I see this movie as an attempt to help conservative people to see gay life (male or female) as something natural, or normal (which I think is very OK). The three segments represents three steps for that recognition : 1961 : Hide it! 1972 : It is shown as some kind of feminist fashion and shows intolerance between the lesbians. 2000 : acceptance. The problem is that the three segments are very unequal. We all accept that the first part is very moving, with a very very fine performance from the great Vanessa Redgrave. The second part is O.K. But the third is very weak. Despite these little defaults, this is a very fine movie, with honorable good intentions. I say bravo to everyone involved in it and also say bravo to every viewer who accepts it. But for a little superior movies on the same subject, I suggest two Canadian films : When the night is falling, and Revoir Julie. I wonder what would be the reaction if there was a similar film with men... You know the story : lesbians are more cute...
65 Reviews
Three Very Different Stories
beejer7 March 2000
I have to admit that I approached the viewing of this movie with some apprehension. But as it turned out, I enjoyed it very much.
The film consists of three separate stories dealing with lesbianism set at different times and featuring characters from three distinct age groups.
The first, set in 1961, and the best of the three, features an outstanding performance by the marvellous Vanessa Redgrave as a retired school teacher who suddenly loses her lifelong companion. She suddenly finds that all of the things she has taken for granted are suddenly gone, including the roof over her head. The vignette shows how lesbianism was never talked about in public in the 60s as evidenced in the hospital scenes where Redgrave attempts to find out what has happened to her "friend". Paul Giamatti plays the deceased's nephew who has to tell Redgrave that she no longer can remain in her home of 30 years. Elizabeth Perkins effectively plays his scavenging wife.
The second story, set in 1972, deals with the relationship between a college co-ed (Michelle Williams) and a girl who likes dress in macho male attire (Chloe Sevigny). I found myself actually hoping that they would live happily ever after.
The last story concerns the often humorous efforts of two mature companions (Ellen DeGeneres, Sharon Stone)to "have a baby".
Although not for everyone, I found that this movie was tastefully done and very well acted.
The film consists of three separate stories dealing with lesbianism set at different times and featuring characters from three distinct age groups.
The first, set in 1961, and the best of the three, features an outstanding performance by the marvellous Vanessa Redgrave as a retired school teacher who suddenly loses her lifelong companion. She suddenly finds that all of the things she has taken for granted are suddenly gone, including the roof over her head. The vignette shows how lesbianism was never talked about in public in the 60s as evidenced in the hospital scenes where Redgrave attempts to find out what has happened to her "friend". Paul Giamatti plays the deceased's nephew who has to tell Redgrave that she no longer can remain in her home of 30 years. Elizabeth Perkins effectively plays his scavenging wife.
The second story, set in 1972, deals with the relationship between a college co-ed (Michelle Williams) and a girl who likes dress in macho male attire (Chloe Sevigny). I found myself actually hoping that they would live happily ever after.
The last story concerns the often humorous efforts of two mature companions (Ellen DeGeneres, Sharon Stone)to "have a baby".
Although not for everyone, I found that this movie was tastefully done and very well acted.
Overall touching LGBT film
davispittman3 December 2017
This sequel to the abortion focused TV Movie, if these walls could talk, focuses on three different lesbian couples living in the same house over different time periods. This is done in an episodic way just like the first movie. The first time period is 1961. It stars Vanessa Redgrave, Elizabeth Perkins, and Paul Giamatti. Redgrave plays an older senior age woman who lives with her partner. One night after they get back from seeing a movie, her partner falls from a ladder and dies from a stroke. I think the actors did a good job with their roles and I liked the dramatic focused performance given by Redgrave, for which she won a golden globe. The second segment of the movie is set in the early 1970s. It focuses on college girls, exactly like the last segment in the first movie. Michelle Williams and Chloe Sevigny stars here, this part is all about not only their connection and blossoming relationship, but also about feminism and people living their truths, no matter how others see it or think. And the final section stars Ellen DeGeneres and Sharon Stone. I love both of these women and they have great chemistry together. The final segment isn't nearly as heavy or dramatic, it's lighter. And that is nice to have after two pretty heavy sections. I will say that the first part is the most well made, but I did enjoy them all. They fit nicely together. 8/10 for if these walls could talk 2.
