I love this movie so much

As Good As It Gets

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

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.

Vanessa Redgrave moved me to no end in the first segment. a great story for people to go back and reflect on as the battle lines are being drawn on the issue of gay marriage. But the second two segments have not held up as well upon repeated viewings. I often just watch the first segment and then change the channel. The other two are not horrible, but the first ITWCT was stonger across the board.

The idea for this movie is just great and I must say it was very well carried out. The way the world and lesbians/gays have changed during the past decades is so well represented in the movie. I was sad in the beginning (1961) and just thrilled when coming nearer today, somehow I was much involved to this movie all the time. I found Chloe Sevigny cute and the 70´s were exactly how I´ve read they were. If these walls could talk 2 is very realistic and touching in every possible way.

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.