KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

pslust Considering the surprises that occur within this sequel, I would highly suggest that followers of "life" in San Francisco watch this sequel. Truly, I enjoyed said sequel, especially with regard to the reveals, with the amount of skin that is shown, and with character development. For me the story line, the story arcs, and the like made sense. Not sure what else I can say without giving away plot points; can state the photography is special, the editing was without flaw, and that the color is outstanding. As I stated at the beginning, there are a number of surprises throughout the eight episodes, and each surprise surpasses the previous one. Thoroughly due to the surprises, the story line of living in a special part of San Francisco, and the relationships that develop and change, this is one fine sequel.

tex-42 Well first off compared to the first Tales, this sequel isn't awful, but certainly cannot compare. The main problem lies in the fact that it was made five years after the original, and many of the people who played the roles in the original were not available so they had to be replaced with different actors who just are not as good. However, Linney, Dukakis, and Campbell all return and they are well worth seeing. The plot itself is a little silly with a cruise, amnesia, rekindled romance, family reunions, and older women getting together at a sex club. Overall though, it is an enjoyable series, not up to par with the first, but still very watchable.

Seb Chen More Tales of the City is the 1998 cable-produced sequel to the Tales of the City mini-series, which aired on public television in 1993. Both series are based on respective novels by Armistead Maupin.More Tales' plot and script are substantially shoddier than its predecessor. It focuses mainly on the intrigue and intertwining characters than the development of the personalities or the warmth of their interactions. And where sweet and emotional dialogue exists, the sentiment is marred by three vastly inferior "replacement" actors. The much beloved Michael "Mouse" Tolliver is played by the excessively smirky and over-doing-the-gay-bit Paul Hopkins. His performance is unnatural and devoid of Mouse's innate, lovable charm. Nina Siemaszko's performance is brittle and uneasy, lacking any of the spunk and charisma befitting the quirky Mona Ramsey. Whip Hubley is just plain uninteresting as the (supposedly) handsome, disillusioned Brian Hawkins. I had the opportunity to go back and re-watch the first series and was surprised to discover just how naturally and unaffectedly Marcus D'Amico, Chloe Webb, and Paul Gross inhabited Mouse, Mona and Brian. I had been unaware of just how good they were since I merely considered them as being the characters. Overall, the direction, cinematography and soundtrack are distracting.If you simply like some of Maupin's most bizarre plot twists for the intrigue in itself, you might enjoy More Tales of the City. If you like more quality and substance, check out Tales of the City.

LoneWolf-13 Far better casting than the original TV series. Looks like the cable aspect of the production (as opposed to American public TV) opened up the writing and performances. Paul Hopkins is a far superior choice to play Michael! That Marcus Whoever was way too nineties for the 70s look and sensibility of Maupin's gay San Francisco.