Outstanding
Phillip-716 March 2000
I must say that this film was a complete surprise to me. I started watching it intending to watch the first segment because Vanessa Redgrave never fails to move me. And, needless to say, her performance in this film is exceptional and a masterpiece of acting. I kept watching, however, because of the clever device which weaves all three stories together, and was soon mesmerised by Chloe Sevigny. All three segments were very well done and the performances are all superb. Excellent all around and highly recommended!
Watchable
SB10021 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
But it varies. The first of the trilogy with Vanessa Redgrave as the elderly bereaved partner of a woman who has just died, and finds her home taken over by her partner's relatives is affecting. How could it not be with Vanessa Redgrave in the lead? She is superb as always. But the script is loaded, and you want to say if they meant so much to each other why didn't they make appropriate wills?
The second part is best, with Michelle Williams realising that love is more important than labels. It is very sexy and believable and has some pertinent points to make.
The third section is the weakest, about a couple's attempts to have a baby, its tone is comedic yet serious and falls a bit between the two stools and is about ten minutes too long
Gender Identification Issues.
rmax3048233 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Interesting three segments, arranged chronologically from 1961, though 1972, to 2000, dealing with problems faced by gay women during the three periods. I didn't find any of them truly gripping but probably because I never faced the problems.
!. 1961. In some ways, the best of the three episodes. The elderly Vanessa Redgrave's long-time companion dies of a stroke and Redgrave is visited by her lover's relatives, who have inherited the house but who long ago lost contact with their deceased aunt. Lesbianism is never mentioned. This is, after all, 1961, when such things didn't exist except in some sea of iniquity like Greenwich Village where, as a matter of fact, there was a lively lesbian bar at the time called The Swing Rendezvous.
The episode features an absolute gem of a carefully controlled performance by Vanessa Redgrave. She magnificent. And the script gives her only one scene-stealing speech, well written and subdued.
Unfortunately, the other two characters -- the two young visiting relatives who have come to claim the house and its belongings and throw Redgrave out -- are written as stereotypes. Paul Giamatti's character is practical but abashed. His wife, Perkins, isn't even abashed. She's simply unfeelingly greedy.
2. 1972. A transitional period during which half a dozen girls who are university students try to pass themselves off as "normal." They dress like girls, giggle, fake heterosexual interests, and avoid gay bars -- except once. Sometimes once is enough. Chloe Sevigny hangs at the bar and looks and dresses like a man, though neat, and of a gentle demeanor. The others reject her because she's so obvious, but Michelle Williams falls in love with her and eventually moves in. Her gender orientation and bound breasts notwithstanding, Sevigny is irresistible. Nobody can blame Williams for her open display.
3. 2000. Sharon Stone and Ellen DeGeneres is a chipper episode about a couple trying to get pregnant because they want a child. It's played as a kind of situation comedy but it doesn't work. If you doubt that it's forced, try imagining the same plot, only with a normal man/woman couple instead of two women.
Each episode has its weaknesses and I suspect, in 2000, it no longer took much in the way of courage to make a movie about lesbians and love. Actually there had already been a couple of nicely done flicks about the subject, such as "Desert Hearts" and "Aimee and Jaguar," that were better than "If These Walls Could Talk 2." (What a title.) But, by cracky, you have to hand it to HBO. Here we have a television channel that produces occasional special movies -- and more than one of them have been winners. This isn't going to win any Palms but it's still better than much of the effluent choking the multiplex screens today.
!. 1961. In some ways, the best of the three episodes. The elderly Vanessa Redgrave's long-time companion dies of a stroke and Redgrave is visited by her lover's relatives, who have inherited the house but who long ago lost contact with their deceased aunt. Lesbianism is never mentioned. This is, after all, 1961, when such things didn't exist except in some sea of iniquity like Greenwich Village where, as a matter of fact, there was a lively lesbian bar at the time called The Swing Rendezvous.
