Julie Johnson (2001) User Reviews (13)

Very Decent ....but mis-advertised as a lesbian- flick

[pranayama · 7/10 · 3 June 2006]

• I enjoyed this movie! Both actresses were in top form, and both the plot and the script were incredibly realistic (which can be a refreshing break from all of the "out there" Hollywood story lines).

• Briefly, it's about a woman who discovers that she doesn't want to be an uneducated house wife for the rest of her life, so she decides to pursue her dream of going to school. It's quite inspirational.

• I really enjoyed the main actress in six-feet-under. She's very genuine and "real-seeming." Courney-love, despite all the bad press she's received through the years, was superb. She's an excellent actress (and I'm pretty picky).

• Bottomline: If you like indie films, definitely check it out!

half good half bad

[dreirad · 6/10 · 13 June 2003]

i loved lili taylor in this movie. and although there were some scenes that were truly well done, engaging and enjoyable, i have to agree with the other comments so far: something was missing, something just wasn´t right. it seems to me that someone wasn´t totally sure what the movie was to be about, what its main focus should be. julie´s suddenly discovered academic talents somehow ring false, there is nothing here that would explain them or make them believable. i was expecting an upbeat movie, and although the direction the story took in the end made sense, it wasn´t exactly satisfying. for anyone who wants to see rebelling housewives or who just wants to see lili taylor and courtney love ACT (or kiss each other), i would recommend this one though.

Bride of Good Will Hunting

[barbg · 5/10 · 22 June 2001]

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.

Far-fetched but incredibly human story, sympathetic yet unsentimental...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 17 December 2006]

Lili Taylor stars in this anything-is-possible story about a Hoboken housewife and mother of two in her late-thirties who 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, eventually becoming a computer scientist. Unreleased theatrical drama made the film festival rounds in 2002 but never picked up a distributor; when it was finally released on DVD by gay-based Here!, it was misleadingly marketed as a lesbian-themed chick-flick. Written by Bob Gosse (who also directed) and Wendy Hammond (from her play), the film has similar attributes to "Good Will Hunting", yet our protagonist is an original, appealing character. 'Ordinary' at first glance, this lady is a little naïve but also complicated, determined and hopeful. Taylor is exceptionally confident in this role and 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 narrative tends to stumble when the writers overreach for an effect (such as a confusing early scene wherein Julie's angry son cusses out mom's friend). There is light lesbian affection between Taylor and Love, but this is handled unobtrusively in the story, without cynicism or sensationalism; more importantly, what the intimacy resolves (and what it soon leads to) is heartbreaking without being melodramatic. **1/2 from ****

The play was incredible. The movie wasn't as good, but still it was good.

[lo-1 · 7/10 · 18 February 2001]

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.

Too anachronistic for a contemporary audience.

[sonya90028 · 7/10 · 11 June 2009]

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.

safe your time and money for better movies

[olafwiehler · 1/10 · 5 December 2001]

if you put together an unmotivated script without a statement to anything and without any explanation of the characters and an untalented dircetor, you´ll get JULIE JOHNSON. the actors and other talent couldn´t do anything to save this movie.

This Film Deserved a Theatrical Release - An Unexpected Surprise!

[christopher-208 · 10/10 · 20 October 2006]

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.

Good performances, flawed script

[slake09 · 6/10 · 11 June 2006]

Let's get the important stuff out of the way first: there are no scenes of Courtney and Lili gobbling each other up. Yeah, that's a disappointment, but so it goes.

The performances were excellent, and somewhat believable, except for the sudden emergence of an older, uneducated suburban housewife as a scientific prodigy. Yeah, that happens all the time. That was the only plot device that didn't fly, but it really ruins the rest of the movie. You just can't see this woman suddenly discovering she is a genius, a lesbian, and her independence all at the same time.

She suddenly discovers she's a lesbian? Sure, why not. That one works. But why does it have to involve her tossing her husband out on the street? How is it his fault? Lesbians don't have any feelings for people who have supported and loved them? She suddenly discovers she's in love with her best friend. Yeah, that one works, too. It throws an interesting twist into the film and Courtney Love delivers one of her better performances here.

She suddenly discovers she's a genius? This is where it breaks down. She never showed the slightest sign of intelligence before, but now she's a prodigy. Unfortunately for her husband, she's not smart enough to treat him with any dignity or respect, but she's smart enough to write cryptographic algorithms even though she never graduated high school. If it wasn't for this lame, unnecessary and ignorant part of the movie, I'd say it was a great independent and lesbian film.

