Parental Guide Summary of Suicide Squad (Rated PG-13)

No, I didn’t take my 5 year-old son to see this one…

Parental Guide Summary of Suicide Squad (Rated PG-13)

But I was indeed one of the first people to have seen Suicide Squad, because for some reason here in Tennessee, it opened at 9:00 PM the night before the movie was supposed to premiere.

What’s funny is that throughout the entire movie, I thought the movie was rated R. I thought that’s what I saw on the movie poster.

So when I got home, I told my wife, “That was the tamest R-rated movie I’ve seen. There was hardly any profanity, no sex or nudity, no blood or graphic violence… just a lot of guns!”

And really, that should serve as my parental guide summary of this PG-13 rated movie, for any parents out there of teens, who are trying to figure out if this movie is too much for their kid to see.

Well, I can’t answer that for you. But what I can do is briefly break down this movie into segments and let you decide. So here it goes…


I heard one use of the word g** d*** and 2 non-sexual uses of p*ssy, but no f-words. Other than that, I’m sure they were some uses of more minor words. But I was really surprised at how little curse words there were for such a dark-themed movie.


All that comes to mind is how a couple of the female characters are provocatively dressed, as his common in super hero movies, like Wonder Woman in Batman V. Superman. There were no implied sex scenes or nudity in Suicide Squad.


There are so many guns in this movie you might think it was sponsored by the NRA. With that being said, there is virtually no blood or gore in this movie… just a whole lot of shooting guns!


The members have the Suicide Squad (as well as the “good guys”) are shown drinking alcohol throughout the movie, but never is drunkenness implied. I recall no use of drugs.

Dark Themes:

While obviously this cast of felons have violent backgrounds including murder, the darkest theme in Suicide Squad is the plot device of demon possession. It sort of reminded me of the original 1984 Ghostbusters in that regard.

Parental Guide Summary of Suicide Squad (Rated PG-13)

So there are the bullet points. I feel this movie is on the same level as Batman V. Superman, in regards to “family friendliness”.

Over all, despite the dark theme, there is little profanity, no sex or outright nudity, and no graphic violence. But you have a problem with guns, then I think this might be the most offensive thing about Suicide Squad, for you.

Thanks for reading my review!

And here’s my video version below:






The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1- Family Friendly Review

Imagine the people of North Korea realizing that they outnumber their nation’s military in brute force and therefore they decide to overthrow the tyranny they’ve been under for all these decades.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1: Family Friendly Daddy Blog

Consider the unavoidable violence that would occur as the people would sacrifice their bodies as weapons against the armed military forces of the government. Think about how the landscape would be covered with the charred remains of the thousands fought for the cause of dethroning their oppressor.

It would be a grim picture.

I have just described the mood and feel of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1, but the setting is not North Korea, it is a future version of America.

The reason I used North Korea as the example is because I feel the newest Hunger Games installment is a realistic glimpse of what really could happen if any oppressed nation turned own their government.

It all goes back to this concept: The people of a nation are only controlled by their government if they allow themselves to be.

And this is one of the many reasons I love The Hunger Games: The Libertarian theme is undeniable.

Amazingly, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 contains no profanity whatsoever; not even what I call a “1950’s cuss word” like “crap” or even something harmless like “dang it”. Nothing.

Unless I missed one… but I’ve always had a talent for hearing profanity in movies, and I can tell you, I didn’t hear even one questionable or potentially offensive word in this movie.

Likewise, it contains no sexual content or nudity whatsoever; as is typical with the Hunger Games movies.

Yes, Hollywood can indeed make an excellent movie without sex or profanity! Who knew?

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1- Family Friendly Review

As for violence, that’s another thing. Though blood is fairly minimal, this is a war movie more than anything.

There are mass deaths and public executions in which the camera pans away just in time before the moment of fatal impact is given.

And as I mentioned earlier, the landscape itself is an open graveyard.

What could have made this movie even darker is if any children were shown being killed. However, it is explained that most children had already died in “an epidemic.”

Therefore, the people who sacrifice their lives as human weapons are all older teens and adults; other than when a hospital is bombed by the Capitol, in which hundreds of injured and dying are instantly wiped out. However, only the bombing of the building from the outside is shown.

With that being said, this movie is for a mature audience. Could a 10 year-old watch this movie?

Ask yourself this: At what age would you be okay with your child watching an edited for TV version of Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan?

This isn’t a kids’ movie. It’s an intelligent, mature film that serves as a political thriller/war movie.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 is not a family friendly movie, despite the complete lack of profanity and sexual content.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

However, it’s the best movie I’ve seen all year. It’s the kind of movie that is completely worthy of seeing in the theatre.

I believe the message in this movie validates the necessary amount of violence; because ultimately, it gives opportunity for a hero of hope to lead the people to salvation.

Flawless movie, but not intended or suitable for younger viewers. It’s rated PG-13 for a reason.

Thanks for reading my family friendly review of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1. Come back any time!

Aside From Breaking Bad Action Figures, What Else Is “Offensive” At Toys “R” Us?

