Pluskylang Great Film overall

Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

sonya90028 Julie Johnson is a harried, blue-collar housewife, living in New Jersey with her husband and children. Julie's bored and overwhelmed, but she has an intense interest in science. She subscribes to science mags, which she keeps hidden from her narrow-minded, domineering husband. Seems that he just can't fathom Julie's interest, in computers and science.One day, Julie decides that she wants to take the High school Equivilency Exam, so that she can receive her High school diploma. Meanwhile, she also decides to enroll in computer courses at the local community college. Julie even encourages her best friend Claire, to enroll in the computer courses with her. Claire does so mainly to appease Julie, rather than out of any real interest in computers.Julie's instructors discover that she has an innate talent for math and science. So much so, that they encourage Julie to apply to some elite colleges, after she passes her High school Equivalency Exam. Julie's Neanderthal husband, forbids Julie to enroll in school. She enrolls anyhow, without telling him. After he finds out, he goes ballistic. So does Julie, who boots him out of their home, during a ferocious argument between them.Inspired by Julie's boldness when she dumps her caveman hubby, Claire runs away from her own stifling spouse. With no other place to go, she winds-up living with Julie and her kids. Claire and Julie gradually deepen their friendship, which evolves into a romantic relationship. The two consummate their romance in Julie's bed one night. Their lesbian relationship, causes Julie and Claire problems with their judgmental neighbors, friends, and Julie's disapproving children. Claire and Julie have many ups and downs in their relationship. Julie seems to have more invested in it than Claire does. Julie urges Claire to become educated, and Claire resents Julie's insistence that she upgrade her status in society. Claire feels that Julie is just too intellectual, to understand her point of view. The two must decide if their differences can be bridged, in order to salvage their relationship.Though this film is progressive, in that it depicts a mature lesbian romance between two women, much about the plot-line is rather anachronistic. First of all, though it's 2001, Julie and Claire's spouses act like it's the 1950s. Back then, men could still rule over their wives and kids. It's utterly absurd, that Julie feels the need to hide her science magazines from her husband, like a daughter would hide dirty magazines from her father. Also, if Julie was so gifted in math and science, why didn't her teachers encourage her when she was still a young student? And why did Julie have to feel so ashamed of being a woman with intellectual interests, in this day and age? These are a few of the things about the overall plot premise, that just don't ad up.The chemistry between Lili Taylor as Julie, and Courtney Love as Claire, is erotically charged from the get-go. Though she's reluctant initially to have a sexual relationship with Julie, Claire admits to having had the hots for Julie when they were teenagers. Their lovemaking sessions together, are sensual and romantic. Julie and Claire both enjoy their sexual trysts. But their relationship is also bogged-down with guilt, and internalized homophobia.The best thing about this film, is the spunkiness of Julie. She's determined to pursue her educational goal and lesbian love affair, despite the resistance of those around her. The question is, why did the creators make a movie that is so obviously out-of-step with contemporary society, regarding it's attitudes towards lesbianism, and female empowerment?? If this movie had been made before 1970, it would've been cutting-edge. By today's standards, this film comes off as being very 'dated', regarding lesbians, and women in general.

christopher-208 Wow - what an excellent film! Great acting, directing and story. Sort of "Rainman meets Hoboken housewife meets lesbian love affair". I must admit, I was very leery of watching this, fearing it was going to be a Lesbian Love Story. I must admit, I am not a fan of the L-Word, bit I loved Queer As Folk.I watched this because I had a copy of the movie, having done a DVD Release Party at the club I work at. Otherwise, it would have been very unlikely that I would have ever watched it. That said, I am very glad I did.The 90 minute film packs a lot of punch, and the first 30 minutes zoom by, setting the storyline for the rest of the film, so watch carefully. Lili Taylor and Courtney Love, the leading ladies are both excellent in their roles as relatively unhappy Hoboken NJ housewives. Julie (played by Taylor) embarks on a mission to get her GED, against her husbands wishes. She eventually kicks him out.Claire (played by Love), her best friend from High School, leaves her husband. With no place to go, Claire moves in with Julie and her 2 children. In the meantime, Julie begins her quest for knowledge, passing her GED and eventually turning her goals towards a college degree.Notice, we still don't have much of a love story, do we? Midway through the film, that all changes - in a compassionate, yet confusing manner. Without giving away the entire story line (which includes a few very funny scenes amongst most of the drama), two women must come to terms with their feelings, for each other, and for themselves.This is really a gem of a film, and (as I have said before), it is a shame this will not be seen by many --- some whom desperately need to see a story like this. If Brokeback Mountain and Transamerica can make the big screen, well then so should Julie Johnson. This is not a lesbian love story, this IS a story about relationships, and the journey most of us take to achieve happiness and love in our own lives.Buy, rent or see Julie Johnson.

barbg While there are some genuine moments between the characters portrayed by Lili Taylor and Courtney Love, the film as a whole is an unbelievable clunker that rings terribly false. The previously unrecognized scientific talent of the Taylor character is an unnecessary plot device; the story would be much more interesting if she was an average working-class woman seeking to continue her education. The characters, especially her husband, are portrayed as two-dimensional cliches. With a more talented director at the helm, this film might have been a good one, but Julie Johnson lacks the nuance and subtlety that make a film compelling.

lo-1 The play was incredible. The movie wasn't as good, but still it was good.The director/producers should have stayed closer to the original play, and its writing. There were times when Ms. Hammond's voice belted out--and the audience was captivated. Other times, one could tell that the director's weak writing was diluting the strength of the production.Give the audience some credit. If the production is well done, they can follow intelligent writing. The writing did not need to be compromised to go to a movie format.