Just guessing, here are 3 possible reasons. SLIGHT SPOILERS.

- Mother commits suicide, off screen but in the tub, and there is lots of blood.

- Putting the child in trouble with someone trying to kill the child.

- A little knife slashing.

My roomate saw it with his gf, he told me it was a light R, not much gore or anything of that matter.

Ok, now after reading your suggestions and considering that the 1st option occurred off screen, I'm not sure why this couldn't of been PG-13 and it seems rather misleading in the rating and shows me that a damn R Rated movie isn't any better than a PG-13 when you consider your 3 reasons listed in white text.. :???: Option #2 if I think hard enough about it has probably been done in other movies with less of a rating than an R Rating and Option #3 can been seen in a movie like "The Bourne Supremacy" which was PG-13... I think in conclusion, the MPAA doesn't know what the fuck to rate movies nowadays based on that Criteria.. :???:

Exactly. It was a soft R. A couple of "F" words and a good amount of spilled blood, but with a couple of edits could have made PG-13.

I don't think anyone was calling Hide and Seek a good film just because of it's R rating, BKB, so i'm not sure what the point of this thread is.

Ok.. Once again, it has barely any Gore(if that's what it was) or anything for that matter, therefore, why would this Qualify as an R Rating??? :???: You see folks?? This whole Ratings thing nowadays is a bunch of HOO HA and even the MPAA doesn't know why they give 90% of these films the ratings they do.. I've seen enough R Rated movies in my time to know that they don't sound any better than the PG-13 movies now, horror films included.. This is just odd..

The point is, is that so many of you make such a big deal nowadays out of the Rating system of Horror movies being PG-13 instead of R Rated and look what you get here with HIDE and SEEK that's R Rated??? :???: A movie that barely had any Gore(Or excuse me: Soft Gore) or anything of that matter and it gets an R Rating more for the use of the "F" word and it should've been rated PG-13... It goes to show that Horror movies that are Rated R aren't any better than a PG-13 Horror movie... Now next weekend, we have BOOGEYMAN opening and it's PG-13... Does that bother anyone that it's PG-13 as opposed to Rated R after what I've said???

See BKB thats the case sometimes but other times an R rating matters, take Cursed for example it seems alot of people who saw the Rated R screening liked it because of the gore and such was well done, those type of movies deserve a hard R rating and if they decide to cut the movie to make it PG-13 it'll hurt the movie, it's like watching one of your favorite R horror movies on basic cable, it doesnt feel the same if its edited.

Exactly.

BKB, you're trying to use an already soft R movie to make your point, and it doesn't work. When a horror film is shot for a hard R rating, and is then trimmed to get PG-13, some quality will be lost. The filmmakers entire vision will not be on screen.

Ahhh, but that depends entirely on the individual viewing the film, not everyone.. That's like the same argument I'll continue to preach about how seeing an ALIEN bursting from someones chest in the 70's doesn't have near the same impact today watching it based on the amount of violent movies and violence in general we've been exposed to since back then.. Today, like it or not folks, the ALIEN movies would be PG-13 if you took the overabundance of the "F" word out of these films which is what it was more famous for, especially ALIENS and the amount of times Bill Paxton said it which was every other word it seemed..

BKB, your Alien theory holds no water. Alien was re-released into theaters last year (which means it gets re-rated and everything) and it maintained it's R rating for "sci-fi violence/gore and language".

It was Rated R cause it was already previously rated and they weren't gonna change it for all the trouble of a limited engagement.. Your wrong and if the ALIEN films as we see them now were never made back then and were made TODAY, In the Present, they would in fact be PG-13 unless they threw a ton of Profanity in to it which would up the rating.. The ALIEN films and the so called Gore in them is incredibly dated looking after viewing it on Cable the other day and isn't a big deal anymore like back in the 70's.. It's not..

How is changing the rating of a movie "a lot of trouble"? If anything, Fox would want them to change the rating to open the film to a wider audience.

I also just watched Alien the other day, and the chestburst is still enough to warrant an R rating. It's incredibly bloody and intense.

I saw it, and it didn't deserve an R rating. There was nothing in there gorey or bloody, nothing too violent, and no F words. That was a PG-13 movie people.

There was a couple of F words, and the mom's bathtub was full of blood after she killed herself.

Also, after one character is killed, they're covered in blood.

I agree it was a soft R, and probably could have been PG-13 with a couple of seconds trimmed.

I must have missed the F words then, because I don't remember hearing either. :???: Nor does a friend.

SPOILERS

After Bob Deniro slashes that guy's hand he thinks is stalking Dakota, he says "You sick fuck!" or something like that.

http://www.kids-in-mind.com/h/hideandseek.htm

A summary of the content in the film. Should give you (BKB) a good idea why it's rated R.

Honestly, after reading this summary, I'm more inclined to think it really should've been PG-13, not Rated R..

The violence was given an "8", which is pretty high for that site. It got pretty violent in the last twenty minutes. Look, I agree that it could have easily been PG-13 with a few edits, but as is it's a R. A soft R, but a R.

Your kidding me??? How old are you??? You really thought that ALIEN bursting from someones chest affected you enough to warrant this an R Rating??? Hell, The LOTR Trilogy was PG-13 and there were limbs and decaptitations in these films which prompts me to wonder how that's anymore or less violent and less deserving of an R Rating than the outdated movie ALIEN from 1979??? :???:

I'm 19, and I wasn't affected by the chestburst - others would be, though.

The violence in LOTR was bloodless, which is key when trying to get a PG-13. You can show as much violence as you want, just so long as there is no blood. Blood get's you an R, though.

But the decaptitations and loss of limbs was also heavily implied and very violent for a Fantasy movie... As for ALIEN??? I rhink if the majority of folks saw that film TODAY, they would think it is tame when it comes to the amount of violence we've been exposed to since 1979 and that the overuse of the "F" word played a part in this films rating.... Here's another one: The Original Amityville Horror... Made in 1979 and was Rated R and after watching it on DVD the other day, I have to ask what was so bad about that movie that warranted it an R Rating??? It's because back in 79, it to fell into the catagory of having never seen something like that before.. I'm hoping that if the Remake is an R Rating, that the Violence shown warrants the Rating by todays standards.. Looking back on the events of that film and book, I'm gonna bet it gets a PG-13 Rating...

Let it go BKB.

The movie had like one F word. No really inapproprate scenes. A little blood and killing. I don't know. I think it could have got the PG-13.