Today, with 20/20’s David Muir as my inspiration, I visited the Toys “R” Us down the street from where I work, equipped with my camera.

I wanted to find out what other potentially offensive and/or inappropriate toys can currently be found there.

Of course, the reason this is relevant is because headlines are revolving around concerned parents who do not approve of Breaking Bad action figures being sold at Toys “R” Us: Over 7,000 parents signed a petition to get the store to stop selling those toys.

They believe that the characters, like Walter White, who began selling meth to provide for his family after being diagnosed with terminal cancer, should have no place in a “kids’” toy store.

Appropriately, or should I say inappropriately, the Walter White action figure comes with a bag of meth as one of his accessories.

I get it that that’s not something I would want my nearly 4 year-old son playing with.

However, I wanted to explore the situation to make sure there’s not a double standard in place here…

Aside From Breaking Bad Action Figures, What Else Is "Offensive" At Toys R Us?

In other words, if certain parents are concerned over Breaking Bad action figures, does that mean they’re okay with other toys that are currently being sold there and have been being sold there?

Aside From Breaking Bad Action Figures, What Else Is "Offensive" At Toys R Us?

Let’s take a look at what I found…

Aside From Breaking Bad Action Figures, What Else Is "Offensive" At Toys R Us?

Near the front of the store are the video games. As you can see, several of them have the “M for Mature” rating, containing profanity, sexual content, nudity, alcohol, drugs, gore, and violence.

Aside From Breaking Bad Action Figures, What Else Is "Offensive" At Toys R Us?

As far as other action figures, Toys “R” Us also sells The Walking Dead (which is another popular show from AMC) in which you can run over a zombie with a motorcycle, Game of Thrones (which I hear is full of nudity), Chucky (a violent, possessed doll) and Friday the 13th  (featuring the popular serial killer, Jason Voorhies).

Aside From Breaking Bad Action Figures, What Else Is "Offensive" At Toys R Us?

Notice all the weapons here too; all currently for sale at Toys “R” Us. Granted, there is an indicator on each of these packages to tell you what age is appropriate for a child to have the toy.

But still, if we are to find these toys offensive anyway, I suppose the age indicator is slightly irrelevant.

Please note that these toys are in the same aisle as WWE wrestling action figures and Ninja Turtles.

Aside From Breaking Bad Action Figures, What Else Is "Offensive" At Toys R Us?

Which, speaking of…

I quickly saw the slippery slope here…

The age indicator tells me that Ninja Turtles, Transformers, and GI Joe are all appropriate for children under the age of 10.

Aside From Breaking Bad Action Figures, What Else Is "Offensive" At Toys R Us?

So I suppose the weapons are excusable because they are used to fight the bad guys… though you can just as easily buy them too, along with their weapons.

I feel like I’m definitely seeing some double standards here. This is my understanding:

There are people who are upset about Breaking Bad action figures being carried at Toys “R” Us because that glorifies drugs and violence.

Aside From Breaking Bad Action Figures, What Else Is "Offensive" At Toys R Us?

However, Toys “R” Us has been selling video games that contain profanity, sexual content, nudity, alcohol, drugs and violence that is easily arguably much worse that what is featured in the series Breaking Bad.

An action figure is just a representation; whereas a video game actually shows the content on the TV screen.

You can’t buy the Breaking Bad DVD series at Toys “R” Us, but you can buy these video games show here.

Not to mention, our society quickly dismisses the toy weapons of characters which cater towards children, in the name of self-defense and military.

If we should be offended Breaking Bad, shouldn’t we also be offended by the other stuff too, to some degree? Where do we cross the line? Apparently, with a bag of meth as an accessory… but not all this other stuff.

Aside From Breaking Bad Action Figures, What Else Is "Offensive" At Toys R Us?

What Makes a Good Horror/Thriller Movie?

Find out what it takes to impress a movie snob like myself when it comes to the “boo!” factor.

One of my biggest pet peeves in life is when someone starts telling me about a movie, and in a subconscious effort to be cool or to be a hero, blurts the ending.  Usually, that takes away much of the incentive to spend the two hours to watch the movie.  But recently, a coworker blabbed the twist ending to Orphan and it actually intrigued me so much that I watched it this past weekend with my wife and my mother-in-law.  And though I typically can’t say this about most movies, especially not “scary” ones, I give it an A+.  So what makes for a good scary movie, according to me, a self-proclaimed movie guy?

It doesn’t have bad acting. A few weeks ago I tried to watch Fire in the Sky, the 1993 thriller about alien abductions, and couldn’t make it past the first 20 minutes because the acting was simply not believable.  It was somehow both too cartoonish and too bland.  Like Christian movies and low budget sci-fi movies, scary movies also tend to feature unknown actors who are unknown for a reason.  For a scary movie to be good, the acting itself can not be a distraction.

It doesn’t exploit violence and gore. Granted, I don’t mind excessive violence and gore if it’s necessary to the plot.  I’m a huge fan of the Saw franchise.  But I didn’t like Saw III, Saw V, or Saw 3D individually because I felt the violence and gore itself was over-the-top and mainly there for shock value alone, whereas I felt that with first Saw, Saw II, Saw IV, and saw VI, the violence and gore had a purpose directly related to a meaningful plotline.

