More Tales of the City (TV Mini-Series 1998– ) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
18 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Not nearly as good as the first series; inferior replacement actors
Seb Chen23 February 1999
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.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
tried to hate it
Nick-3375 September 2002
When I first saw this sequel a couple of years ago I tried to hate it. So many of the characters had been re-cast with new actors that it was jarring at first. Since then I have watched it a couple more times and I have to admit that I just love More Tales. It has grown on me. The writing is excellent and it is very addictive. My favorite character in this was Anna Madrigal played by Olympia Dukakis. The scenes where she reunites with Mother Mucca are quite touching and brought a tear to my eye. Bravo to Bravo for dusting off these gems every once in a while and making some new fans of Armistead Maupin.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
A few drawbacks, but still a very good show!!!!!!
shanncub29 June 1999
More Tales find the characters just a few months after the last one left off. The characters stay pretty much the same, which really impressed me. In a lot follow ups the characters seem to change dramatically. Another aspect of the mini-series that I really liked was how the story expanded of of the first tales. Instead of creating a whole new circumstances, much of the story was just adding to what was all ready there.

The one main issue I had was with the cast changes. I realize that it has been almost five years since the first series ended and that it was hard to get everyone back to do another one. However, I feel that the actors they did replace the characters with did not come close to resembling those in the first one. I did however like the new Micheal (Paul Hopkins) better than the first one. It was mona and Brian that I had the problems with. I applaud Showtime for having the guts to air this mini-series and the cast and crew that were willing to take on a project that was considered to be controvsial.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not bad sequel to first Tales
tex-421 July 2001
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.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Only just okay - the first was much better acted...
mikehamilton23 May 2001
This one was good in that it lived up to the story that Armistad wrote. I think that this change in cast was not a good one. I preferred the first cast in Tales of the City. I'm so glad that Laura Linney and Olympia Dukakis came back for More. They really helped to keep this glued together. Although I felt that Tales of the City was much better, the underlying story by Armistad Maupin is fantastic and definitely deserves to be made into a movie (or mini-series) for the masses to see. I can't get enough Maupin. Get the books! You'll be glad you did......
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Fabulous! We want more!!!
Armistad Maupin's Tales of the City and More Tales of the City are landmarks in Gay liturature. They are not for Homophobes, they are not for bigots, they are for the friends of the GLBT Community. If you don't like Gay people, don't watch these movies. Don't watch Queer as Folk, and don't watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

I don't watch Mormon stories. I don't watch Southern Baptist stories. I will not tell anyone to watch something that offends them. Watch what you feel comfortable with. This is big wide wonderful world full of lots of different people.

We're fabulous! We're here we're Queer
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
GODAWFUL - stick to the original and give this a skip
kapuku24 May 2001
a pale shadow of the original Tales. the replacement actors are really lifeless. its really impossible to feel anything for Michael as he's repugnant. the new Mona is vapid and uninspiring. the new Brian is so uninteresting its almost offensive. and in the original series it was really Mona and Michael who held it all together...they both had energy and vitality. in this round it feels like Nina Siemaszko (Mona) is being forced to do the role...shes totally uninterested and robotic. Paul Hopkins, the new Michael, basically smirks and wiseasses before getting (thankfully) crippled and left speechless for most of the show.

beyond the horrible casting, the story is sordid and so over the top that its difficult to get involved. the first Tales series had spunk...it felt fresh and alive. this version is just a pathetic soap opera knockoff. (wow its cable...we can show ass and say bad words, who needs a decent director?) the story line revolving around Brian and his binocular-driven lust affair is weak and frankly gross.

pathetic...
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Addicting!
AunteeE25 May 2006
I saw this on LOGO and out of order, but it was so suspenseful and fun that I am now addicted. I am now watching the 1st part, and though this one has recasts in a few roles, they're great recasts.

It's fun to know that this is available to watch, and that you can go backwards and forwards to the 2 other miniseries if you get confused. See Further Tales of the City and the 1st part of Tales from the City if you enjoy this.

