IMDb user comments for
Rated X (2000) (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Index

36 comments in total

---

14 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Rated X.....had it's moments, 10 March 2005

Author: bluesdude from United States

Maybe I'm rating this movie a little bit higher than I should. But there were some good moments for me in this film. I have no problem with Charlie Sheen or Emilio Estevez, they have both done some good stuff in their careers (and a few good movies too). Not to mention Denise Richards! Anyway, I just wonder if Tracy Hutson regrets playing Marylin Chambers in this film and doing a nude/sex scene. Seeing as how she is now on the squeaky clean ABC show "Extreme Home Makeovers". She is incredibly hot and I love to see her on the Home Makeover show, especially when I happened to remember that she was naked in "Rated X". I think this film is entertaining. Of course it is not even in the same league as "Boogie Nights", not even close...but if you are a porno movie fan, you might enjoy this story of a couple of the pioneers of the genre. If nothing else you will enjoy Tracy Hutson's awesome body. Which we may never seen in a film again. Too bad.

---

7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
America's Fascination with Its Sub-Culture, 16 September 2002

Author: dromasca from Herzlya, Israel

This is one of the many films in the series that materializes America's fascination with its own sub-culture - violence, drugs, pornography - all coming closer to mainstream in the complex American landscape of the 70's and 80's. It's well done and acted, and I liked it. The true story of the Mitchell brothers, pioneers of porn and live nude shows in San Francisco is told in a linear manner, without too many stuff like 'free speech' justification, as in 'Larry Flint'. The Mitchell guys consider their business just a business, and are not concerned at any point with its human or moral implications. The relationship between the brothers is the central theme, and it is well rendered by the two main actors - Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez (who is also directing).

Some more logic in the script would have made a memorable movie. Some of the familiar relations, or the Mafia involvement seem to be just lost in the action. It is however a good film, and I am amazed by the negative comments of other viewers in IMDb, and by the lack of more critical feedback. Maybe the theme is still hard to digest for the American critics, I do not know. An 8/10 on my scale.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Strong Performances by Real-Life Brothers makes this flawed film special., 25 August 2005

Author: Lucien Lessard from Canada

This film is Based on a True Story about the rise and fall of the porn filmmakers:The Mitchell Brothers (Played by Charlie Sheen & Emilio Estevez). The Mitchell Brothers made a famous porn film titled "Behind the Green Door". Once they become successful, they have to go through the American government, the mob, the woman's in their lives and even each other to create a San Francisco Porn Dynasty but the drugs and their intense relationship puts them apart.

Directed by Emilio Estevez (Men at Work, The War at Home, Wisdom) made a terrific if wildly uneven drama that, it was never release in theaters. Instend it got debuted in showtime entertainment network.

DVD has an bright Pan & Scan (1.33:1) transfer and an fine-Dolby Surround 2.0 Sound. DVD has an surprisingly amusing commentary tack by real-life brothers:Sheen and Estevez.

The french Canadian DVD has an sharp non-anamorphic Widescreen (1.78:1) transfer and an good-Dolby Stereo 2.0 Sound. This DVD is only in french with no subtitles.

This is an unfocused but extremely well made film. Watch for film director:Peter Bogdanovich appears in a cameo as a film school professor. A must see for the performances by Sheen & Estevez. (****/*****).

---

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Story of the Porn Revolutionists, 28 April 2000

Author: adare from Los Angeles, Ca

Going into the theatre, I had mixed expectations. This is, after all, a movie about the porn industry. It could be very graphic, shallow, poorly lit. It most certainly would have a nauseating soundtrack. The tickets were free and it was the premiere event, so the food would be good-- and I went. I was thoroughly amazed to see a very creatively produced film, whose formal perks were as interesting as its content. I was entertained by and sympathetic toward the characters, who were multi-dimensional and intense. Mostly, I was impressed by the film's visual aesthetics-- I'm not referring to the sex scenes here, though there was ample representation of that action-- I'm talking about the piecing together of a beautifully shot film. But besides that, the soundtrack was refreshingly hip and the actors gave excellent performances. This is a Showtime feature that has exceeded its medium's limitations,producing a movie that is given more justice in the theatres than where it will deign to be exhibited- on TV.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Above average cable biopic., 19 September 2000
Author: (mmalooly@completepost.com) from Hollywood, Calif.

I just finished the QC of Rated X for the up coming DVD. I was pleasantly surprised by this film. The acting was impressive, and the story of the Mitchell Brothers kept my interest. The greatest praise I could give this film; after viewing it I wanted to learn more about the facts behind the Brothers story. This movie is worth a look, unless the subject matter would offend.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Yes, it's rated X, 7 May 2007

Author: Dennis Littrell (dalittrell@yahoo.com) from SoCal

Emilio Estavez directed this, but one wonders why. It doesn't take a genius to realize that a movie about two porn movie directors is not going to win any Academy Awards. What was Emilio thinking? You can play it as tragedy. You certainly can't make heroes of these guys. I guess what he was thinking was this was a part of America from the sixties to the nineties in the twentieth century--this was the reality and let's tell the truth. but somebody else might say, why bother? Most critics and viewers would call this a prize turkey, but...but is there some redeeming social value? Charlie Sheen and Estavez star as the brothers Mitchell, two entrepreneurial guys who stumble from the free love scene of the sixties in San Francisco to the cash cow of the first widely distributed porn movies, including the infamous "Behind the Green Door." Maybe there is a kind of free speech angle here, with the porno boys fighting the good fight against censorship and Big Brother. On the other hand, there is a didactic tale here about how success corrupts and how sex, drugs and rock and roll--forget the rock and roll; this is almost pure sex and drugs--how sex and drugs may lead you to make a movie called "Sodom and Gomorrah" which may suggest that you ought to be starring it in.