It doesn’t contain soft-core porn. The thing that has kept me from seeing Hostel is that I have heard from multiple people that “there is a soft-core porn scene in the beginning of the movie”.  A good scary movie doesn’t need obsessive nudity in order to be a good scary movie.  (When any kind of movie has excessive nudity and sex scenes, I almost always believe it’s in there as a desperate attempt to make an otherwise drab movie seem interesting.) There was nudity in One Hour Photo, but it was extremely relevant to the plot and had a purpose.  I’m not saying I morally approve nudity, but I am saying that when it’s done in good taste, it can at least keep from distracting from the quality of the movie itself, as opposed to most Friday the 13th movies.

It doesn’t contain special effects which I can tell are fake. In Saw 3D there were several death trap scenes where I could totally tell the newly dead bodies where just hollow rubber dummies.  That’s how I feel about the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the Final Destination series.  I am a snob when it comes to special effects of any kind.  That means I don’t want to see any blood that looks too watery or any noticeable uses of green screens.

It doesn’t end with all the main characters dying. The movie is scarier if at least one person lived to tell the story.  I’m not saying that it has to end well.  One of my favorite scary movies is Skeleton Key- no one really dies in it but it doesn’t really end on a happy note either.  Yet the creativeness in how they pulled off that combo impressed me.  Same thing with One Hour Photo.

It doesn’t end unfinished. If the name of the movie is Freddy Vs. Jason, then either Freddy or Jason better clearly win the fight by the time it ends.  I’m fine with a movie that ends while leaving the door open for a sequel.  But if that’s the case, I want that movie to be able to stand alone as a film that in of itself actually makes sense and has closure.  The first Saw movie does this perfectly.

If a horror/thriller movie passes these six tests, there is a good chance it will be at least a good one.  It’s not about how many times you get spooked when something surprises you by jumping out on the screen or a high dead body count.  The movie itself has to be legit and in tact as a whole.  Otherwise, instead of walking back to your car after the movie as look around the parking lot for any suspicious shadowy creatures, you’re shaking your head at how stupid that movie was instead.

Self-Defense, In Theory

War.  Capital punishment.  Self-defense.  Protecting someone else from a deadly attack.  When is killing another person necessary?

In American culture, on a near daily basis, we hear or make comments jokingly threatening to kill someone or be killed: “Man, my wife is gonna kill me when she finds out I forgot to go by the bank today!” or “I could just strangle that kid!”  It’s so common we think nothing of it.  The idea of actually killing a person for some trivial offense is humorous, because committing murder is so serious of a crime, we obviously wouldn’t act out our off-hand remarks against some who has frustrated us.

But often, behind every joke is at least a little truth.  I know as a man, I sometimes have to calm my own emotions in events where a person offends or frustrates me.  Because in reality, I am wired to kill, as most men are.  It sounds more melodramatic than it is, and I’m not just saying it because Dexter is one of my favorite TV shows.  Since the beginning of time, men have been engaging in and defending themselves in war.  There is an “execution switch” in a man’s body that once it is turned on, it prepares the man for one sole action: Terminate the enemy.

In Capital Punishment, In Theory, I admitted that I don’t know that I have what it takes to fight in a war: I don’t know that I could kill another person, the enemy, when other than trying to kill me because I am trying to kill him, he could be another  law-abiding citizen who will do anything it takes to protect and care for his family because he loves them, including killing me.  In a way, the dictator of his country is forcing him to kill me.

Yet many men I’ve talked to told me they would be willing to kill someone in war before they could be an executioner of capital punishment.  Not me- I would be willing to pull the trigger, flip the switch, whatever necessary to kill a man who is a murderer or rapist; therefore preventing them from hurting other potential victims.  Other men are wired to terminate soldiers of enemy nations; therefore preventing them from hurting weaker nations, what I call “group self-defense”. And I’m sure there are some men that could do both.

There’s also the scenario of a man defending himself and/or his family- what if an armed man breaks in the house?  Is the man of the house willing to kill that armed shadowy stranger to protect himself and his family?

At some point, taking another human life has to be justified.  Whether as a nation or as individuals, if we never defended ourselves, we would be weak, foolish, defeated, and possibly dead ourselves.  It’s important as a man, who is wired to kill when absolutely necessary, to know which lines another person must cross in order to be worth losing his life.  For me, a man loses his right to live when he murders/attempts to murder or sexually assaults/attempts to sexually assault another person.

Because our nation has basically been fighting most of its wars on foreign land, the thought of “a good man killing a bad man” is pretty much a concept reserved for our military; on a different continent.  But I can’t just look outwardly; I have to look within our borders as well, at the men of the same race and religion as we are who prove they can’t live their lives without hurting their neighbors.  When is killing necessary?  Unfortunately, “never” is not a valid answer in the world we currently live in.

“Kill or be killed” is a tough law to live by; but mankind has been doing it for a long time now, premeditated or not.