The stories encompass all walks of life. There are gay/straight rich/poor and so many enriching story lines that there is something for everyone. I'd love to see these characters revisited beyond the 3rd installment!
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
A Must See For Tales Fans
sweet_em_sexy17 February 2000
If anyone has ever seen the first series then More Tales of the City is an absolute must see. I had only watched the first series once before, but one of my very best friends and I decided to split the cost and order the sequel on DVD and neither of us was disappointed. While there are less startling revelations going on throughout as there was in the first series it is still highly addictive to watch. The progression of Laura Linney's Mary Anne character is startling, she's turned into a man hunting pot fiend, a far cry from her days as the prude at 28 Barbary Lane. Mona's journey into the desert is the most entertaining part of the whole movie, although true fans will be able to decipher who Mother Mucca is in a matter of minutes.

The new actors fill their roles well, with the new Brian being the only exception but it's good to see his role "fleshed out" more than it was in the first one. You have to see it to believe it!
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
as enjoyable as the first series
Rickpw19 February 2005
I agree that the casting of different actors as Michael, Mona, Brian (especially Brian), Mrs. Halcyon, Dor'thea, Emma is a jolt. However, it's a done deal, so get over it. All in all, I'd say this second set is as enjoyable as the first, and moves more quickly, with as many over the top surprises. I read the book after I saw the show, so I was howling at the TV in surprise as the big mystery about Burke's amnesia played out with the most hilarious spin on a cult anyone could come up with. I can't think of another TV mini-series that is this fun. And a note for fellow gay men: this is required viewing. People who watch light entertainment and treat it too seriously... well, they have a perspective that I think is misplaced.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
The adventure continues
Fergus Salder28 July 2007
After watching with great pleasure the original Tales of the City, i delved with excitement into this continuation story of the 28 Barbary residents. However with some disappointment i discovered that a less adventurous director and some unfortunate cast replacements has stolen some of the magic.

Now don't get me wrong, it is still a fun and well written metro-sexual adventure in the heart of Sanfrancisco, and with exceptional performers Dukakis and Linney returning it keeps the spark burning bright. The new addition of Paul Hopkins as Michael 'Mouse' Tolliver is an interesting new slant on a wonderful character and he pulls the transition of well, retaining Marcus D'Amico's youthful hopefulness, whilst adding a new cheeky side to mouse. Paul however is the only new cast member to manage this, Nina Siemaszko is given the impossible task of replacing the magnificent Chloe Webb and Mona suffers terribly for this, not only does she now look 10 years younger, she has lost the kooky charm that gave the character so much punch and spunk, she seams permanently depressed and miserable. The other disappointment is the departure of Paul Gross who's slimy male chauvinist pig Brian was a joy and torture to watch in the original as he carried on with his self destructive behaviour and loathing of women. Whip Hubley (who this time looks 10 years older) simply seams like to much of a nice guy to pull of this role and Brian's character seams to have had a personality transplant within the space of a few months.

With this massive moan over and done with, it is still an enjoyable romp and worth watching for Dukakis's Mrs Madrigal's empathic presence, and Linney's heart and warmth.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Even Better Than The Original
domino100325 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
"More Tales Of The City" is actually better than the original. PBS caved into pressure and decided not to follow up the series, which gave Showtime the go-ahead to continue the series. Set months after the original, Mary Ann Singleton (Laura Linney)is more relaxed and receives a letter from her late boss, which contains money. She decides to invite Mouse (Paul Hopkins)on a cruise. On the cruise, Mary Ann falls in love with Burke Andrew (Craig Ferguson), who has amnesia, and Mouse reunites with Dr. Fielding (Bill Campbell).Meanwhile, her new boss Beauchamp (Thomas Gibson)is increasingly angry at his wife DeDe (Barbara Garrick), who is pregnant with another man's child (Who is also Asian), and decides to hire some thugs to "get rid of her problem." DeDe meanwhile becomes friends with D'orothea (Francoise Robertson), who has broken up with Mona Ramsey (Nina Siemaszko), who ends up in a whorehouse in Nevada with Mother Mucca (Jackie Burroughs), who is not only connected to Mona, but also connected to Mrs. Anna Madrigal (Olympia Dukakis). Meanwhile, Brian Hawkins (Whip Hubley) is intrigued by a mysterious woman that he sees through a window. Finally, Mona's mother, Betty (Swoosie Kurtz) comes to town, setting up an interesting confrontation between her and Anna.