The episode features an absolute gem of a carefully controlled performance by Vanessa Redgrave. She magnificent. And the script gives her only one scene-stealing speech, well written and subdued.
Unfortunately, the other two characters -- the two young visiting relatives who have come to claim the house and its belongings and throw Redgrave out -- are written as stereotypes. Paul Giamatti's character is practical but abashed. His wife, Perkins, isn't even abashed. She's simply unfeelingly greedy.
2. 1972. A transitional period during which half a dozen girls who are university students try to pass themselves off as "normal." They dress like girls, giggle, fake heterosexual interests, and avoid gay bars -- except once. Sometimes once is enough. Chloe Sevigny hangs at the bar and looks and dresses like a man, though neat, and of a gentle demeanor. The others reject her because she's so obvious, but Michelle Williams falls in love with her and eventually moves in. Her gender orientation and bound breasts notwithstanding, Sevigny is irresistible. Nobody can blame Williams for her open display.
3. 2000. Sharon Stone and Ellen DeGeneres is a chipper episode about a couple trying to get pregnant because they want a child. It's played as a kind of situation comedy but it doesn't work. If you doubt that it's forced, try imagining the same plot, only with a normal man/woman couple instead of two women.
Each episode has its weaknesses and I suspect, in 2000, it no longer took much in the way of courage to make a movie about lesbians and love. Actually there had already been a couple of nicely done flicks about the subject, such as "Desert Hearts" and "Aimee and Jaguar," that were better than "If These Walls Could Talk 2." (What a title.) But, by cracky, you have to hand it to HBO. Here we have a television channel that produces occasional special movies -- and more than one of them have been winners. This isn't going to win any Palms but it's still better than much of the effluent choking the multiplex screens today.
Lovely.
lostintwinpeaks7 November 2001
A lovely movie. Forget comments about the (apparently) "overt" love/sex scenes. If this was a movie featuring straight/heterosexual love scenes, such comments would not be made.
An interesting symmetry with the original . . . Anne Heche appeared (as actress) in the third story of "If These Walls Could Talk", and here directs and writes the third story of "ITWCT 2".
Michelle Williams (so very different than in "Dawson's Creek"!), Chloe Sevigny (always excellent), Sharon Stone, Ellen Degeneres, and (most importantly) Vanessa Redgrave give excellent performances.
A lovely, lyrical examination of lesbian love - and indeed love and life in general - throughout three very different decades.
Highly recommended.
You'll laugh . . . you'll cry . . . you'll love this movie.
An interesting symmetry with the original . . . Anne Heche appeared (as actress) in the third story of "If These Walls Could Talk", and here directs and writes the third story of "ITWCT 2".
Michelle Williams (so very different than in "Dawson's Creek"!), Chloe Sevigny (always excellent), Sharon Stone, Ellen Degeneres, and (most importantly) Vanessa Redgrave give excellent performances.
A lovely, lyrical examination of lesbian love - and indeed love and life in general - throughout three very different decades.
Highly recommended.
You'll laugh . . . you'll cry . . . you'll love this movie.
Through the ages.
rjspark16 January 2020
These walls spoke to me...
primus215 March 2000
This new HBO movie far exceeded my expectations. In the first of the three mini-movies, Vanessa Redgrave gives a stirring performance as the survivor of a lesbian couple in 1961. The message of this first movie serves well to remind people of the tragedy that ensued when one's life long partner passed on previous to the 70's.
The second movie, set in 1972, depicts an accurate portrayal of what lesbians faced during the rise of the feminist movement where even sisters were divided over who should be allowed to participate and promote the feminist cause. Chloe Sevigny's portrayal of a "butch" lesbian, comfortable with herself is phenomenal. Ms. Sevigny should be nominated for an Emmy for her fantastic acting.
The third and final movie, features a current day lesbian couple who are trying to have a child. Billed as a romantic comedy, this episode has an underlying message amid the laughter and tears which is common to all couples regardless of gender. Ellen Degeneres and Sharon Stone are funny, yet convincing as a couple. Their chemistry radiates throughout and both women deserve accolades for their performances.
