IMDb > "Queer as Folk" Episode #2.1 (2000) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
"Queer as Folk" Episode #2.1 (2000)

« Prev | 9 of 10 Episodes | Next »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 11 reviews in total 

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Excellent Series

Author: vsix1 ( from Taylors, SC
21 May 2002

As a gay man in his early 30s, I enjoyed Queer As Folk (and it's original series). My only complaint is that it ended. But what an ending. Rather that end on a note that leaves the series open, it ended with an open ending that also gave the watcher some closure.

While the series (and it's American counterpart) should not be taken as a perfect reflection of gay life, it does do a good job in introducing people to gay characters. And it shows that gay people are more like straight people that you may be willing to admit.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A moving series

Author: Gary Rawlings from United Kingdom
3 March 2007

This is a moving series which offers a great deal of excellent imagery and dialogue. There are some parts of the series which 'camp's up' homosexuality somewhat and this is quite frustrating. This aside, it accesses some important issues for young gay males.

Fresh, inspiring and realistic, I feel Queer as Folk was, for it's time, brave in what it did. Some excellent scenes which so many of us can empathise with. I like the way the series dips in and out of the lives of the key characters, Stuart and Nathan. At so many points during the series I was left glued to the screen - awaiting the next episode.

The entire team of actors should be congratulated for making one of the best series of all time.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

UK Vs. US(spoilers)

Author: FirthNorthamAddict from United States
4 December 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I felt that this version wasn't as racy as some spouted it to be, but I actually though the American version was much more so. I have a hard time though picking which I like better. Both have good characters, good stories, but I really think that I have to say as far as characters go, id go with the US. It was on longer though, so the characters were able to grow and flourish with the years.

I felt that the ending of the UK series was too..campy...too happy...too cut and clean. Hazel was incredibly close to her son, would she really be happy with him going so far away? Also the gun that Stuart pointed in the homophob in America, he would have been arrested for that. I know....creative liberties. Are we to believe that finally Vince and Stuart have finally had sex? Or is their hand-holding a sign that they are just trying to cause waves. Also with Nathan, he got over Stuart far too quickly for someone who was so addicted to him previously.

I just felt the series needed more.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

I think this is a quality piece of drama, satirical and light-hearted at the same time

Author: GnomioBuff from Bristol
17 April 2006

After reading a very negative comment about Queer As Folk (+2) I felt it necessary to make a comment so that the first thing someone reads about this show isn't 'it went to badly wrong' but, it went so marvellously right that nothing has been made to compare to it since.

The show realistically portrays a hedonistic lifestyle in the gay Manchester scene of Canal Street (of which the C has since been removed from the road, or so I have been told by a Mancunian friend of mine). Yes, it could be seen to give off negative connotations, if one was to watch half an episode, after suffering a major frontal lobotomy - but for those of us who have watched both series with all our faculties it is plain to see that the writer, Russell T Davies, was only too aware that what he wanted to show, was that for every piece of pride in their actions - these characters had suffered tremendous shame. The series excelled in showing how gay pride may well have resulted in an outwardly hedonistic (almost enviable lifestyle) - but that each character also had to battle with a number of complex and serious demons.

The main characters of Vince, Stuart and Nathan all have their good and bad points, but amazingly, it is what happens to some of the other characters that often affects the audience most. Vince's close friend Phil has a tremendously hard hitting storyline in QAF which is not forgotten in QAF2. Alexander's easy-breezy camp lifestyle is underpinned by an enormous family weight that comes to ahead in QAF2.

Gay life isn't all being kicked in the head by neo-Nazis's, but its not all easy money/ no commitments lifestyle either - this show was brave enough to show just how far Gay Pride has come in the past 30/40 years, but also just how the notion of Shame is not so far away either - for this very reason I think this is a programme that should be repeated again and again so that we can all be exposed to a wonderfully political piece of drama that really reflects all aspects of the 'queerness' in all folk.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Set is staged for the younger generation to rule

Author: Guy33134 from Coral Gables, Fl
16 April 2000

The excellent sequel, just premiered in its entirety stateside at the Miami Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, is not only a worthy sequel to this landmark series, but the final step in making the generational change in the serie's lead character. At the same time, the series' central doubt: the seemingly inevitable sexual relationship between the two central leads remain as aloof as always. The sequel addresses other important issues not addressed in earlier episodes, and is more grounded in the realities of modern life than the earlier episodes. The supporting cast also gets more time to develop their characters, and enrich the story, with some darker sides revealed. The masterful ending could indeed be the final installment, but leaves ample room for a third mini series in the future. All in all, the best of the series, and the only one which can stand alone as a feature of its own.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

woefully disappointing.

Author: MIKEHILL38 (MIKEHILL38@HOTMAIL.COM) from manchester, england
28 September 2002

'queer as folk 1' was one of the greatest brit telly dramas ever produced but this dire follow up is as bad as the former was good. it would have been much better if the filmmakers had given it up after the first series there and then instead of bothering with this waste of time. i found the ending particularly ridiculous and offensive though the most irritating contribution to this bona fide turkey was the grating 'julie walters school of overacting' performance by the actress that plays vince's mum who shall remain nameless! the main fault with this is that none of the characters or plot this time around seem to be going anywhere compared to the superior original whilst the entire exercise just comes across as dismally contrived and pointless.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

A Great "sequel"...

Author: Axel Otterberg from Miami, USA
4 September 2001

This TV-series is the best! The first "Queer as Folk"-series were super, but this one are really the BEST. The acting is very, very good. Specially my favorite, Charlie Hunnam. He's a very good actor, and he's good looking too!. I'll give this TV-series *****/5. See this series now!!!!!!!! It's great!

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Too graphic

Author: Simon Rodgers from England, United Kingdom
13 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If the first one wasn't bad enough! This show was disgusting! I originally thought it was going to be a comical series about a few gay men and their lives. Simple enough.

However it turned out mainly to focus on their sexual activities as well. I honestly believe there was no need for this. There are plays about King Edward II and Oscar Wilde without this sort of behaviour, so why is it included here? I couldn't watch the rest, I felt too sick.

I'm not homophobic or anything, I just don't see the need for all the graphic details.

In my honest opinion, this was not really a comedy it was just porn. Somethings are best left off-screen. It's not for children and we adults know how love is made so we do not need a "reminder".

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:


Author: Little Diva from Canada
19 July 2001

This movie rocked. I was taken back by this movie, and it was a welcome change to some of the things that people are now viewing and considering great movies. It was fantastic and i don't think that my words could ever do it justice. Everytime I notice it will be playing I make it a point to request those days off of work. The American version is fabulous and I watch it on a weekly basis however, I think the UK version was just unbelievable. Thank you

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:


Author: Axel Otterberg from Miami, USA
31 August 2001

The first "Queer as folk-serie" were great. But this one is fabulous!! It's fun, exciting and very, very entertaining. And not to forget; The acting is Super. Specially Charlie Hunnam! He's good. I'll give it *****/5.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history