While we could have hoped and dreamed that Drag Me To Hell would get an R rating because it's Sam Raimi, I think we all knew it would be PG-13. As for Year One, it's good to see that it got its re-rating. While I wouldn't have minded it as an R, I don't think it was a movie that needed to be, and now more people can see it.

Apparently, those who have seen Drag Me to Hell have commented that its rather violent and gory for a PG-13, and supposedly they didnt cut anything out since the screening that they had a month or 2 ago.

Damn, I was actually really expecting an R-rating for "Drag Me to Hell." Especially with the trailer promising a return to real horror. I mean, there are a few good PG-13 horror films ("The Others," "The Sixth Sense"), and Sam Raimi's a great director, so I have faith in him, but at the same time it's disappointing he didn't use his clout to shoot for an R. Oh well. I'll still watch it in theaters anyway.

I'm probably not going to bother with Drag Me To Hell now. I wanted a gorefest like the Evil Dead trilogy.

Year One … eh. I'll see it and it looks funny, but I don't have an opinion on the rating change. Apparently they had a PG-13 in mind the whole time.

Taking Woodstock is my most anticipated film for the rest of the year, even moreso than Star Trek. I am a huge fan of 1960s American counterculture and I am psyched about the hard R rating.

Geez, if The Haunting In Connecticut can make $23 million with a PG-13 rating, in March, with no major names on it, then Drag Me To Hell, which is also PG-13, has a summer opening, and has Sam Raimi on board, should gross around $32 million.

Wow. First Terminator gets neutered and now Drag Me To Hell is sanitized for all the little kiddies. What a damn shame. Sorry but I'll keep my money instead of wasting it on these pieces of garbage. This is coming from a huge Terminator and Sam Raimi fan. I'll start going to the movies again once these pussy directors stop appeasing the MPAA and quit compromising their films.