Finally, a comment must be made about the fact that Anne Heche made her HBO directing debut with the third episode. Having written the story as well, it is clear to this viewer that Anne Heche has a brilliant future not only as an actress but as a writer and director.
"If These Walls Could Talk 2" is a cinematic achievement and may very well be the first movie of the new Millennium which accurately shows where there is love and truth, gender is nothing but an afterthought.
The second movie, set in 1972, depicts an accurate portrayal of what lesbians faced during the rise of the feminist movement where even sisters were divided over who should be allowed to participate and promote the feminist cause. Chloe Sevigny's portrayal of a "butch" lesbian, comfortable with herself is phenomenal. Ms. Sevigny should be nominated for an Emmy for her fantastic acting.
The third and final movie, features a current day lesbian couple who are trying to have a child. Billed as a romantic comedy, this episode has an underlying message amid the laughter and tears which is common to all couples regardless of gender. Ellen Degeneres and Sharon Stone are funny, yet convincing as a couple. Their chemistry radiates throughout and both women deserve accolades for their performances.
Finally, a comment must be made about the fact that Anne Heche made her HBO directing debut with the third episode. Having written the story as well, it is clear to this viewer that Anne Heche has a brilliant future not only as an actress but as a writer and director.
"If These Walls Could Talk 2" is a cinematic achievement and may very well be the first movie of the new Millennium which accurately shows where there is love and truth, gender is nothing but an afterthought.
The HBO movie everyone was talking about in 2000!
MyMovieTVRomance30 March 2022
Infuriating in some parts (esp. The first story), but still very good!
The Ellen vignette was my favorite, and this is worth seeing just for that!
Oh, how I miss pre-talk-show Ellen! I always had a crush on her!
Sharon Stone is good too!
The Ellen vignette was my favorite, and this is worth seeing just for that!
Oh, how I miss pre-talk-show Ellen! I always had a crush on her!
Sharon Stone is good too!
if these walls could walk, they'd walk away
paul2001sw-119 March 2003
Three slightly self-indulgent stories with a lesbian theme. The problem here is that lesbianism is not just a theme of these stories, it is the theme, and a single (and predictable) prevailing attitude provides each drama with both premise and conclusions. It is not that this attitude is wrong, rather that it robs the dramas of the qualities of breath and moral ambiguity that mark all truly powerful stories. Vanessa Redgrave is excellent in the first part, which thereby moves you although you never feel there is never any scope for anything other than the eventual ending; the other two tales pass without interest. Truly good film makes the viewer feel a little more uneasy and a little less certain about themselves; but the overall tone here is one of celebration, and its a weaker work for that.
An excellent movie, well worth seeing...
kenpogurl14 January 2005
I saw this film on the recommendation of a friend. In fact her recommendation was so good, I got the film from Amazon before I'd even seen it and as usual she was so right! The first part is moving, brilliantly acted and very, very sad. You will need tissues for this one. It may also anger you, as it did me! The treatment the old lady receives from the nephew is just appalling.
The second part is less sad. I was still moved by it and sad at times but overall it's very good. The sex scenes throughout this movie are very tasteful in my opinion. Very watchable.
The third and final part is my favourite. Ellen is such a funny and amazing actress and Sharon Stone is excellent, also. The topic discussed here is very moving, but very well dealt with. The sex scenes are sexy and yet tasteful. They are in no way pornographic as I have heard people say. The story is one that many lesbians can relate to, or maybe will relate to in the future (my self included, hopefully) and the ending makes me cry every time! My only negative point is that it wasn't longer! A full movie about this topic with these characters would be a must-see in my opinion! Perhaps someone should write one?
I think the film would be enjoyable to anyone, not just lesbians and it is well worth a look. Enjoy Charlene
The second part is less sad. I was still moved by it and sad at times but overall it's very good. The sex scenes throughout this movie are very tasteful in my opinion. Very watchable.
The third and final part is my favourite. Ellen is such a funny and amazing actress and Sharon Stone is excellent, also. The topic discussed here is very moving, but very well dealt with. The sex scenes are sexy and yet tasteful. They are in no way pornographic as I have heard people say. The story is one that many lesbians can relate to, or maybe will relate to in the future (my self included, hopefully) and the ending makes me cry every time! My only negative point is that it wasn't longer! A full movie about this topic with these characters would be a must-see in my opinion! Perhaps someone should write one?
