Critic Reviews

Queer as Folk gets off to a triumphantly provocative start. The least that can be said is that there's nothing else like it anywhere on the air. [2 Dec 2000, p.C01]

It is very well acted, it's got plot twists that rival the best soaps, and the writing improves with each episode (even though they crib some of its best lines directly from the British series)...I'm hooked. [1 Dec 2000, p.106]

Compared to the grittier British version, the American Queer as Folk has a sweet, romanticized aura. At times, it even recalls the TV adaptation of "Tales of the City." The script has plenty of conflict, and the sexuality is hard-core, but the show also exudes an ensemble coziness and jokiness that finds the gang gathering regularly for late-night snacks at Debbie's diner. [1 Dec 2000, p.F1]

There's a lot of good writing and acting here. [1 Dec 2000, p.C10]

At its heart, this American adaptation of a popular British series about a group of gay friends is dramatically rewarding, convincingly acted and smartly written. At times, though, it seems as if writers Ron Cowen and Daniel Lipman and director Russell Mulcahy do too much to keep viewers from reaching that heart. [1 Dec 2000]

I hate to be one of those reviewers who tells you that the original, difficult-to-locate item was superior to the subject under review, but... it was. ... The new Queer as Folk lacks a soul at its center.

Yet for all its obviousness, Showtime's Queer as Folk is something rare: a look inside a formerly forbidden place. [3 Dec 2000, p.1C]

With its intelligent, nuance-laced script, credible performances from a group of newcomers, a mouth-dropping star turn by Sharon Gless, and the "no limits" backing of Showtime, Queer as Folk is easily the best TV take on gay life since "Tales of the City." [3 Dec 2000, p.10]

Queer as Folk is good. But it isn't shockingly good. However, it is Showtime's best original series yet. [1 Dec 2000, p.1C]

Divorced from a believable social context, Queer too often plays like a voyeuristic tour of gay life that's only interested in the most outrageous sights. It doesn't have to provide an insight into every gay person, but it does have to paint a more believable portrait of these people, which means anchoring them in a real place and expanding their lives beyond sexual encounters. [1 Dec 2000, p.15E]