Tipping the Velvet (2002)

This must be the worst thing I've ever seen. A soft porn movie for an audience who never watched a film before. The actors are terrible (in a bad way), the music is awful, the scenario doesn't exist really and no actual plot. After awhile you wonder if there's a X100 speed for fast forwarding, in your DVD player. It also seems that in the 1800s they were gay bars, gay women walking around kissing under the stars, old men making sexual offers to boys in crowded areas, that doesn't seem to be the case in 2000!!. Oh! Before I forget, they had didoes too in every house for everyone to use. This isn't the story of a woman evolving under cruel circumstances, this is the tale of a TV channel who wastes money in porn flicks. Don't ever watch this. Don't even think about renting it or pronouncing its title.

Out of the top 24 lesbian films in my library, I must rate this one as the number one film of all times. This film will go down in history as the best in it's genre. It is a story about a girl (Rachael Stirling) who goes from riches to rags and from rags to riches, with her first love (Keeley Hawes) popping in and out of her life. It is set against a Victorian background in the 1890's, which makes it an ideal setting for some of the best entertainment in the industry. This film spared no expense for music and costumes, and the make-up Rachael and Keeley wore while on stage in the Halls only added to the film's diversity.No matter what kind of films you favor, I can guarantee this film will not only amaze you, but will keep your attention through all three episodes. This film will be played and enjoyed for decades to come. The unrated DVD collector's version is a must for anyone's library. Rachael Stirling and Keeley Hawes was the best choice for the casting in these two roles, and they played them extremely well.

As a lesbian, I am sick and tired of being portrayed in movies and on TV as a sad person, forever vacillating between suicide and homicide, but never destined to find happiness? If, like me, you are fed up with Hollywood's anti-lesbian propaganda, you'll breathe a sigh of relief at this delightful offering from the BBC. Nan Astley is the daughter of an Oyster-house restaurateur who "wonders why she can't feel the way she should about Freddy" (one of the local lads who has his eye set on her). She falls – and falls hard – for Kitty Butler, a male impersonator with a visiting theatre troupe. Nan accompanies Kitty to London as her dresser… Not everything that happens to Nan is pleasant in this story, and some of the things she does are not squeaky-clean either - but she will win your heart, and her story of love triumphant will leave you with a beautiful lump in your throat at the end.If you are a lesbo-hating macho man or a homophobic housewife, or some brand of religious fundamentalist who believes that homosexuals should die and go to hell, this series is not for you. But if you have a heart, and you believe in love, you will cry at the end as much as I did!

In short, this is one of the worst of the so-called prestigious BBC-series. I'm not a huge fan of the "big gay movie" of these days, Brokeback Mountain (a good movie, but not a masterpiece), but after having seen this series, I must say that that film at least tried to understand the relationship between two people. This series is a mockery of all things lesbian.First of all, the directing is the worst thing about the film. Whatever emotional impact could be expected of this soapy script, director Sax ruined it. This guy seems to think this story needed a Guy Ritchie approach. I mean, come on, we're talking lesbianism at the end of the 19th century here. What's with the endlessly repeated "focus" shots then? Or the short cuts? The fast forward-ism (worked well in Requiem for a Dream, about drugs, here it doesn't make any sense)? And does this guy even know how to get a better performance out of an actor (see below)? Secondly, the acting. I have no major problems with the way everyone acted, save lead Rachael Stirling, who was absolutely not up to this role. But then again, the role itself couldn't really be anyone's cup of tea. With Stirling's over-affected way of acting and misplaced intonations however (not to mention her strange voice), this character was anything but believable, let alone interesting.And in the end, the entire cast was simply defeated by a terrible script and lousy dialogue. I don't know if the book by Sarah Waters is any good, but if it's anything like this piece of bad soap opera, I don't understand why it ever was considered to be essential women's literature, and why it should be turned into a movie. The rags-to-riches, riches-to-rags and rags-to-riches-again story isn't even the main problem. This has been done a thousand times before, and often with much better results. But not a moment did I believe these characters; often I even got embarrassed by the cheesy words they spoke at each other. And do some people still think falling in love is best shown by one person gasping at the other from scratch? And what's with the oysters? Was that supposed to be a lesbian metaphor? And really, couldn't they have come up with a better title? No, I really can't understand why this series is rated above 8 here on the IMDb. This is a downright embarrassment for anyone who 's gay or lesbian. This ain't a film about the Victorian era, this is film making as if it still wás the Victorian era!