If These Walls Could Talk 2

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...

A trilogy wrapped into one movie that covers the difficulties of lesbianism over a space of three generations. It begins with an older couple in the 60's having to deal with loss and the pain of keeping a secret for too long. Then the story brings us to a group of lesbian feminists in the 70's who fight so hard for what they believe in that they forget the point of being themselves. Finally, we're led it a problem of the new millennium that can only be solved outside of nature.

I saw the film after someone recommended it. Now that I've seen it, I'll recommend it too. The movie was good based on the fact that homosexuality is often based on the idea of sex alone, and it's not true. It's who you love. And being homosexual does have its disadvantages that hetero-couples might have. This film portrayed this idea very well.

The most poignant of these was Edith, who (after her lover died) had no ownership over their house, had no lawful right to her late-lover's property, and was even treated as if she were a mere impersonal object of her late-lover's life.

The second was the hardest to get, especially since it's in the middle of the sexual-freedom revolution. Girl meets girl, girl is a feminist, other girl is butch, girl's friends make fun of the butch girl because she doesn't fit the form of their own personal society. It might be historically accurate, but it fits vaguely with what the world is today and how women treat each other as less of a battle of male vs. female attitude.

Three is definitely the most fun, showing a couple's struggle with trying to become pregnant. It's not sad in the least, but it's still an issue that has its prevalence in the world. Becoming a mom when you're a lesbian isn't easy.

Overall, this movie was entertaining, funny, and moving. Anyone who would rent this movie if they want to have a good time and kill an evening.

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.

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 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!