I think the film would be enjoyable to anyone, not just lesbians and it is well worth a look. Enjoy Charlene
If these eyes could sleep through the film......
howie7331 December 2004
What can I say? Truly awful. Get has-been stars and some hip new ones to make a lesbian-themed film for HBO. The result - a dry stale muffin that's been overcooked. Everything about this film is embarrassing, from the sanctimonious and passé treatment of lesbians as victims to the terrifyingly awful third installment where Sharon Stone and Ellen DeGeneres offer an achingly sentimental tale of sperm banks in a style that only be described as thirtysomething on prozac or ecstasy. It feels so chaotic that you often wonder if they actually had to act. As for the rest, the first installment with Vanessa Redgrave contains more holes than a golf course; while the second with Chloe Sevingy and Michelle Williams feels too hip for its own good and sits uncomfortably with the other two parts.
Different Times Different Issues
Danishya23 June 2004
I absolutely loved this movie. I probably wouldn't have written a review, except I read the review that says unequal, and I completely disagree. I believe this movie was pretty accurate in each decade. The one that depicts 2000 was very moving and a lot different from the first decade. I think they were very brilliant to focus on the pregnancy issue. Lesbians and gay men these days want children and realize this can be a reality. I don't believe that was an issue until recent years. There is always a big focus on discrimination and unequal rights. This decade focused on the people and not only the huge issue of discrimination. It gave everyone just a little insight that lesbians and gays are people too with normal desires and needs.
I think it was a super movie and I highly recommend it.
I think it was a super movie and I highly recommend it.
A wonderful movie
friend_city28 March 2005
I love the first segment of this movie. The first segment took place in 1960's. It described how 2 elderly women live and love each other for many years and suddenly, one of them dies of stroke, the other one is only being recognized as the best friend, not family member. Vanessa Redgrave was marvelous in this role. She could only moan for her lost partner in dark and hide all the sorrow to herself. The scene that she felt the need to separate her stuff apart from her partner's right before her partner's nephew arrival certainly reflects how lesbians are practically nonexistent at that time. It is so sad and upsetting that some distant relatives could just walk in there and take away everything (furnitures, bird collections with all sentimental meanings) she had shared with her partner for years. She eventually got kicked out of her own house by some distant relative of her partner's. This is how same sex couples were being treated. It is a very touching, tender segment. It will make you cry.
In the 2nd segment, although Chole Sevigny and Mitchell William were great, something is missing in the message they tried to convey. It doesn't go into much details on how 1970's perceive lesbians.
The 3rd segment is kind of funny. Ellen Degeneres and Sharon Stone were great. This segment is a big contrast to the very first one. In 2000, gay and lesbians are getting more recognitions and fighting for civil rights. Although there is still a lot of work to do, compared to 1960's, there has been a lot of improvements and more freedom.
Overall, it is a wonderful movie. Highly recommended.
In the 2nd segment, although Chole Sevigny and Mitchell William were great, something is missing in the message they tried to convey. It doesn't go into much details on how 1970's perceive lesbians.
The 3rd segment is kind of funny. Ellen Degeneres and Sharon Stone were great. This segment is a big contrast to the very first one. In 2000, gay and lesbians are getting more recognitions and fighting for civil rights. Although there is still a lot of work to do, compared to 1960's, there has been a lot of improvements and more freedom.
Overall, it is a wonderful movie. Highly recommended.
One of the best!
Irishchatter28 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Honestly I have never seen a lesbian movie having three era stories altogether (I'll be seeing the first movie after reviewing this sequel)!
The first story was about two ladies Edith (who I didn't realise was the late Natasha Richardson's mother) and Abby that were from the 1950's and hid their relationship to society. It really explains how during that time was absolutely horrible the way anything like that was all hush hush. It was heartbreaking to think that poor Edith couldn't explain to the doctors and Abbys family members that she was her lover all because of having no rights to openly come out as a guy person.
