Movie ratings still don't make sense

OK, Motion Picture Association of America, I'm willing to listen. Please explain to me exactly how "The Legend of Zorro" got a PG rating.

Like its predecessor, the 1998 hit "The Mask of Zorro," the film contains scenes of swashbuckling action and swordplay. That's certainly nothing too excessive for a PG-rated film, right?

However, the movie also features some violence involving and against female characters, and also has one of my pet peeves, a child in peril.

And yes, I do understand that the MPAA's Classification and Ratings Administration board looks at the context of violence before it decides on a rating. And yes, I do realize that "Zorro" is a somewhat comic action movie (at times it's almost more of a comedy than it is an action film).

Still, a child in peril is a child in peril, which is not funny, nor is it anything to be taken lightly.

Also, not to give anything away about the movie, but it features a scene in which a character's head explodes. The actual explosion takes place off-screen, but it's still overheard. And again, that's simply not funny, nor is it anything to be taken lightly.

I might not have been so sensitive to the film's seemingly inappropriate rating (I believe it deserves a PG-13) had it not been for the LDS drama "The Work and the Glory: American Zion," which received a PG-13 from the MPAA for "some violence."

Now, I'm not arguing that "American Zion" deserved a PG. It features scenes in which characters are tarred and feathered and otherwise tortured (though these sequences are brief and fairly discreet). But that film's violent aspects are certainly no worse than those in the "Zorro" sequel.

Things were supposed to get better at the MPAA once longtime MPAA head Jack Valenti was out of office (he's been replaced by former Agriculture Department secretary Dan Glickman). But the ratings board appears to be just as nonsensical, just as capricious, as before.

Does anyone remember Disney's supposedly family-friendly live-action comedy "Herbie: Fully Loaded"? Some of the film's salacious ads featuring star Lindsay Lohan added a new meaning to the film's title. Worse, the film contained a couple of vulgar sight gags involving a car antenna, and other questionable humor. It should never have gotten the G rating it received.

And neither should the clay-animated comedy "Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit," which featured some fairly suggestive humor. Both films should have gotten at least a PG.

What was the MPAA thinking?