Review: The first movie that came out in 1996, was much better than this one. The director didn't really give an in depth look into being a lesbian and the controversy that surrounded over the years. That's why the first movie in this franchise was much better. Anyway, the acting from the all star cast was average, except for Sharon Stone and Ellen who really did look like a real life couple. I found 3 separate storyline's, quite boring and unfinished. The first storyline, which dealt with the lost of a loves one, was the most enjoyable out of the 3 because of the emotion that was shown by Vanessa Redgrave, but the other 3 didn't really go anywhere. I was really disappointed with this film because I enjoyed the first instalment so my expectations were high, but it it watchable if your into your emotional dramas. Average!Round-Up: Out of all of the characters in this movie, Vanessa Redgrave stole the screen with her interpretation of losing her partner who she had lived with for many years. As they were an elderly couple in the 1960's, they never showed there affection for each other publicly which meant that they had to keep there relationship behind closed doors. The next story which us about a radical teenager who falls in love with a girl who dresses up as a boy, was a basic love story based in the 70's. The final segment is about Sharon Stone trying to fall pregnant by sperm donors and how it effects her partner, Ellen. This story was quite emotional and the chemistry between the two was quite realistic. The whole movie was an eye opener but I did expect  ore of an intense drama.I recommend this movie to people who are into there emotional dramas about 3 different stories about lesbian relationships. 5/10

ITWCT2 is a simple portmanteau film based on the experience of lesbianism. However, the linking device is the overstretched external coincidence of a house that we are expected to accept has attracted lesbian residents, not for merely two, but for three successive generations!! As an entirety, therefore, 'The Hours' must be recognised as the better film, overall, since the psychological coincidence of each of three female protagonists having read Virginia Woolf's 'Mrs. Dalloway' is obviously located in cultural, rather than material, space, as well as being naturally sustainable as an influence over time and a wide range of personal backgrounds. The structure of 'The Hours' is far more sophisticated, and acceptable, as a linking device.Nevertheless, I believe that the obviously fractured - and artistically uneven - divisions of ITWCT2 do contain one story, the first in sequence, that stands out at every artistic and emotional level from the others, that were hatched in the same nest. Not only so, but the story of poor Miss Tree, and her almost childlike companion who somehow perches, like a little unfledged bird, precariously above the abyss which is the world, has a power and depth far beyond anything even attempted in Minghella's generally somewhat aridly stylish and intellectual exercise. Not even his middle, and best, episode, concerning the repressed 1950's housewife, has anything to show more devastating than Miss Tree's utter and complete bereavement in Redgrave's superb performance.The final shot of a jackdaw about to depart through the window, opened to air the now completely empty house prior to the arrival of new, unknown, residents, is alone worth everything in the bigger film.I will confess that the overall 'agenda' of ITWCT2 is of little intrinsic interest to this old-fashioned male, and nor did the other two segments possess the artistic power and truth to involve me greatly. Nor do Vanessa Redgrave's personal beliefs and political creed have any appeal for one who counts himself a natural conservative.Yet, despite this, Miss Redgrave's performance shines forth for its human integrity and power, completely untainted by any political gesturing whatsoever. How could anyone fail to love Miss Tree, as brought to life by Vanessa Redgrave's deep understanding of the wellsprings of human nature?The portrait, which she sustains so believably, of the cruel ending of a tender relationship, which had flourished gently and unseen - like a delicate bloom, overgrown and hidden away from the busy thoroughfares of the heedless world - ever since the innocence of an Edwardian childhood, is heartbreaking. In many ways, it is the general insensitive hard-heartedness of the modern age which is responsible for the suffering of an innocent person, in this drama. For I believe that the educated classes of previous ages would have been more likely to respond with at least a modicum of decent tact when confronted by the predicament of any such 'delicate situation.' Only the little daughter of the deceased companion's nephew glimpses at least a glimmer of the sympathy and respect that should be given to such heartfelt grief. The moment of departure for the deceased aunt's relatives presents the stark contrast of the chilly wife's ruthless censorship of all Miss Tree's humanity, with the handshake - as of equals! - between the old woman and the young girl who was, in the end, naturally and simply sorry for her, and it is a moment of all-too-brief communication across the generations.Perhaps it was the gentleness and simplicity of another era, another culture, that alone could permit the basic tolerance of 'don't ask - don't tell' (at least insofar as women were concerned), which Miss Tree's relationship seemed so much to depend upon? Possibly this demonstrates the felt necessity of contemporary political militancy in defence of such choices, with all the attendant crudity and emotional alienation which now so disfigure what is - and after all should ideally remain - a private affair.Certainly, there is a beauty and sweetness to the twilight of this lifelong inter-dependence, which to see disposed of so casually - whether in the form of the poor corpse in the hospital, or those of the beloved presents of little model birds that are all simply expropriated as material items - is to see exposed in all its obscenity the profoundly unspiritual ugliness of the modern world. See this short film as a self-contained drama, and know that you have witnessed true greatness. And a beauty that is never mawkish. This brief tragedy resonates with our own society's guilt for having trampled over the delicate structure of the heart, where love and dreams and happiness are nursed for flight. Can any mere political movements put those crushed chicks back into their palpitating eggs?What this strong, yet simple, piece of work shows is how casually the world can brush aside all that may be of the greatest importance to an individual. The inescapable loneliness of human beings has seldom been more powerfully evoked. And only the big heart of Vanessa Redgrave could ever have sustained such a sublime portrait of grief.

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

This movie is truly one of the many voices of our generation. It shows how love truly conquers all and how nothing can stand in your way. This movie is a set of three short stories of lesbian couples all occurring in the same house in different decades. The first story takes place in 1961. A woman (Vanessa Redgrave) looses her partner of fifty years. To only make matters worse, her partner's family has no idea, and comes in, claiming everything as their own. With the help of love and drama, this story is certainly a tear-jerker. The second story takes place in 1972. A group of lesbian feminists are kicked out of a woman's equality club at school that they helped start. That night, when they go out to a gay bar, they run into a very masculine female(Chloe Sevigny ?sp?). While three of the females reject this "outcast", Linda (Michelle Williams) begins to fall, showing that clothing is not everything. The third takes place in 2000. A lesbian couple (Sharon Stone and Ellen DeGeneres) try desperately to have a baby. This story truly proves that with love, anything can be reached. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who loves drama, comedy, love, and equality.