Charlie Sheen is very good and so is Estavez. His direction is also not bad. The movie moves right along and the degeneration of the brothers is well expressed. Megan Ward had a chance in a supporting role here, but she failed miserably, possibly because how could she feel any connection with a role that made her the quasi-tolerant, quasi-suffering wife of a man who makes his living pandering to lust (and indulging his own) while smoking, drinking and snorting anything he can get his hands on? Not pretty. However, I wouldn't be surprised if someday in the distant future, long after I am gone, that in some social science class at say Cal Berkeley this movie is played as augmenting an anthropological study of a certain segment of our population in the later part of the 20th century. The students can see this as a film documenting the moral corruption of a nation following Vietnam and the Nixon administration, perhaps even anticipating the moral corruption we see today.

But I would advise you to skip this unless you are a big Emilio Estavez fan, in which case this is a must see, or if you are a Charlie Sheen fan, and then it is worth seeing because this is one of his better performances, and you've got to see these guys in their bald domes and their side burns and authentic seventies attire. To be honest, I've seen people win Academy Awards who weren't half as good as Sheen was. Naturally this won nothing.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Pleasant surprise!, 31 May 2002
Author: delerius from Spain

I caught this movie on a movie channel not knowing what it was, never even heard about it or the Mitchell brothers. And to tell you the truth I didn't expect very much of it. I have always considered Charlie Sheen to be a quite bad actor and can you name one single movie Emilio Estevez has made since young guns? But to my pleasant surprise the movie turned out to be pretty good. Ok it was a bit slow sometimes, but overall it's a quite interesting story about 2 brothers rise and fall. To bad that both of them lost it and messed everything up, but hey, you can't change a story that is based on a true story, right? I give this movie 3 points out of 5 possible. These brothers life caught my attention I will definitely read the book now.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Harrowing look at brotherhood, 30 May 2001
Author: Schlockmeister from Midnight Movie Land

Harrowing is the word that comes to mind when trying to describe this movie. A fascinating look at two brothers, raised by a man who could have take parenting lessons from The Great Santini and being thrust into the world of 1970s porn and drugs. Yes, the porn angle of the story is very fascinating and is probably the reason most will see this movie, but I found it to be a riveting look at the older brother - younger brother relationship in the case of two men who led very enmeshed lives. Jim (the older brother) was always taught to take care of younger brother Artie and he did that all of his life, even kicking drugs on his own to show Artie that it could be done. Artie, meanwhile spirals down deeper into addiction and sexual excess and uses Jim's continued smoking as an excuse not to get straightened out. The ending scenes are very sudden and surprising, as they must have been when they really happened, but was this Jim's one last attempt to take care of Artie when nothing else seemed to work? This movie uses the not uncommon now technique of odd camera angles and color to put the viewer into the disoriented mindset of a person on drugs and perhaps on the edge mentally and emotionally. It was really showcased well in "Natural Born Killers" and has kind of been done already to death. But it does serve the story here. Recommended, and as a chaser after this downer of a movie, rent "Babe".

---

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
I thought it kicked BOOGIE NIGHTS's ass., 2 March 2005

Author: selfparody from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I am not a fan of the brothers who dominate this flick, but they seem to play against type well enough that this doesn't matter.

Everyone who'd watch this movie knows about the Mitchells at least slightly, so I'll talk more about the way they're rendered here: Emilio renders Jim Mitchell as basically the more mature older brother and Arty is, of course, the free-wheeling schmuck Jim feels indebted to. They make what is essentially "Vanilla Porn" in the sense that apparently none of the more non-mainstream fetishes usually (probably often rightly) considered perversions are visible, like pedophelia, corpophelia, bestiality, rape or snuff is included. And as a result of living something that is considered a societal fringe in the Seventies, they have a drug-induced downfall. Who would have seen that coming?

Still, to me, the downfall is played with enough reality (Arty seems to remain slightly sympathetic even during his depths, except for when he expects a spouse is doing someone behind his back) and I'd say sympathy that it felt like a fresh experience to me. But that's just me: I don't watch too much aside from nerdy stuff.

Frankly, I think that it beats Boogie Nights because there's no Mark Wahlbergs or Burt Reynolds around, and most important, no Paul Thomas Anderson. Estevez isn't the most humble guy, but at least he didn't approach the material in such a seemingly "I'll make sure everyone pays attention to how well I directed this thing instead of how good the story or things that happen in it are supposed to be." There's nothing really elaborate like that painful three minute opening and not the ton of cutesy dialogue. It's a much more bare-bones production, which I usually like.

Plus, I like the commentary track. God help me, but I do.

---

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
You have to give this one to them, 22 March 2003
Author: CULTEGUY

It's been a while since I've seen this, so I'll keep it short. I saw the film, and read the book. I guess the idea of making the film came a little too close to the "Boogie Nights" success. Both brothers, however, show that they are good actors, even if Charlie's trying a little too much to be Hunter S. Thompson (unless the character was actually like that.) It's a good movie about the porn industry whereas "Boogie Nights" wasn't really about the porn industry, which was used mainly a subplot (or one of many... I loved that film, I just don't think these two movies should be compared-- this is a straight bio-pic.) The demise of the Mitchell brothers wasn't the demise of porno. But, it should be noted, the demise of film making (for real) in porno. They tried like hell to make real films, and probably could have (some might say, with the budget, should have.) So the characters made a fairly respectable film that came along a bit too late.

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	External reviews	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history