Then we move on to the second story to the 70's, we see a group of lesbian girls fighting for their gay rights. In my opinion this was my favourite story ever because it really gave you that good buzz vibe from that disco era. Like I swear Michelle Williams' character really stood out as a natural long brown haired 70's girl and Amy as a real cool cat of a butch woman that looked like a greaser. Amy showed so much passionate for Linda and didn't care what people say about her, as long as she had Linda, then everybody's happy!
So finally the third story, I absolutely loved this as of course the legends Sharon Stone and Ellen DeGeneres were playing as a couple who are dying to have kiddies. Sharon Stones character Sharon was unbelievably energetic and with Ellen DeGeneres character, she was just wonderful plus supportive in carrying the sperm process.
I have to say this movie was so great in putting the effort of having a good soundtrack of songs and all actresses were really committed with us audience all the way! Bravo ladies! :D
The first story was about two ladies Edith (who I didn't realise was the late Natasha Richardson's mother) and Abby that were from the 1950's and hid their relationship to society. It really explains how during that time was absolutely horrible the way anything like that was all hush hush. It was heartbreaking to think that poor Edith couldn't explain to the doctors and Abbys family members that she was her lover all because of having no rights to openly come out as a guy person.
Then we move on to the second story to the 70's, we see a group of lesbian girls fighting for their gay rights. In my opinion this was my favourite story ever because it really gave you that good buzz vibe from that disco era. Like I swear Michelle Williams' character really stood out as a natural long brown haired 70's girl and Amy as a real cool cat of a butch woman that looked like a greaser. Amy showed so much passionate for Linda and didn't care what people say about her, as long as she had Linda, then everybody's happy!
So finally the third story, I absolutely loved this as of course the legends Sharon Stone and Ellen DeGeneres were playing as a couple who are dying to have kiddies. Sharon Stones character Sharon was unbelievably energetic and with Ellen DeGeneres character, she was just wonderful plus supportive in carrying the sperm process.
I have to say this movie was so great in putting the effort of having a good soundtrack of songs and all actresses were really committed with us audience all the way! Bravo ladies! :D
Horrible film with no closure or connection of segments
Captain Ken10 April 2002
This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. What a waste of an outstanding actress in the first segment The first segment had so much potential but then they moved on to the next segment... Miss Tree put the bird back in and the home was empty. What happened to Miss Tree ? Where the girls in the 1961 segment related to Miss Tree ? No connection between the segments... This film is a waste of time and does not promote any cause.. A film that never should have been made
Outstanding
jeannehile20 May 2019
A triumph for Vanessa Redgrave; everyone else flounders
moonspinner5519 June 2005
Cable-film follow-up to an excellent predecessor about abortion through the years; the theme this time is lesbianism, and the opening segment set in 1961 is outstanding as Vanessa Redgrave deals with the loss of her elderly lover, the coldness of the woman's family and her seeming lack of all options. The short film is a tiny bit over-the-top, but extremely well-acted and sensitively viewed. It dominates this overall look at women dealing with sexual issues, especially as Chloë Sevigny isn't given much to do but smolder in chapter two, and the closer with Ellen DeGeneres and Sharon Stone fails because the actresses are totally unconvincing as lovers who want a child.
Starts strong, gets weaker as it goes
bob the moo16 March 2003
Three tales of lesbian couples having different struggles across three different time periods. In the sixties a lifelong lesbian couple who have never come out find the difficulties that occur due to them having no legal connection to one another. In the seventies a university student who is a feminist faces her friends' disapproval when she falls for a stereotypical `butch john' lesbian. In the nineties an openly gay couple decide to try for child and start looking for sperm.
I first heard of this film because I always have time for anything that Nia Long does. This caught my eye on her CV and when it came on TV I watched it. I wasn't sure what to expect but most of it works quite well. As the stories are pretty distinct (the only connection being the house) so I'll deal with them so. The first is easily the best and is the most emotionally involving. It is a little too happy and unreal at the start but the tragic situation that Edith finds herself in because of her love is very moving. The second story is a little less real to me as it deals with a problem within the lesbian community (of which I have no experience to speak of). It is less moving and also a little more explicit and may satisfy those who are only interested in lesbians in terms of male arousal! I don't think it is very sexual or overly done but I didn't think there was too much need for it - regardless of the participants sexuality I didn't think it really added to the subject. However the story again is pretty good and is interesting as it is not an issue I was aware of.