Julie Johnson could have been the average housewife who discovers she's a lesbian and is in love with her best friend. That would have made a good film. But she's suddenly a spiteful genius, and that doesn't make a good film. Too bad.

Wants, Needs, and Accessibility

[gradyharp · 8/10 · 13 September 2006]

JULIE JOHNSON is a quiet little film that deals with the frustrations facing a New Jersey housewife and mother who married and birthed before she graduated high school and finds herself in a rigid relationship, longing for knowledge to change things. She considers herself stupid, sneaks Science magazines to read when her overbearing husband isn't around, and finally gathers the courage (while staring at the stars one night) to change her plight. She takes a computer course, passes her GED and with the constant support of her dearest girlfriend gathers the courage to get out of the stifling marriage with her husband and study to improve her lot in life. Along the way she discovers other secrets about herself, buried in the facade of a life she has led. She changes, relates to the world in a different way, and refuses to settle for returning to 'the old life' when her husband returns promising her change. Her relationship with her girlfriend proceeds to intimate levels, but in the end this friendship cannot last, as her girlfriend doesn't have the same goals.

The story is simple, but in the hands of the writers Wendy Hammond and Bob Gosse and with Gosse's fine direction, the entire cast gives us an ensemble of disparate characters in whom we can all believe. Lili Taylor plays the lead with extraordinary skill and as her girlfriend Courtney Love gives a bravura performance. The remainder of the cast (Spalding Gray, Noah Emmerich, Gideon Jacobs, Mischa Barton, et al) is likewise strong. But it is Taylor's film and she offers one of her most poignant performances of her career. A thoughtful, sensitive, engrossing film.

Good look at a modern relationship with endless possibilities

[noizyme · 6/10 · 9 July 2006]

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.

Loved the movie and the Actors

[psund1 · 10/10 · 17 October 2006]

I loved this movie! I have to admit, I have been in love with Lilli Taylor since "Household Saints". I love all the movies I have seen her in. But this one really was awesome! I am a big fan of Spalding Gray's work also and miss him being here with us. Seeing him on film brought back all the old feelings of awe I have always felt listening to him. The picture of Courtney Love and Lilli Taylor on the cover is what caught my attention and I have to say, they did wonderfully together in this movie. People seem to either love or hate Courtney but when it comes to her movie roles, I find it hard to point out a bad one. People who are fans of these wonderful Actors will love this movie, promise!

You can sleep with anyone, but you still wake up with yourself

[somehope · 8/10 · 19 July 2007]

Very realistic if you see the film. In terms of premise, you wonder how "realistic" applies to a happily married heterosexual mother of two in New Jersey without a GED who winds up making love to her best female friend and realizes that she is a mathematical genius alone but strong at the end of the film.

But it does work, because these people are real, at least for two hours or so, and we can feel that in Lilli and Courtney's acting there isn't a con; after a heterosexual friendship leads to characters making love, there are more than enough hints that this is happening in the real world.

For instance: Neither woman, upon leaving their spouses, knows how to balance a checkbook, because they were never taught to, rather Juile (Taylor's) son, helps them because he just learned it in school. And perhaps more importantly, the characters don't see each other as villains or heroes or plot devices. These characters have known each other for a long time, and will continue to do so. Julie's husband is loving if blind to her needs, while Love's character's boyfriend really just sees her for sex. When each woman realizes they are love with one another, it isn't treated like the sex scene from "Bound": they are, after finding out about their love, scarred of this leap, but true -- and here's the key -- to their characters -- the women make love in a brief scene that's more about tenderness between them than getting any sort of reaction out of an audience. Inbetween the growth and eventual disintegration of their relationship, each scene matters because it cares about the characters. Even Julie's last moment with her husband is taken with the same form of tenderness between former lovers and friends.

Julie isn't a genius overnight, either. It was latent, just like her homosexuality (or bisexuality or whatever you want to call it) -- she read books, educated herself by watching scientific based programs on t.v., etc. and grew up denying her own intelligence because she didn't believe she had it.

The story is essentially Juile's: a closed off woman from the world at large who grows to believe in herself. If you complain the ending is ambiguous ... well, isn't life?