LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Konterr Brilliant and touching

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

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.

moonspinner55 Hoboken housewife and mother of two in her late thirties has very little education but is actually a closet physics nut; she kicks her husband out of the house when he makes fun of her ambition, to eventually become a computer scientist. Unreleased theatrical drama made the film festival rounds in 2002 but never picked up a distributor. While it doesn't have the scope (or budget) of something like "Good Will Hunting", it does have something more intricate and substantial: a leading character who is complicated and yet ordinary--determined and hopeful, but also naive. Lili Taylor is exceptionally confident in this role and she pulls off some tricky dramatic moments with grace. As her neighbor and best friend, Courtney Love is also very natural and appealing, and Spalding Gray does nice, low-key work as a teacher. The screenplay (by playwright Wendy Hammond, based on her play, and director Bob Gosse) certainly tackles a lot of issues, but the straightforward handling never allows the narrative to stumble (only in one or two scenes does it feel like it is overreaching, and a scene where Taylor's son cusses out mom's friend seems to come too early in the film and confuses us). Released on DVD by the gay-based entertainment division Here!, the movie has been tagged as a lesbian drama due to the ensuing close relationship between roommates Taylor and Love, however this theme is also handled quite unobtrusively, without any sign of cynicism or sensationalism; what the intimacy resolves (and what it soon leads to) is heartbreaking without being melodramatic or sentimental. Of course, it's a stretch to find that a barely-educated, low-income mother of two just may be an unsung genius, but Hammond and Gosse help us to believe it could happen in just this way. Their faith in the character helps us realize anything's possible and attainable. *** from ****

noizyme I wasn't sure what to expect from this movie about a possible lesbian love affair with a best friend, but I was pleased with its subtlety and positive turnaround ending.Julie Johnson is a middle-aged housewife with two kids and a husband who's a policeman by day, sports-fanatic by night. After years of living a redundant life with her husband making her decisions about what she can and can't do, she takes a leap of hope to jump-start her interests into a career but, more than anything, to take control of her life for a change and learn more about herself and her surroundings. Through these changes, she takes more and more chances, pushing her lust for a newfound way of life through her best friend, Claire, and transforming her interests to include a deep love for Claire herself. Now she must decide what to do with her friends, her New York surroundings, her children, her husband, her love for science, and her future with a woman who may not choose to live this way with Julie forever.I thought the entire film flowed very well, and it really highlighted the main points in Julie's life that she wished to change along the way. It shows a different view on homosexual (and generally modern) relationships and the struggles for individual desires after years of suppressing them into secrets only. It showed the problems that can arise by having a "lesbian" for a mother out of such a previous relationship with a man in the home for his children, but it didn't state clearly by the end whether or not Julie necessarily had a preference for one gender or the other, which, IMO, helped the film see that Julie's only true wish was to be genuinely loved and trusted that she'll do what's right and good for her life.I didn't necessarily think that Courtney Love should've been the love interest (especially because they gave her pretty weak lines and hardly any real direction), and I think you just have to be a fan of hers for who she is more than her abilities as an actress. I thought the subtle score (and possibly songs) by Angelo Badalamenti were a nice touch, but I would've loved to hear more of the bombast quality of his previous works for David Lynch movies in this film.. I also didn't like how the children were written into the script, and often "switched sides" from the son liking his mother Julie's decisions initially and then flip-flopping back and forth (same with the daughter), but I could see how that might be that tumultuous of a time for them to settle on one side or the other.Wrapping it up, I gave it 6/10 stars. It was easily more than an average venture into an alternative lifestyle movie, but it could've used more of the style from the director or composer to boost more of a steadfast quality into Julie to attain her dreams. Go check it out if you want to be exposed to a different way of being, and get yourself some tips about life decisions like these from this film.

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.