The final story is the most optimistic but also the weakest. The `issue' is a lot less serious and the film treats it as such with the whole segment being very light-hearted and bright. It doesn't really add anything to the film and doesn't fit with the first two segments. The cast are pretty much all good. In the first part Redgrave is excellent and her plight is made very real by the strength of her performance. In the second film Sevingy steals the show easily with a good performance. In the third DeGeneres happily underplays and isn't `zany' or `wacky', she is funny but not in an annoying way. Stone is weak because her character simply doesn't fit with her body - far too youthful and carefree to suit Stone. The support add to the feel that this is full of `stars' with Perkins, Giamatti, Long, King and others all doing OK in support.
Overall this film starts strong but gets progressively weaker as it goes, with the final section being quite frivolous compared to the emotion of the opening. It is an interesting film but it doesn't quite work as well as it should have done.
I first heard of this film because I always have time for anything that Nia Long does. This caught my eye on her CV and when it came on TV I watched it. I wasn't sure what to expect but most of it works quite well. As the stories are pretty distinct (the only connection being the house) so I'll deal with them so. The first is easily the best and is the most emotionally involving. It is a little too happy and unreal at the start but the tragic situation that Edith finds herself in because of her love is very moving. The second story is a little less real to me as it deals with a problem within the lesbian community (of which I have no experience to speak of). It is less moving and also a little more explicit and may satisfy those who are only interested in lesbians in terms of male arousal! I don't think it is very sexual or overly done but I didn't think there was too much need for it - regardless of the participants sexuality I didn't think it really added to the subject. However the story again is pretty good and is interesting as it is not an issue I was aware of.
The final story is the most optimistic but also the weakest. The `issue' is a lot less serious and the film treats it as such with the whole segment being very light-hearted and bright. It doesn't really add anything to the film and doesn't fit with the first two segments. The cast are pretty much all good. In the first part Redgrave is excellent and her plight is made very real by the strength of her performance. In the second film Sevingy steals the show easily with a good performance. In the third DeGeneres happily underplays and isn't `zany' or `wacky', she is funny but not in an annoying way. Stone is weak because her character simply doesn't fit with her body - far too youthful and carefree to suit Stone. The support add to the feel that this is full of `stars' with Perkins, Giamatti, Long, King and others all doing OK in support.
Overall this film starts strong but gets progressively weaker as it goes, with the final section being quite frivolous compared to the emotion of the opening. It is an interesting film but it doesn't quite work as well as it should have done.
well executed seduction
art-603-4717778 February 2013
The second vignette starring Chloe Sevigny and Michelle Williams was most interesting to me for its well executed seduction on the part of Chloe. She put on a clinic for anyone interested in studying how a "top" maintains control of the sexual dance. From the start Chloe managed Michelle Williams with subtle mastery using tone of voice, eye contact, conversational expertise, alluring sweetness, and graceful, sensual, soft control with the hands. She led her highly receptive (albeit sometimes naive-acting) partner every step of the way. Perhaps it was designed exclusively for a 'top' performance as Chloe was BUTCH to Michelle Williams' FEMME. These were by far the most sensual lesbian sex scenes I have seen in media land. In all, the seduction execution could be an education for a straight couple as much as for LGBTs. Any man who could seduce me like Chloe did to Michelle would turn me straight for a night.
My walls would have similar stories to tell
femmedyke_994 November 2002
This is one of the most touchingly accurate portrayal of lesbian life and loves I've seen yet. While it only scratches the surface of the many life experiences we face in our lives as lesbians, it is a real eye-opener for people who imagine us to be as outlandish and stereotypical as the media would sometimes portray us. Touching on three different age groups helps to broaden the range of people to whom this film speaks. Almost any woman who watches this film can see herself, either as she was, as she is, or as she might be in the future. An incredible picture! "I laughed, I cried."
