Interesting three segments, arranged chronologically from 1961, though 1972, to 2000, dealing with problems faced by gay women during the three periods. I didn't find any of them truly gripping but probably because I never faced the problems.
!. 1961. In some ways, the best of the three episodes. The elderly Vanessa Redgrave's long-time companion dies of a stroke and Redgrave is visited by her lover's relatives, who have inherited the house but who long ago lost contact with their deceased aunt. Lesbianism is never mentioned. This is, after all, 1961, when such things didn't exist except in some sea of iniquity like Greenwich Village where, as a matter of fact, there was a lively lesbian bar at the time called The Swing Rendezvous.
The episode features an absolute gem of a carefully controlled performance by Vanessa Redgrave. She magnificent. And the script gives her only one scene-stealing speech, well written and subdued.
Unfortunately, the other two characters -- the two young visiting relatives who have come to claim the house and its belongings and throw Redgrave out -- are written as stereotypes. Paul Giamatti's character is practical but abashed. His wife, Perkins, isn't even abashed. She's simply unfeelingly greedy.
2. 1972. A transitional period during which half a dozen girls who are university students try to pass themselves off as "normal." They dress like girls, giggle, fake heterosexual interests, and avoid gay bars -- except once. Sometimes once is enough. Chloe Sevigny hangs at the bar and looks and dresses like a man, though neat, and of a gentle demeanor. The others reject her because she's so obvious, but Michelle Williams falls in love with her and eventually moves in. Her gender orientation and bound breasts notwithstanding, Sevigny is irresistible. Nobody can blame Williams for her open display.
3. 2000. Sharon Stone and Ellen DeGeneres is a chipper episode about a couple trying to get pregnant because they want a child. It's played as a kind of situation comedy but it doesn't work. If you doubt that it's forced, try imagining the same plot, only with a normal man/woman couple instead of two women.
Each episode has its weaknesses and I suspect, in 2000, it no longer took much in the way of courage to make a movie about lesbians and love. Actually there had already been a couple of nicely done flicks about the subject, such as "Desert Hearts" and "Aimee and Jaguar," that were better than "If These Walls Could Talk 2." (What a title.) But, by cracky, you have to hand it to HBO. Here we have a television channel that produces occasional special movies -- and more than one of them have been winners. This isn't going to win any Palms but it's still better than much of the effluent choking the multiplex screens today.