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?

[–] dx360 12 years ago

Way back when there was just G, PG, R and X. A lot of movies that were rated pg then would be pg13 and sometimes R now. Back then pg had blood and swearing but it wasn't extreme and there was no nudity so it didn't get R. If released today this movie without any cuts would probably be rated R due to things they say and the violence. Times have changed

[–] kenburke (2372) 4 years ago

Actually, at first there was only the "M" rating for mature audiences (which could mean anything). Then came G, GP, R, and X. Then, for one reason or another, GP was changed to PG. Then, PG-13 was introduced as a rating for movies too intense for a PG rating but not intense enough for an R rating. Then, X was replaced by NC-17. Thus, we have today's rating system of G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17!!! Doesn't this make sense? I didn't think so.

[–] tforbes77 12 years ago

When this was released it was a PG-13 film. It would have been surprising for it to be rated differently, in its day.

The MPAA is inconsistent. It varies from decade to decade, and sometimes, from film to film for various reasons.

Still, this movie was non-controversially a solid PG-13 in 1987.

[–] laeyisoracle 12 years ago

It IS funny, because people consider the NOW to be a more generally liberal time, but as far as ratings go, the MPAA seem MORE strict now than they did back then. And yeah, it WASN'T controversial back then. Now, you get little too much gore in an R-rated movie and the MPAA wants you to butcher it to hell just so it can BE R-rated, when if the same movie was being made in the 80s, you could've chocked it full of all that gore and additional nudity for good measure, and skate on an easy R like it was nothing.

[–] dx360 12 years ago

Ratings back then were crazy. King ralph is pg and it has nudity and tons of swearing

[–] PreachCaleb 12 years ago

I loved this movie as a kid.

Straightedge means I'm better than you.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] reaseltbim 11 years ago

makes you wonder why people have a stick up their butt today.
Even this board is censored. You cannot curse online, movies like Monster Squad would have been rated R.

the Funny thing is that the people in Charge of the MPAA who are a bunch of uptight conservatives) they were younger when these movies were coming out. They were probably watching these type of movies with swearing back in the day.

The movie called "This film is not yet rated"is a great way to see how hypocritical and full of Bull---- the MPAA are. the biggest hypocrites in the industry.

One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.

[–] Skye_Reynolds 11 years ago

The first half an hour is essentially an exercise in things you can't do in kids movies today.

- Use of homosexual slurs (spoken by a bully)
- Underage smoking
- Legitimate violence in a kid's flick
- Teen nudity (implied)
- Child profanity

Late in the film, we also get to see kids with guns.

It seemed kind of odd. The film is definitely meant to be a kid's movie, but the language, violence, and teen sexuality are a bit more than one would expect. In a way, it is kind of nice to have a film which doesn't feel like it has to be so heavily filtered or toned down. On the other hand, it feels like there's a disconnect between the content and the target audience.

It's told from the perspective of a group of 12 year olds. There's no denying that it's a kid's movie. If you're watching it as an adult, then the moments without the monsters are going to be as obnoxious as any kid's movie. And if you're watching it as a child, some of the conversations are going to go over your head and the violence might be a bit much. It definitely seems like it's meant to target an older child/early teen audience - ages 7 to 14?

---
"In literature, it's called plagiarism. In the movies, it's homage" ~ Roger Ebert

[–] madsmaddox 11 years ago

When this came out over here it was rated 15. There seemed to be a fine line between an 18 and a 15 in the 80s, mostly involving the level of sex/ nudity, language and violence. The Monster Squad has it all cept for the sex/ nudity (the nudity just being eluded to).

[–] WalterKovacks 11 years ago

Yeah, I always thought this deserved a (UK) 15 back in '87. Even though the BBFC hadn't yet followed the MPAA and introduced a middle ground between the family and mid teen ratings, i don't think it would've garnered itself an uncut 12 when they started issuing 12's in '89. Although, even if it had, it would've automatically been upped to a 15 on VHS (still not sure of the thinking behind the early days of the 12.).

That being said, the UK VHS cover was VERY family friendly, and in most of our local video shops, it was shelved next to the likes of the Goonies, Indiana Jones, and other family adventure flicks.

GIMME BACK MY FACE!!!!!!!

[–] madsmaddox 11 years ago

Yeah, the cover was was family friendly, I remember it being advertised on stickers on the VHS covers for GI Joe the movie and Inhumanoids which were for kids, Monster Squad coming this summer.

[–] WalterKovacks 11 years ago

Yeah, seem to remember seeing something similar on the Short circuit cover.

GIMME BACK MY FACE!!!!!!!

[–] crazychurchill 11 years ago

Now if I'm remembering correctly (could be confusing this with another film) I believe this was originally intended to be an R rated film intended for an older audience. The children were originally meant to be teenagers in their final year of high school, allowing for more adult themes. Then producers felt that they could make more money off of it if it was PG-13 and geared towards children. So the more adult content was removed and the teenagers became children. However it seems some of the violence and language remained. I could be thinking of the wrong film, but I believe it was this one and Gremlins that were both intended to be adult R rated horror films but through rewrites became PG-13 and more kid friendly.

[–] WalterKovacks 10 years ago

None of that would surprise me. Back in those days test screenings carried a lot more weight than they do today (now we just multiple cuts on rental releases). Wouldn't have taken much to convince producers to cut around certain shots if they were given the proposition of more revenue, especially with Gremlins, an edgy Spielberg related family film with questionable content wasn't exactly unheard of was it?

Seem to remember Jaws avoided an R just by losing a few frames on the severed leg scene.

GIMME BACK MY FACE!!!!!!!

[–] joe_538 9 years ago

Seem to remember Jaws avoided an R just by losing a few frames on the severed leg scene.

Likewise, Raiders of the Lost Ark dropped from an R to a PG just by superimposing a wall of flame in front of Belloq's exploding head in post production. It could be a very thin line.