Hardly HBO's Greatest Moment
Theo Robertson9 November 2004
HBO were credited as producing this TVM the same company that produced critically acclaimed hard hitting dramas like OZ and THE SOPRANOS so right away I was expecting some in your face intense drama along with explicit scenes of lesbian love making . Unfortunately I was very disappointed on both counts in this anthology drama
Story one ) This centres around a lesbian couple who have lived together for decades . The home owner dies so her distant family decide to sell the house meaning her partner will become homeless . I can't help thinking there's an agenda here , one that screams in support of civil partnerships . Whatever the rights and wrongs of this it should be pointed out that there's a lack of logic to the premise . All the dead woman had to do was change her will while she was alive
Story two ) A bunch of feminist " lesbian " students find the going tough when their college commitee turn against them though for one of them it leads to a happy ending . This is what I don't understand - Are they lesbians or are they just trendy students jumping on a bandwagon ? I think they are but the script is neither scathing or cynical enough to make this point clearer
Story three ) HBO doesn't do comedy very well and this third story is trying to be a comedy . We also have to put up with a lesbian whining to her girlfriend " Why can't I give you a baby ? " That's because you're a woman dear . I was also puzzled how anyone who looks like Sharon Stone has a problem finding sperm
Not as bad as it could of been but as someone who thinks HBO is the most outstanding TV company in America I think they should concentrate on dramas featuring gangsters and maximum security prisons
Story one ) This centres around a lesbian couple who have lived together for decades . The home owner dies so her distant family decide to sell the house meaning her partner will become homeless . I can't help thinking there's an agenda here , one that screams in support of civil partnerships . Whatever the rights and wrongs of this it should be pointed out that there's a lack of logic to the premise . All the dead woman had to do was change her will while she was alive
Story two ) A bunch of feminist " lesbian " students find the going tough when their college commitee turn against them though for one of them it leads to a happy ending . This is what I don't understand - Are they lesbians or are they just trendy students jumping on a bandwagon ? I think they are but the script is neither scathing or cynical enough to make this point clearer
Story three ) HBO doesn't do comedy very well and this third story is trying to be a comedy . We also have to put up with a lesbian whining to her girlfriend " Why can't I give you a baby ? " That's because you're a woman dear . I was also puzzled how anyone who looks like Sharon Stone has a problem finding sperm
Not as bad as it could of been but as someone who thinks HBO is the most outstanding TV company in America I think they should concentrate on dramas featuring gangsters and maximum security prisons
The best movie of all time!
hersheyposh3 September 2001
I love this movie so much. It was very well directed and written and it's just an awesome movie! :) It's parted in 3 time frames-1961, 1972 and 2000. The 1961 part was about two elderly ladies that were frustrated because they couldn't express then selves in any way, the second part I really liked a butch girl named Any and a feminist named Linda meet an fall in love and finally the last one was so funny, Ellen Degeneres stared as Kal so it was awesome, Anyway, Kal and Fran want to have a baby so the go to the sperm bank and well you'll see if you watch it! This movie is so good! I absolutely love it!
Only because they showed it to me in Health class
Quinoa198427 February 2001
I watched this film in a class one time (shows the power of getting grades) and I must say I would've rather gone out of the room until the movie was over. Because I couldn't stand it. With the constant melodrama about trying to conceal not being lesbian, times 3. Even if it does get a tad sexy in the second part, it is marred by overacting and an exceptionaly bad dramedy segment with Ellen DeGeneres (lesbian queen if there was a word) and Sharon Stone, whose worth after Basic Instinct and Casino has been plummeting. I bet there will even be some sensible women who might agree that this film goes a little over the top (in a bad way).
And if there might be any guys who find this film to be a great film with excellent acting and powerful drama, fine. But I highly suggest seeing GoodFellas just to straighten yourselves out. D-
And if there might be any guys who find this film to be a great film with excellent acting and powerful drama, fine. But I highly suggest seeing GoodFellas just to straighten yourselves out. D-
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
