Okay film, but why the "R" rating?

Rating: 7/10 (27 November 1999)

Waiting for the film to begin and suffering through the interminable previews of coming attractions, I was joined in my row my three young men easily in their early teens (one may have also been only 11 or 12). I wondered why and how they got into this R-rated film since theaters are supposed to be checking IDs and keeping those under 17 out of R films. Based on what I had heard about the film, I made a judgement that these kids probably shouldn't see it--but I chose not to exercise my civic duty and report them to the management for their having sneaked in (as I heard them discussing a few minutes later). During and after the film, though, I questioned the wisdom of the MPAA rating on this film. I would have given it a PG-13 at most.
*SPOILERS AHEAD--BUT ONLY IF YOU'VE HEARD NOTHING ABOUT THE FILM*
The beheadings were frequent, but not particularly gory, nor was the body that was cut in half (had I not known about this scene from reading "Cinefantastique," I don't know it I would have picked up what was happening--the scene was so dark, and this was not as graphic as it could have been.) Also, the spearing scene in the church has been done before in PG movies. Maybe it's the over-sensitiveness of the times, but this is definitely a PG-13 film. In fact, the historical references and use of language might interest our youth in history. (By the way, there wasn't a profanity to be heard, that I recall, and no sexual situation beyond what is found on daytime soap operas.) [For what it's worth, I'm not some kid complaining about the rating, but a 42-year-old man with a little more faith in the ability of our youth to distinguish between fantasy horror and violence and real world violence than the people who rated this film.]