTING EACH OTHER, fuck knows about sexuality- presumably chick in tight jeans bending over or something, and nob gags. Therefore, I would be somewhat reticent about allowing a 10 year old to see it.

        This wasn’t difficult to get. Not at all. Really, there’s no excuse for shit parenting.

      • Droid says :

        some sexuality and innuendo

        Pretty easy to decide if it’s appropriate for your 11 year old daughter I’d say.

      • Jarv says :

        Totally agree. Shit parenting-

        This all comes back to your assertion that:

        movie whose target audience is 10-12 year old kids

        It’s clearly not. Over 13 is the general consensus from the censor (ignore the UK’s idiotic12A rating). Which, funnily enough, is what I’d have gone for.

      • Droid says :

        I’ll clarify then. It’s a movie that in my opinion is appropriate for kids aged 10-12, in terms of what I consider appropriate. I would allow my 10-12 year old kid to watch it, because I expect that I would have educated the kid enough to have a general understanding of life. But I don’t make the ratings. I do support a published clarification of the classifiaction that parents can attain prior to taking their kids to see the film. These are already available. It’s the parents responsibility to look at these and decide if that film is appropriate for their kids. If they decide, yes, or they don’t bother looking, they are in no position to complain that the films content is inappropriate.

      • Jarv says :

        It’s the parents responsibility to look at these and decide if that film is appropriate for their kids. If they decide, yes, or they don’t bother looking, they are in no position to complain that the films content is inappropriate.

        Agree. I just think it’s aimed at a slightly higher age range. I’d have no problem with a mature 12 year old or 13+ seeing it. But I’d think twice about a 10 year old.

      • Droid says :

        I’m making that judgement based on the fact that I would’ve loved it when I was 10.

      • Jarv says :

        As may be.

        Still a crap film, though.

        Also, thinking about it, I don’t buy the whole “it’s for kids ergo it has to be crap and you have to enjoy it on that level” argument. There are countless kids films that appeal to all ages, by being actually good and not jammed full of juvenile piss gags etc.

      • Jarv says :

        Although I do concede that making something on that level may well be beyond Bay.

        I don’t even hate Bay- I like most of his stuff.

      • Droid says :

        I’m not saying that. I’m saying you can’t harp on about it for being juvenile, because it is aimed at kids. And kids (and adults) like juvenile. All kids movies have fart gags and such. Bodily fluids are funny, especially to kids. This is my point. It’s made to appeal to kids, with kid appropriate humour. That it doesn’t do it (the comedy) very well is down to the fact that Overlord Bay is not very good with comedy. He never has been. His strength is creating fast paced, thrilling action scenes. Character, story, comedy. These are not his strengths. There are much better films for kids. That isn’t in question. But for it’s target audience, TF works.

      • Jarv says :

        This could go on forever- we’ll have to agree to differ re Target Age and whether it’s good or not.

        Still, we get to do it again with Part 3 later this summer.

      • Droid says :

        Even earlier! It’s out in a couple of weeks.

  6. Frank Marmoset says :

    Also, I’m still waiting for the porn version: Robot Coxxx.

  7. Toadkillerdog says :

    Jarv, when am i gonna get a Massacre at Central High review?
    And, since you reviewed this, what about doing a Power rangers review, that movie was under rated.

  8. tombando says :

    Obviously I have to see this somewheres along the line, maybe it’d fit best under one of our little ‘Bad Movie Days’ fests. It has the look of one of those classically goofy Red Baron/Ultraman thingies the Japanese have foisted upon us time and time again as only they can.

    Big Dumb Fun? check. Bad acting? Checkarooneey. Big robots hitting each other? Allllright!! I’m there.

  9. ThereWolf says :

    This review has confused me. I was sure I’d seen ‘Robot Jox’ but by the sound of it I haven’t – unless I was really sloshed at the time. More than likely I must’ve stumbled into one of the other two – and ‘Crash & Burn’ rings a bell. Then again…

    Bollocks, I’ll just have to watch all 3 of ’em.

    • Jarv says :

      They say it constantly in this. It’s like “break a leg”.

      Which, to be fair, at least they aren’t patronising enough to have to explain.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: