Not that this film looks good, but Dimension has taken the financially-good, artistically-bad route of cutting the flick down to a PG-13.

Again, IMO, this film looks awful. But now it most likely will be.

Cursed (Miramax Films): PG-13 for horror violence/terror, some sexual references, nudity, language and a brief drug reference (Previously rated R for horror violence and language)

Well, there's always the DVD on down the road, even though I highly doubt the first release will be the unrated or R version unless the film flops.

Don't you just need an actual werewolf? And all that turning the skin over and having fur underneath...

I'll probably rent the DVD when it comes out. It doesn't look bad, but it doesn't look like it deserves $8 plus popcorn and soda. I would probably be more likely to spend the money on a movie ticket if they left it an R rating. I miss the older horror movies with lots of blood and sex. Where did they go?

Well, my theory is that studio movies today, even horror movies, cost more to make than they use to in the old days. Since the film is more expensive, they need to make as much money as possible, and the way to do that is to target the ever cherished teen crowd.
Granted, I think that this will lead to more of a case of backlash than anything else, but that's just me.
What I don't understand is why they don't make two versions of the movie like they did back in the days of "Saturday Night Fever" and "Excalibur" where they could air the PG version during the day and the R version for the late feature.

PG13? Craven, say it ain't so!

I don't think he has the power to change it.

The PG-13 is even more annoying when you consider that Hide & Seek came out last week with an R rating an scored an impressive $22 million opening. Not to mention, a good amount of Dimension's box office success has to do with Craven's R-rated Scream movies. I don't mind a PG-13 on a movie like The Ring which isn't about gore, but werewolf movies are supposed to be about tearing people's throats out. Well, at least Constantine is coming out with an R.

I just saw that the Darkness DVD is due out in April with seperate PG-13 and unrated editions, so there is some hope for Cursed as well. Cursed was shot to be rated R, and from what I've heard from advance reviews (including Fangoria), the R rated version is quite gory.

In theory that should work, but I'd imagine most teens, once they found out there was an 'adult' version, would avoid the PG-13 one and try to sneak into the R show.

That's why I don't watch trailers.

I rely more on word of mouth.

I bet you anything Hide & Seek could have had a much, much bigger opening with a PG-13.

We'll never know now, at any rate...

I think that's why they decided for the PG-13, to avoid having a movie where a lot of the audience isn't paying for it. While I have no solid proof, I remember when Starship Troopers opened seeing a full theater, but the ticket sales not reflecting the heavy attendance. The reason was a bunch of people sneaking into the theater, younger ones who would have most likely increased the ticket sales a substantial amount were it the same thing with a PG-13.

I am hoping that Craven does what past horror releases have done and pushes the PG-13 rating as far as it can. If it does so, then the difference might be negligible.

Did I just see a werewolf give Christina Ricci the finger?

God help us all.

So far the only review up at RottenTomatoes has this to say:

Maybe not the worst, but it's up there.

i dont see the point of this flick. when i first saw the trailer, i thought they were updating I Know What You Did Last Summer...

seriously? it sucks? :/

Who gives a shit if the film sucks or not, I just want to know one thing....

Is Scott Baio still in it?

Strange. A guy I talk to who follows the test audiences was telling me that Cursed had tested far, far better than the studio (Dimension?) thought, even better than Scream.

Since then the film has been cut to get a PG-13, but seriously... in this day and age, with a studio movie with some stars, could you really hack apart a film for a lower rating? These days, a few cuts and reshoots here and there are usually all you need to get a lower rating.

Can you say "studio shill?"

It's been widely reported that the first initial test screenings (before the film was almost completely reshot) were simply dreadful. The footage they shot and edited simply did not work. Even after everything was re-done, the test screenings still came back negative. If the test screenings were better than Scream's, this film would've been out over a year ago with the R rating still intact. This film has "shit" written all over it.

I'll still see it tomorrow in a matinee, but all hope I had with this film is completely gone and I'm expecting the aboslute worst.

This pretty much confirms my suspicions. The PG-13 is nothing more than a ploy to get a quick buck off a lousy movie. As others have said, if the movie really was something good they would have left the R rating in tact.

Seriously... stop with the shitty little horror movies already.

Alone in the Dark was one of the worst movies I've laid my eyes on.

@ the music during .. omfg.

I don't have any hopes for Cursed, but Ricci = me viewing.

I am still having a hard time digesting the fact that a collaboration between Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson will - most likely - turn out to be a piece of crap.