NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Micitype Pretty Good

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

tenebrisis Hailed as one of the first big-budget films to address the AIDS virus, 'Philadelphia' relies on its top-notch cast to chart a course through difficult themes. At the emotional core, rather than a focus on the spectacular details of the disease, the film chooses to examine the discrimination and homophobic in-tolerances that those afflicted face. The real tragedy? The social demise and stigma of the individual which precedes physical death itself.Using the courtroom setting to stage its drama, 'Philadelphia', asks some difficult questions, but then in a puzzling reversal, it discards some of its more emotional elements and decides to play it safe. Some might argue that this quiet restraint is one of the film's strengths, but this seriously derails some of the film's emotive power.There is one scene in particular that drastically alters the tone of the film. Andrew Beckett, played by Tom Hanks, interprets his favorite opera to attorney Joe Miller, a self-proclaimed homophobia. The film seems to warp at the very seams as Andrew dramatizes the opera. It's an incredibly powerful moment and a sobering vision of what could have been.Nonetheless, the film accomplishes an imperative objective. Educating the masses and altering public perception and for this reason alone, 'Philadelphia' warrants celebration.

calvinnme Seriously, the thing that stood out for me in this film was Andrew Beckett's (Tom Hanks) great family straight out of a Norman Rockwell illustration. His parents are still together after 40 years, he was raised in a large home in a good suburb, he has numerous siblings and numerous nieces and nephews, and all are accepting of his being gay and supportive of his lawsuit when he is apparently sabotaged at work and then fired for incompetence when he believes the law firm partners actually fired him because he had AIDS and was gay.This film was made almost a quarter of a century ago, and I guess to make Beckett sympathetic in those times there had to be nothing negative in his background. Thus the great family, his great intellect and passion for the law, and the solid long term partner in Miguel. His only failing - unprotected sex once in a gay porn theatre while in a relationship with Miguel. Thus the AIDS.There really is no leading lady in this film. Instead, there are two leading men. Andrew Beckett as the plaintiff who cannot find a lawyer to take his case, and Denzel Washington as the attorney who ultimately takes his case, although he is initially scared of Andy, scared of AIDS, repulsed by the idea of gay people. Washington as attorney Joe Miller is portrayed as a devoted family man and flamboyant personal injury lawyer who thinks no plaintiff is too stupid to defend - numerous warning signs, plaintiff ignores them, plaintiff falls into manhole, for example. Yet he will not take Andy's case, initially. It's only after he sees a connection as to how he is treated at the public library for being African American and how Andy is treated there for being obviously ill of AIDS does he change his mind.Where the great acting lies is in the growing friendship between Andy and Joe as they work on the case together. It is a subtle gradual shift in Joe's outlook until at the end, he buys a bottle of Dom Perignon to give to Andy in the hospital when, due to the price, he would not buy a bottle of that same champagne to celebrate the birth of his own child at the beginning of the film.Honorable mention to Jason Robards as the chief partner of the law firm being sued who is more upset about the indignity of being hauled before the Philadelphia legal establishment as a civil defendant than he is about any possible loss of money, and to Joanne Woodward as Andy's mom who keeps a stiff upper lip in front of her son, yet the fact that he is dying in front of her is tearing her up. Sorry Mary Steenburgen, you are a great actress, but you just don't have me believing that you "hate gays", but you do have me believing you are a great attorney.Today, lots of the characterizations may leave you feeling like you were hit over the head with a sledge hammer by Captain Obvious, but remember the time frame. People still had preconceived notions about homosexuals as in they must be deviant or have had something in their past that made them "that way", and they were definitely scared of AIDS and still not sure it was that hard to contract. Stick around for the great acting by Washington and Hanks and a host of supporting players. And also stick around for the final scene. It will jerk at your heartstrings.

inioi The topic is quite interesting, but everything depends on how you approach...Summarize a topic as susceptible of different interpretations in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys", I think it is unwise. I'm not arguing for or against the decision of the jury, or if Andrew Beckett's company was responsible for unfair dismissal. I'm just saying that the movie is not objective from the beginning.Anyway, is quite watchable in general. I therefore remain with Jonathan Demme's direction, concretely the first 5 min. of the movie, in which makes a lovely portrait of Philadelphia.6/10

Mr-Fusion It's hard to ignore the idea that the primary thrust behind "Philadelphia" is an entreaty to have a serious talk about AIDS; which meant a lot more back in 1993 when the fear was more palpable. But you can't talk about that disease without also discussing homosexuality, so the movie hasn't lost its compelling edge. And the really nice thing about it is that it plays the material straight and doesn't overdo things (even during the more dramatic moments). This could easily drift into Oscar bait, but it never does (at least, to me). Sure, a lot of it's hard to stomach, but it's some powerful stuff, and characters aren't just cardboard cutouts just dropped in there for the convenient teachable moment. And it's funny how the Oscars work; it's evident that Tom Hanks gave an award-worthy performance (transformation and all), but I was genuinely surprised that Denzel Washington was completely looked over by the Academy. This is one of my favorite Denzel performances.And on the whole, a pretty great movie.8/10