MovieChat Forums > The Monster Squad (1987) Discussion > A lot of gore, violence and language for...

A lot of gore, violence and language for a PG13 kids movie

posted 12 years ago by tate89
31 replies | jump to latest

I watched this and at times i did not know what ages it was meant to be aimed at! I thought it was meant to be like Goonies, a kid's family film, but its not, in fact this movie is sometimes R rated!

First of all we have language, a kid calls Horace "faggggot" and "whore-ass" a few times and later Horace says "tits!",, Dracula calling a 4 year old girl a "bitch" , not suitable for kids.

Then we have blood, vampire brides are eating bloody raw animals, the GillMan gets shot with a shotgun and you see red blood, The Wolf Man explodes and you see his limbs, head, arms etc with blood everywhere.

Kids are strangled, some high-school girls are kidnapped by Dracula, locked in a closet and then turned into his vampire brides, and then later shot/staked killed...! Poor girls!

And Rudey is a pre-teen smoker!

It's quite extreme for children, while at the same time has a comedy/family fun value to it (for example when the kids play with Frankenstein, it's a fun light hearted montage).

I guess times have changed and you can't show things like this in a PG13 movie anymore. It's a very cool PG13 movie, i am just wondering whether it was supposed to be aimed at children or young adults?

[–] lexusis 10 years ago

I kind of had the same reaction to it as you. The language and violence makes it seem like a teen movie, but the kids in it aren't teens...

I really didn't like how the little girl says *beep* in the scene with Frankenstien and then at the end where Dracula calls her a bitch. Like shes 5 years old at most?

Also, the scene where the cop partner gets blown up in the squad car. Like why did this have to happen? Was it really essential to the script? The only reaction we have to his death is the dad glancing over his shoulder at the smouldering wreck and then he starts shooting Dracula.

OH, and the kids with the guns. That seems REALLY out of place in this movie. They should have thought of some creative way to kill the Wolfan by using the bullet, but not necessarily the gun (I thought this is what the scene in the montage where the kid steals the boy and arrow was foreshadowing, but I was wrong). The fat kid just "blowing away" the swamp thing seemed like a cop out to me. They couldn't think of a creative way to kill it, so just shoot it. Real original.

[–] WalterKovacks 10 years ago

Given the nature of the film, it makes sense that it was filmed as an R, then cut down to fit the restrictions of a lower rating. The make up is suprisingly convincing for the time and budget.

As for "dodgy" family movie scenes, I always thought the phone box wolf transformation was pretty intense, especially where he starts frothing at the fangs.

I agree too with what you're saying about the whole kids with weapons question mark (I'm sure somebody will chime in with the whole "BUT SO DID THE NINJA TURTLES" comment at some point). This film glorifies a lot of things that would raise eyebrows today, weapons, smoking, and youngsters watching heavy horror movies (in fact, Seans dad even encourages it).

GIMME BACK MY FACE!!!!!!!

[–] lexusis 10 years ago

It would be like the Goonies using guns to beat the Fratellis. I guess that's what I was expecting with this movie when I saw it...

Kids being kids and using their own ingenuity to battle the monsters. Not just shooting them. We've seen a thousand other horror movies where adults battle the monsters, but it would have been neat to see how the kids would do it in their own way.

[–] siccmaderecz 10 years ago

hmm i don't know. I think this would probably still get a PG-13 today

there are plenty of PG-13 films in the last decade that have plenty of violence/profanity

you also have to remember in 1987, the PG-13 rating was still pretty new, just a few years old by that point. I think "Indian jones and the temple of doom" was the first movie to make them consider a PG13...which they later rated that movie, when it was first released it was PG...but the heart rip out scene bothered parents..so MPAA came up with the PG-13 rating after

monster squad was pushing the boundary i think..but honestly it's pretty tame compared with modern films...sans underage smoking, and the kids with guns...you won't see that stuff in a main stream film anymore

* correction temple of doom, is still rated PG

but it was after that film..they decided to make a pg-13, due to concern and some controversy

i saw the monster squad...when I was about 11 or so in 1991 a friends house...we loved it

i also saw tons of R films over at his place, because my parents wouldn't let me watch R films. I had to sneak around lol...saw a bunch of Friday the 13th's

[–] Koosh_King01 9 years ago

I thought it was meant to be like Goonies, a kid's family film, but its not, in fact this movie is sometimes R rated!

Ah, yes, The Goonies, a lighthearted romp where kids are scared by dead bodies (name another movie where a gunshot victim repeatedly falling on a screaming child is mined for comedy), say bad words a lot and get chased by armed criminals intent on murdering them...

The Goonies and The Monster Squad have about the same level of dark stuff for a kids' movie (The Monster Squad moreso because it features monsters and the threatened end of the world, not merely running away from crooks while trying to find treasure), and that's why people love them.

And, anyway, kids love that stuff. They like monsters, scary scenes, adventure, explosions and gross stuff. My sister and I did, anyway.

I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?

[–] borimor 8 years ago

The two worse thing about the movie is:

1. They threatened a young girl, they will publish her intimate photo of her, and they they frame it like it's funny thing.

2. They call a very young girl (age 5) bitch, it's so inappropriate and I don't understand why they do that..

[–] PaladinNJ (21528) 4 years ago

Duncan Regehr filmed the line off set then they dubbed it in so they wouldn't scare her.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17865) 4 years ago

Yeah, right? Isn't it cool?

[–] sut6432 (2908) 4 years ago

I see this post is about 8 years old, but I just have to say, to all of the people who think “this was too much”, or “that was too much”, or “ I would have done this differently”, or “I would have taken this out”, or “you can’t call a 5 year old a bitch”, etc.

In 2020, so it’s even worse now and people are much more sensitive and offended, but I’ll say the same thing I say to everyone whining about movie violence today...if it is too much for you, or you find things in it that bother you, the answer is very simple...DON’T WATCH IT again. There is no law in this country (Yet) that forces anyone to watch any movie.

There, now it won’t offend you, and the rest of us who love this movie from our childhoods, etc. can watch and enjoy it, exploding werewolves, kids shooting guns, 5 year olds being called “bitch” and saying “chicken shit”, kidnapped bloody vampire brides and all! Lol.

Have a wonderful day.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

This seems to be a dying attitude, unfortunately. In the 80s, if someone was offended by something, they simply didn't watch, listen, etc. It was called taking responsibility for yourself, something folks today are too feeble to do.

[–] sut6432 (2908) 4 years ago

Personal responsibility is definitely circling the drain. It’s very sad. Big brother is always there looking out for us these days ready to ban everything and anything that someone finds “offensive.”

It’s apparently too difficult now for people to just simply not watch things that upset them.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Audiences weren't as sensitive in 1987.