Philadelphia Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x720 | 4475.13 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x400 | 1761.96 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x330 | 841.24 MiB | divx | |
|
320x178 | 322.62 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
No one would take on his case... until one man was willing to take on the system.
Andrew Beckett, a gay lawyer infected with AIDS, is fired from his conservative law firm in fear that they might contract AIDS from him. After Andrew is fired, in a last attempt for peace, he sues his former law firm with the help of a homophobic lawyer, Joe Miller. During the court battle, Miller sees that Beckett is no different than anyone else on the gritty streets of the city of brotherly love, sheds his homophobia and helps Beckett with his case before AIDS overcomes him.
| Tom Hanks | Andrew Beckett |
| Roberta Maxwell | Judge Tate |
| Buzz Kilman | Crutches |
| Karen Finley | Dr. Gillman |
| Daniel Chapman | Clinic Storyteller |
| Mark Sorensen Jr. | Clinic Patient |
| Jeffrey Williamson | Tyrone |
| Charles Glenn | Kenneth Killcoyne |
| Ron Vawter | Bob Seidman |
| Anna Deavere Smith | Anthea Burton |
| Stephanie Roth Haberle | Rachel Smilow |
| Lisa Talerico | Shelby |
| Joanne Woodward | Sarah Beckett |
| Jason Robards | Charles Wheeler |
| Denzel Washington | Joe Miller |
7.50 out of 10 (32363 votes)
Visitor Reviews
A little overlong and feels it has to shout it's message but still a polished film that had more impact in 1993 than it does now
posted on 24 Aug 2009Andrew Beckett is a successful lawyer with a major law firm and is on his way to being partner. When he contracts AIDS he hides his illness and continues work. When an important document goes missing and an important client only narrowly avoids ruin, the partners fire Beckett. He however, suspects that they have fired him due to their discovery of his sexuality and his illness and approaches Joe Miller to represent him in a trial of unfair dismissal.I remember watching this film in the cinema in 1993 or so and I notice that it's relevance and impact has changed since then. On the television in my house today (2003) I watch 6 Feet Under and The Shield, both of which have gay characters struggling with various aspects of their lives, while my wife watches Will & Grace featuring several openly gay characters. I would argue that the latter doesn't make any positive contribution to the images of gay people, but certainly the latter two do. So it is against this sort of thing that the film Philadelphia doesn't really stand up as well in terms of message.The plot allows the film to look at all the various things resulting from homosexuality and AIDS in a world where it is viewed by the majority as something to be abhorred. One could argue that that society still exists but I think generally the Western world is more tolerant than it was in 93. Hence much of the message now sounds like the volume is up too loud - or that we are dumb and need the point laid out very slowly and carefully for us to understand, in fact it's almost using the words of Miller, `explain to me like I was a 6 year old'. However I am being unfair because this had more relevance in 93 and needed that approach. Some have said this film is too preachy, I don't think it is - I think it is just a little too slow and deliberate in making it's point to the point where it may feel overbearing.The film is refreshingly free of sentiment and `cry now' scenes. Instead it is pretty free of clutter and allows for a look at the wider issues rather than this one man dying. Not all questions are answered but certainly views are challenged - I just wonder whether these views are the majority now. It does go on a little long as a result, but only by 15 minutes or so.As a courtroom film it doesn't work - the case in question is pulled all over the place in order to allow the film to look at the issues. This takes away any sense of courtroom fireworks (although they are still dramatic at points) as I doubted whether the defence would allow Miller to lead them down the paths the case takes. The central story of Beckett is good but he is never allowed to be just a person -he is representing bigger things and thus, occasionally feels a little distant.I felt at the time Hanks got his Oscar for the nature of the role rather than his performance and I still feel that way. I am glad he got it though as it was a brave role to take at the time. More deserving I think was Washington, he played the more complex character and the more important to get right as he represents `the ordinary man' in this piece. Support is good from names such as Robarts, Banderas and Steenburgen but it is Washington who really holds the film together and he who is the pivotal character rather than Andy.Overall this is a glossy Hollywood film that did well to take a difficult issue and present it in a reasonably balanced light. Miller's homophobia and distaste for the sexual act works well as it allows us to follow him as he goes from seeing a sexuality or a disease and finally seeing the person behind it. Not as relevant now as it was then this is still an OK film but will be watched less and less as time goes on.
you can't fail o be moved
posted on 18 Aug 2009I watched his film about 3 months after my nephew died of AIDS. Maybe it is because of that, that I am biased but I have to say this is one of the most harrowing, frustrating films that I have ever seen. It would be wrong to say I enjoyed it but I truly appreciated its depth.Jason Robards was superb as the bigot and if ever an actor was under-rated it was him. However for me Hanks is one of the finest actors around and keeps producing memorable performances (Forrest Gump, Apollo 13 and Road to Perdition).If ever a film should be watched, Philadelphia is that film. 10/10
The most emotional drama ever written.
posted on 06 Aug 2009Philadelphia is a truly wonderful, unforgetting film that looks into the life of Andrew Beckett, a homosexual with the AIDS virus. This film particularly highlights the feelings and strong emotions of Beckett and his caring family. The film's main plot is about a homosexual with AIDS (Beckett played by Tom Hanks)who is fired from his law firm after gaining a big promotion. Andy Beckett claims that he was fired because his employers were prejudice towards himself and his disease. He decides to hire a lawyer to take his case to court and he finds Denzal Washington. Denzal Washington played a wonderful part in this film and deserved to be nominated by the "Academy" for Best Supporting Actor. However, Washington didn't win, but won for two other films. I don't believe anyone can say enough good things about Mr. Tom Hanks and his wonderful acting in all of his roles (especially Philadelphia). Hanks executed his character in an absolutely perfect sense. Hanks made you cry more than once in this particular film when he couldn't find anyone to help him go to court. The graphic scenes containing lesions, which were a result of the virus, made you cringe. The makeup on Hanks couldn't of been better. The "Academy" came through with this film awarding Hanks and the talented Jonathan Demme (the director) with Oscars. Different Oscars also went to other persons for this film. This film will make you cry several times and I would highly recommend that you rent this film for a cold, rainy afternoon. If you are worried about seeing gays kissing and hugging, don't worry. The homosexual sense isn't that bad in this film. Bottom Line- Philadelphia will never be forgotten in good cinema!
Gimme, Gimme, Gimme...
posted on 16 Jul 2009Philadelphia is one of those films that shrieks 'Gimme an Oscar!,' but there is something so knowing about this film, such a self-awareness about its sensitivity to the plight of those with AIDS, that I can't help feeling a little repulsed by it all. Philadelphia isn't the only film to attempt to shamelessly manipulate the emotions of an audience, but rarely has a film been as blatant about it as this one is. At the end of the day, for all its high production values and first class acting, Philadelphia is only really one step up from those dreaded 'disease of the week' TV movies.The aim of this film is to highlight the unfairness of discrimination, not only against HIV sufferers but against homosexuals too, and it does this in a way that leaves no room for ambiguities or doubts about the beliefs and motivations of the characters involved. Sexuality and sickness are emotive issues and, more often than not, when confronted with them people's reactions and judgments are inevitably clouded by fear and uncertainty. But in Philadelphia a complex issue is so crassly compartmentalised that everything is black and white, cut and dried. In this film all homosexuals are noble, self-effacing, fun-loving and sensitive, while white heterosexual America is presented as a bunch of pot-bellied ageing businessmen sucking on their cigars while they swap jokes about faggots and hot yoghurt, and a smug, condescending defence lawyer in the form of Mary Steenburgen. The only issue of worth it raises is whether an AIDS victim who has contracted the disease through no fault of their own is more deserving of our 'tolerance' (for want of a better word) than someone who is stricken because of the lifestyle they choose to lead.Tom Hanks gives a sensitive performance as the hotshot lawyer who finds himself fired from a leading law firm when it is discovered he has AIDS. Sadly, because his role has MARTYR written all over it in huge letters, it is impossible for Hanks to get beneath the surface of a character that has no depth and individuality (Hanks' character is a mirror image of his loyal partner, played by Antonio Banderas). We learn that he has a cloyingly supportive family, but little else and, while the plot reveals that he had gay sex with a stranger in a cinema, we get little insight into who he really is. Denzel Washington has more success as the homophobic lawyer who takes up Hanks' case when everyone else turns their back on him, although his path to 'redemption' is, again, a horribly predictable one, and the parallels drawn with the discrimination experienced by African-Americans give the film an over-sincere and preachy tone.In the film's final scenes we are shown scratchy, grainy home-movie footage of Hanks' character frolicking on a beach as a kid, presumably to ram home the message that here is an innocent, deserving of all our compassion and understanding, and to tacitly point an accusing finger at all those who fail to be moved.When all is said and done, this film doesn't just shriek 'Gimme an Oscar!' – it shrieks 'Gimme an Oscar – I pushed all the right buttons.'
Good bits and bad bits! (spoiler!!!)
posted on 01 Jun 2009I saw this film for the first time last night on DVD. It's always been one of those films I felt I should watch, but somehow never got round to it. I've always been a fan of Tom Hanks, and was curious to see his performance in this particular role, being quite different to anything else I've seen him do.
I was not disappointed by his performance, nor by that of Denzel Washington. I thought that both performances were very convincing. The movie overall, I felt was very good. It had a good story, and I cared about what the outcome of the trial would be.
My only critisism was that I would have liked to have had more sympathy for Andrew Beckett. I did have a little weep at the end when he died, however I did have the entire film to prepare for that eventualitly as somehow I knew he was going to die at the end. The lack of sympathy I'm talking about comes from not having the chance to get to know the character properly, and not knowing enough about him to relate to him personally.
I felt the film was rushed really, that there were large chunks of story missing. I'm not sure I liked the swift changes between events earlier on in the film where we are only really given facts about the character which are relevant to the trial later on. I suppose this may have been deliberate, as this would be similar to how facts are presented to a Jury in a courtroom. Before I saw the film, I knew that it was about a man with AIDS. I therefore thought it would either be depressing, or upliftiing. It turned out to be both. Generally a very good film that I would probably watch again.
Powerful and Harrowing
posted on 02 May 2009Philadelphia is about a gay man with AIDS who gets wrongfully dismissed from his law firm. He goes to another lawyer to take his law firm to court and eventually wins.That's the film in a nutshell, but it is so much more than that. It's a deeply emotional film dealing with very serious human issues and the two leads - Tom Hanks (the gay man) and Denzel Washington (his black homophobic lawyer) are magnificent.Top marks to Demme for daring to make a mainstream film about issues that are usually shied away from especially in Hollywood.Watch it - you won't be the same afterwards
Delivers through the propaganda
posted on 26 Apr 2009According to this film, homosexuality exists. We are surrounded by many such myths from the Americans: alien abductions, fate, demonic possession. Not only is the propaganda of homosexuality - the mythical condition afflicting massive numbers of people, somehow having their genes altered so that they become attracted to people of the same sex - hurled at us, but we are also to believe that A.I.D.S. is confined to these people!The story and courtroom drama are not the best you'll find in a film. Nevertheless, the film is still good. The performances are great, especially Washington's. I also loved the music. Putting the propaganda aside, I give "Philadelphia" a 7.
Moving, yet...
posted on 17 Apr 2009This was an incredibly moving film. It makes you stop and realize some of the discrimination gays and aids victims go through. But I found it a bit unrealistic on some levels. Andrew Becket's family was way too understanding an compassionate. I've never met a family that was so accepting of a gay member. At least someone turns their back, or hides their children... And I doubt the trial would have been won in real life in the 90's. As time progresses, the law is getting behind more discriminated minorities, but not then. The movie was wonderful, stirring, moving. It left me with hope, that the world may get better for gays and aids victims. But it left me crying imagining my own child in that position. I also speak all of this as a Christian who believes that the act of homosexual sex is a sin, but we are all sinners, aren't we? I pray for a day when families are like they are in this film, and when people cannot fire someone based on anything which they fear--sexual orientation, color, race, creed, religion.......
Superb
posted on 07 Feb 2009Arguably the finest crafted, written, filmed, and acted movie of all time. Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks are phenomenal. From the very first opening shots of the city of Philadelphia to the funeral scene at the end, this was an artistic creation requiring many talents, teamwork, care, and vision. Calling it a human drama barely begins to describe it.
Sheer drivel
posted on 20 Jan 2009The genesis of this film was Jonathan Demme being harassed by the gay lobby after the depiction of the serial killer in "The Silence of the Lambs." The payback was to make a sympathetic portrayal of a gay man with AIDS (BTW, the same lobby tried to bully Mel Gibson after his portrayal of the effeminate prince in "Braveheart" but Mel is too much of a man to be bullied) This film is extremely preachy and politically correct---as someone noted earlier---the heterosexual white men are the evil crucifiers of the gay guy. And who comes to the rescue? the black guy. Puhleeese. The gay party scene was pretty sickening. And by the way, why doesn't Hanks' "partner" have the virus? I noticed that the GLAAD people have posted like crazy that this is the best film since "Citizen Kane." I also noticed all the usual Hollywood lefties (or should I say "fellow travelers"?) particpated in this film: Joanne Woodward, Tom Hanks, Mary Steenburgen, Bruce Springsteen. I guess Ed Asner, Mike Farrell and Jane Fonda weren't available. Demme should stop the politics and get back to entertaining people. As the L.B. Mayer said "If you want to send a message, go to Western Union." I'll give a '3' mostly due to Hanks' performance.
Great
posted on 20 Jan 2009This movie was fantastic.I am a huge Tom Hanks fan. This was one of those movies that really show if an actor really knows how to act. Denzel Washington, I think, should have won the "Supporting Actor" award for 1993 because he was exceptional in the movie. I really enjoyed watching this movie because it made you laugh and cry and very few movies do that. Tom Hanks is the only actor to win two consecutive "Best Actor" awards (Philadelphia and Forrest Gump) and I think Philadelphia was the start of his superior career in acting. In conclusion, I rate Philadelphia a 10 and I recommend it to all Tom Hanks fans.
Propaganda? So what!
posted on 17 Jan 2009Do you actually think the movie was suppose to convey a message. The purpose of a Hollywood movie is to make money, which it did.To complain about stereotypes and cardboard characters does not make sense. Hanks and Washington both do a superb job. Lets try not to forget that for its time the movie was a risky project for all involved, especially for a mainstream Hollywood movie.What about Boys in the Hood? Did that not have stereotyping in it? Is that the typical black life. No, it is not.Instead of complaining about the film be grateful that it has opened the eyes of millions of people. Thanks to Hanks, maybe others have changed their minds about who homosexuals are, not just the stereotypical view that Hollywood tends to portray.The movie is a step in the right direction!
..if you had done a little research on AIDS..
posted on 27 Dec 2008....you may have had a different opinion of this movie, and you CERTAINLY would have written a different commentary.I was shocked to learn of AIDS, even though it was discovered right here in Los Angeles by Dr. Michael Gottlieb, via "Patient O". Believe me, the "world-class" LOS ANGELES TIMES could have played a much bigger role of notifying the world on this pandemic. There were so many "causes" to identify: when it was finally decided it was a virus, I was further shocked to discover how public officials were so unconcerned, that it would only infect gays. THAT made me think that the common cold is also a virus: does it infect only a certain segment of society? Get real !! Because I made my living for so many decades as an entertainer talking face-to-face with people, I talk a lot. I did just that, for about 15 years. I couldn't fathom that scientists could be so dumb, so I started from scratch - not knowing which way to turn - to expose those who were making "take-it-for-granted" statements.Some way or other, I got my foot in the door - you'd be surprised how many scientists and high-office politicians helped. I learned a lot, right quick. I went to public symposiums held by the doctor who discovered how a certain group of gay men were all infected by a single individual. I particularly remember a symposium I attended - in the then newly-created city of West Hollywood - for nurses and health-care providers. The main topic it was discussing was "what do gay people do, sexually"? In the city of "Boys Town" and heavy hustling on most of its streets? You can be certain I shocked them all by stating "the same things you and your sexual partners do, sexually, but aren't talking about it here". I eventually gave-up - I was writing to scientists all over the world; I had contacts in CDC, WHO, Institut Pasteur (where the virus was originally discovered); Congress; state legislatures - I just had too much data to comprehend.....and knew that by the time I was ready to do the exposure, it would be years down the road, and too late. FINALLY, THE LOST ANGELES TIMES has printed an article about Dr. Tony Fauci at NIH that advises EVERYONE under 64 be tested - 250,000 Americans do not know they are infected. I know people who have been infected for 25 years......still healthy....I agree that "Philadelphia" came too late in the pandemic, also, but knew millions of people STILL are ignorant about it - denial ! I've read every comment. I am going to watch the film again tonight, although it is vivid in my mind. Tom Hanks deserved the Oscar simply by having the courage - or being paid so much money - to do the role; not too much acting going-on, but effective. Can you believe that Banderas, today, isn't even listed in the cast of IMDb.com? I thought he was excellent in the film, as was Joanne Woodward playing the stalwart mother - the whole family was played so well. Those family-members who disown a member simply because he's gay need to see a shrink. How could "Scubergmu" definitely know that gays don't have supporting families ? On comments on Washington, many of them got his character right as being homophobic. However, they missed the point of the library scene - after hiding behind books and seeing Beckett being harassed by a librarian - "did you find a lawyer?" - "I'm a lawyer". He became hooked to take the case by the brilliant understanding Beckett had of the legal data. He didn't suddenly become friendly - he may have even determined this would be a big case and he wouldn't have to spend so much money on TV-ads. His character developed from that point, with the compassionate help of his wife. Washington was superb.Demme's direction was right-on. Is anyone so naive to not know that Hollywood is well-versed in homosexuality ?....after all their cover-ups ? No matter how late in the pandemic this film appeared, it's still a powerful story. That this group of people finally found the gumption to release it deserves whatever awards it earned. Someone wrote "the party" scene had no drag-queens: did you miss "Mona Lisa" ?I could write forever about this film, but feel everyone should get it and study it. One viewing can't give you an enlightened viewpoint. I give it 15-out-10 - so frightening this scourge is spreading, rather-than being defeated. Watch this movie with an open heart.
great drama movie
posted on 18 Nov 2008Philadelphia is one of the best movies ever made the movies about a man (Tom Hanks) who is a lawyer but he got fired because he has AIDs and he hires a layer (Denzel Washington) to represent him in a wrongful dismissal case.Tom Hanks does a great job at acting in this movie and he deserved the Oscar that he won for his great performance and Denzel Washington does a great acting job as well.The movie also stars actors and actress like Roberta Maxwell,Buzz Kilman,Stephanie Roth Haberle,Jason Robards,Bradley Whitford and Antonio Banderas.In this movie there are lots of good scenes like all the court room scenes and the scenes in the end of the movie when Tom Hanks dies and that scene is sad.Over all this is a must watch movie and its worth buying and my rating is 8 out of 10
A very sad but moving picture
posted on 22 Oct 2008We watched this in my class the other day and have to write a review about it. Obviously I can't just give her this website and hope she'll see my review. *giggle* "Philadelpia" is a wonderful story. It really has me very impressed with Tom Hanks. He is an amazing actor. Him and Denzel are an incredible duo in the film. I think another thing that gets me so moved about the film is because I have a few homosexual friends who have a hard time being one with the world. So I felt like I could relate somewhat to Denzel's character towards the end. This was a wonderful movie to watch. I would highly recommend it for anyone.10/10
A movie that makes you keep your eyes open
posted on 10 Oct 2008Without a doubt, one of my favourite movies. Couldn't of been better. A stunning film with a great soundtrack, it could draw tears from almost anyone. Scenes from this movie could make you cry just from how good they are, for how brilliant they are. Definitely one of the best films made. Tom Hanks' brilliant performance rightfully one an Oscar for best actor in a leading role, along with Bruce Springsteen winning an Oscar for the song Streets of Philadelphia. The excellent performances from Denzel Washington and Antonio Banderes give it a great feel; and the direction from Jonathan Demme makes you feel as if your on the set. With some of the most stunningly brilliant scenes from any movie I've ever watched makes this film perfect. This movie will make you keep your eyes open if you haven't slept for weeks; and the only thing that takes away the awareness that your watching a movie, is to think of how brilliant it is.As a recommendation, if your putting off watching this movie. Thinking that you might not like it. You need to just watch it, you won't regret it.
What could have been a groundbreaking and moving drama gets turned into a patronizing, politically correct sermon
posted on 10 Sep 2008In making a successful, persuasive film dealing with such serious subjects as homosexuality, AIDS, prejudice, and discrimination, the trick is to be even-handed and to avoid stereotypes and black hats and white hats. In this respect, "Philadelphia" misses the mark.The film's concept is sound, and it was timely in the late 1980s/early 1990s. It could have been a solid drama about dealing with one's shortcomings, through overcoming prejudice or admitting dishonesty. Unfortunately, it gets bogged down with its own intellectual dishonesty, not helped by the sluggish courtroom drama or the screenplay's dull characters. Tom Hanks' character of Andrew Beckett, the gay lawyer with AIDS, is dreadfully dull. The scene with him "voguing" to Maria Callas while hooked up to an IV tube was particularly atrocious. He tries hard to make something out of the vapid, anodyne, PC stereotype he's given, but it just doesn't click. It certainly isn't Oscar-worthy. The liveliness and depth he would create a year later as Forrest Gump is nowhere to be found. Jason Robards and Mary Steenburgen, both fine performers, also get stuck playing boring antagonists. Denzel Washington's character, who, as the lawyer who takes Andrew's wrongful termination suit, changes from an intolerant man to a tolerant one, is the only interesting one.The film is too wrapped up in its self-satisfaction to realize its own intellectual dishonesty. The thing that caused Andrew to get AIDS, cheating on his partner (played by the woefully underused Antonio Banderas) with a perfect stranger in a gay porno theater, is glossed over. Whether he spread the virus to his partner, his reaction to the adultery, or even where their relationship stood then or at any time, go unmentioned. This might have made it a more interesting drama, but it would tarnish the halo that they try to paint over Andrew's head.It is clear that Jonathan Demme only made this film to appease those offended by supposed stereotypes of transsexuals in the far superior "The Silence of the Lambs". I didn't realize that anyone got the idea, from this movie or anywhere else, that all trannies were psycho killers. There was no intent in that film to preach or proselytize. It was just a good story with excellent performances. "Philadelphia" is offensive in its attempts to depict gays with AIDS as innocent victims while paying lip service to the reckless promiscuity that has cost far too many gay men their lives. As a film it is quite routine, and as a piece of propaganda it falls as flat as the characters.
Unfortunately Misguided Criticism Should Not Stop Anyone From Seeing This Film
posted on 20 Aug 2008This is the first review I've written on IMDB, but I shouldn't have to write one for a film of this caliber. It succeeds in everything it attempts to do and it bothers me when I read comments from gay readers that absolutely loathe this film. After thinking about it for a little bit, I think I've found the reason for why all the gay viewers hated this film: they're sick of the pity and the sympathy. I can understand that, and it is basically impossible to make a quasi-realistic film about gay rights and anti-homophobia without exhibiting some sympathy for the alienated gay population. I admit that I have little experience with gays, although I am acquainted with a few. They are on wonderful terms with their families (even though one homosexual writes here that families are NOT like that). I disagree with people who think that because their family is displeased with their sexual orientation, every gay person is estranged from their family. That is untrue. Another wrong comment I read was that the film gives viewers the impression that gays are the only ones that can get AIDS (and that the disease is always deadly). That is false, as well, since a portion of the movie deals with a woman who is an AIDS survivor and who contracted the disease in a blood transfusion. There are many other ways of getting AIDS, but it would be impossible for the film to identify every single way in order to be PC. The most powerful argument against this film seems to be that it is anti-homosexual propaganda in how it shows the relationship between Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderas. First of all, everyone is making a big deal that Hanks and Banderas do not kiss. Apparently, filmmakers cannot possibly show love between two people without having them kiss. It sounds to me that most disappointed gay readers were hoping to see gay pornography rather than a film about two homosexuals and the troubles they face when one of them contracts AIDS. They do not kiss, fine, but they dance, they talk to one another in such a way that I, a heterosexual man, envied the relationship they had. The first time we see Banderas is when he is racing to the hospital to see if Hanks is okay. I know if my girlfriend were in the hospital, I would probably look and act the exact same way that he does. I disturbs me that so many gay readers would rather see the two of them make out than display affection for one another in more powerful ways. Another argument I noticed more than once was that, aside from Hanks' character, the film portrays all gays as "pansies." Believe me, the critics here are far more stereotypical than this film is. One scene that comes to mind is when Denzel Washington is shopping in a grocery store and a college athlete approaches him to praise him for his work. Washington is gracious and it comes off as a surprise when the athlete starts to hit on him. I suppose that most gay viewers saw that message as something along the lines of "Gays are everywhere...watch out!" If that were the case, the film would have glorified Washington's character, but instead we feel sorry for liking Denzel. Why do we like him? Because too many of us are like him, just average people who want to take a few steps back every time a homosexual walks nearby. By presenting someone that we all can associate with and highlighting his flaws (which are, essentially, our own), maybe we can begin to change. As for the film, I find it hard to believe that anyone would rent this thinking that it is simply a courtroom drama. It is well-written, and well-acted. I mostly enjoyed some fabulous direction on Jonathan Demme's part. I remember, in particular, that when Hanks would recall when he was fired, his associates had the appearance of monsters. The camera would show them in a darker light, up-close, at an awkward angle. Many other viewers found this to be "cartoony," but they're forgetting that these scenes were not reality. They were simply memories, and although Hanks' character is a noble, honorable, unfortunately ill homosexual, he naturally feels angry towards his former employers. He's furious, even though he rarely lets out any of that fury directly. The only way we see these memories is through his distorted memories. Hanks is frustrated and furious with what happened and he cannot look at his former employers anymore without seeing monsters. In this way, the filmmakers build a connection between Hanks' character and the viewers, gay or not. This also helps the viewer sympathize for homosexuals and see how they are essentially no different than anyone else. I apologize. I am sorry that so many gays would rather remain alienated, would rather see Hanks and Banderas act in gay porn than a meaningful film. I am sorry that there is even one homosexual out there who are is alienated from their families that they have no one to really turn to. This film is not the most accurate portrayal of homosexuals, but is far from the worst. Do not even attempt to persuade me, that this film is nothing but worthless drivel, that it tries to alienate gays even more. It is as accurate as it has to be. If it were to go too far over the line, it would be too much for the average person to handle. Viewers have to remember that controversial topics like these have to be handled carefully, and it could not have been done better than in "Philadelphia." If all gay people are looking for is a depressing, uninventive, inaccurate P.O.S. that emphasizes homosexual kissing rather than acceptance and integration, then maybe they should remain alienated. Sorry.
Awesome!!!!
posted on 27 Aug 2009The only movie that has ever made me cry. Tom Hanks was deserving of his Oscar. I'm happy that the academy didn't have any homophobia when voting for Hanks. Denzel as usual was wonderful and really showed his character's evolution from homophobe to caring, sensitive human being. This deserves to make the Top 250!!!!!