There are more twists in this series than the previous one. There's a cannibalistic cult, an unexpected demise, and liberation for one of the inhabitants of San Francisco. However, this is a wonderful addition to the series.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Excellent
alb1286228 June 2000
Hi,

Just wanted to say that this a must see mini series. It had everything that the first one did but the same characters. I think that the old crew would have been better but who am I to judge. Life in the show was so real like that I got caught up in the series. I wish I new if the rest of the series will continue.

Albert
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Creepy---very creepy
mhantholz26 January 2010
Maupin's stories always repelled me because their mushy-squishy soft center. But it took these TV movies to crystallize what was really at the core of the skin-crawling creeped-out feeling I got watching.

It's THIS: This Maupin doesn't know women. I'll bet long money that he never had a girlfriend or any kind of intimate relationship with a real, live female.

These "women" are fantasy figures---wish-fulfillment confections created by someone who actually wrote stories about two gay guys, and then turned one of them into a girl as a way to reach a wider market, and wider appeal = $$$. Nothing actually wrong with that, but it must be done RIGHT; like Cole Porter, say, or Noel Coward.

Adding to the creepiness is the arrested-development tone these stories have: there's a distinct undergraduate romanticism here---coming from a middle-aged man, that's real SPOOKY.

TWO Stars for its insight into the pathology of a bad writer.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Better actors than the first time.
LoneWolf-1323 November 1998
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.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Kind of sick...
Goon-24 February 1999
Movie like "More Tales of the City" are not meant to be seen by everybody, and that certainly must be why Showtime opted to show it at such a late running time. However, I was awake on one of the days where they aired a couple of the episodes, and since I was sort of curious about it, I decided to watch, just to see what it would be like.

I will credit "More Tales" with the fact that it stayed on my TV for longer than I expected it to. A particular episode that I saw involved the character of Maryanne Singleton (Laura Linney),who was spending time with her friend Michael. There was also a married couple, who of course, were cheating on each other. I don't usually go for this plot, but it was done in a rather dramatic, soap-opera'ish manner that made it somewhat worthwhile. Also worthwhile was the character of Mona Ramsey, who was excellently portrayed by Nina Siemaszko. Her scenario for this particular episode involved running away from her life in San Francisco and taking the train to who knows where. Along the way, she runs into a two odd personalities:one, a Scientologist woman(Parker Posey doing a funny cameo) who offers her a personality test, which she declines. The other woman she meets happens to be an elderly woman called "Mother Mucka." Mother Mucka may be old, but she's wild and vulgar. She also runs a brothel, we soon learn. Needless to say, this is when I began to get turned off, but I decided to stick with it for just a little bit longer.

I tuned into a scene feauturing San Franciso at night. A man who looked like Matthew Modine, but wasn't, was spying out his window at a woman, while an 80's love ballad played beautifully in the background(I can't remember the title, but the chorus goes: "close the window, come alive. And it will be alright", etc). This was alright. I like when 80's songs play beautifully and dramatically, and I also like to see city life portrayed in movies. I want to somebody live in my own apartment and spy on my neighboors(but not when they're getting dressed, which I think the woman was), so I could sort of relate.

I could not relate to one of the next scenes, however. It was suddenly daytime, and everybody was at a party, including a group of guys called the "A-guys"(or something like that.), who had some dialogue that was very...adult, and perhaps a little too R-rated for my taste. Add that to the brothel and Mother Mucka, and it gets a little hard to take for people who are not used to fare like this. I'm not saying it's bad, or truly offensive (it wasn't like I was watching the Playboy channel), but it's not for everybody. There was some passable entertainment, though, so it wasn't a total waste. It was just...odd.
2 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Very fine sequel and continuation of the ongoing story.
pslust17 October 2012
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.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
The books were better
deaniac126 June 2006
The books were much better than the miniseries, but I really liked that they stuck to the contents of the book more faithfully than others. The one thing that's really disconcerting is that most of the main characters were played by different people. You've invested all this time in the actors and then you have to get used to the new people. They aren't horrible, but it's better to read the books before you see the series. Armistead Maupin is a fantastic writer, and only a little bit of the uniqueness of the books. And by the way, I heard someone say that "Tales" was only for a "certain group of people." Not true at all. He writes for everyone.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews