उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Although "Philadelphia" debuted decades ago, I only got to finally seeing it today. Why? Well, the film is incredibly depressing and I kept putting it off...and that might explain why you might not have yet seen it as well. It is sad...but also exceptionally well made and worth your time.

Tom Hanks stars as Andrew Beckett, a hot-shot lawyer at one of the top law firms in Philadelphia. Despite having just been made an associate (a reward for excellent service), he suddenly finds himself fired. The firm uses an excuse--blaming a mistake he supposedly made on one recent case. But this would not account for the firing and he appears to have been fired because he's ill...suffering from AIDS. Beckett has a hard time finding a lawyer to take a wrongful termination case for him and he's too sick to do this alone. Eventually, he finds a rather homophobic lawyer (Denzel Washington) to take the case...and the second half of the film is the courtroom battle to bring justice to Andrew.

Unlike many films, this one was filmed sequentially. This was important to do because Tom Hanks starved himself and as the movie progresses, his weight loss and excellent make up made it appear as if he was suffering the progressive effects of the disease. Hanks truly put himself out for this role...and it's among the best things he's ever done. Apart from that, it's a well made film...worth seeing and very touching. It's also fascinating to watch to see how far thinking has come regarding gay people and HIV/AIDS.

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.

A touching movie, which has taken the place of "The Fugitive" (1993) as my favorite movie. Tom Hanks' performance was obviously worthy of his first Oscar for his portrayal of Andrew Beckett, a gay, AIDS-stricken man who was fired from his job for what he believes to be discrimination against his sexual orientation and disease. Denzel Washington, in his portrayal of Joe Miller, the ex-homophobic who decides to help Andrew win his case, is excellent, deserving of a Best Supporting Actor award. This story of AIDS, homophobia and homosexualism is first-rate. I highly recommend this to anybody looking for a great movie.

Philadelphia (1993) was directed by Jonathan Demme. The AIDS epidemic started in the early 1980's, and movies about AIDS started to appear in the mid-1980s. However, to my knowledge, Philadelphia was the first high-budget, mainstream film about AIDS to appear on the screen.

TriStar certainly provided the funds to attract an all-star cast. Tom Hanks portrays brilliant lawyer Andrew Beckett. When Beckett is fired from his high-prestige law firm, no lawyer wants to touch his case for wrongful dismissal. Denzel Washington plays Joe Miller, who agrees to represent Beckett. (Joe is himself uncomfortable with AIDS. However, he knows injustice when he sees it.) Antonio Banderas plays Beckett's loving partner, Miguel Alvarez. Jason Robards is perfectly cast as Charles Wheeler, Beckett's mentor until he becomes Beckett's enemy. All four men are superstars, and it's easy to see why.

The film doesn't just have star power in the leading roles. Great actors like Roberta Maxwell and Joanne Woodward have small supporting roles.

The movie is courageous in facing AIDS directly. In the 1980's and 1990's, people distinguished between "good AIDS" and "bad AIDS." Good AIDS was AIDS that people contracted from blood transfusions. So, the thought was that these people were innocent victims.

Bad AIDS came from (mostly) men having sex with men. In retrospect, we can see the moral error in this good vs. evil judgment. But, at the time, gay sex was considered evil, and many people thought that gay men with AIDS deserved the disease.

How this prejudice played out inside and outside the courtroom represents the plot of the movie. It's very strong and truly heart-wrenching.

We saw this film at the excellent Dryden Theatre at George Eastman Museum in Rochester, NY. It was shown at Rochester's wonderful ImageOut, the LGBT Film Festival. Almost all of the movies shown at ImageOut are new, cutting-edge films. Philadelphia was shown under the heading, "ImageOut of the Archives." The movie was made almost 25 years ago, and it's being shown again to mark that anniversary.

Philadelphia is an important film, and shouldn't be missed. It will work very well on the small screen. Find it and watch it. (Or, as I did, watch it again.)

P.S. Mary Steenburgen has a supporting role as Belinda Conine, the attorney representing Beckett's former law firm. I can't remember when an actor has made so strong an impression in a relatively small role. She's just what you'd expect in this context--brilliant, eloquent, with a heart that has no room for conscience or remorse. She knows that the law firm had dismissed Beckett because he had AIDS. However, that's not going to stop her in the least. It's not even going to slow her down.

Philadelphia is a guttingly emotional and tragic story of how a lawyer fired for having AIDS attempts to vindicate himself in court. Tom Hanks gives perhaps the most powerful performance of his career as Andrew Beckett, the afflicted lawyer. He received the Academy Award in a waltz, and you could almost pick any of his major scenes as worthy of the award.

This movie is probably the best drama regarding gay issues ever made. Remember, it was made in 1993, when AIDS was still a terminal disease, and it recalls the early days of an epidemic that may not square with the vision afforded today, but at the time, this was the reality of AIDS.

The entire crew is A-List. Tak Fujimoto, who would also film Silence of the Lambs and Sixth Sense, directed cinematography. Jonathan Demme, also of Silence of the Lambs fame, directs with typical honesty and grit. Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young contributed hauntingly touching original songs. Even Antonio Banderas, whom I never miss an opportunity to vilify, is moving as Hanks' devoted and supportive partner. Denzel Washington was well cast as the homophobic lawyer who ultimately takes Hanks' case, and Mary Steenburgen is surprising in an uncharacteristic villain role.

Ron Vawter, who played one of the lawyers in the firm from which Hanks was fired, and also appeared in Silence of the Lambs, was himself suffering from AIDS at the time of filming, and he eventually succumbed to it a few years later. His appearance in the film encapsulates the reality of the AIDS epidemic, in that it often touched our lives in unexpected places.

Although I have literally thousands of movies in my collection, I don't own this one. Not because I don't love it. I do. It's because I can't watch it without being overcome by emotion. Anyone who can watch Hanks' in the Opera scene, or hear Springsteen's or Young's eerie and melancholy ballads and not weep is dead inside. But in the end, Philadelphia is about life, and making it matter.

I only saw this film recently after I saw the special edition DVD for sale at only £5.99. I bought it and watched it as soon as i took it home and I thought it was amazing. Jonathan Demme's direction was great too. but the two best things about it was Tom Hanks' performance as the lawyer with aids and Bruce Springsteen's song " Streets of Philadelphia". I always thought that Liam Neeson's performance in Schindler's List was what should've recieved the Oscar in 1993. But when I eventually saw Philadelphia a few weeks ago, I could see why Hanks won. Denzel Washington as the homophobic but supportive lawyer is also great. The three, Hanks, Washington and Demme make a good team. The film is wonderful.

Philadelphia explores some fairly important and interesting themes, and some of the acting on display is outstanding, but for me the film leaves a lot to be desired. I didn't particularly enjoy the pacing of the film, especially leading up to the court battle, which in itself didn't deliver the gasps and tension typically expected of a courtroom drama. Tom Hanks is incredible throughout however and worthy of the Academy Award for best actor, although I maintain his career best performance is saved for Forrest Gump.

Denzel Washington also plays his part magnificently well as Joe Miller, a conflicted father and lawyer who is institutionalised by a homophobic, AIDS fearing culture. His transformation of character gives the story greater depth, although after initially being appalled by the idea, his motives for taking on Andy's (Hanks) case are unclear and mar his compelling arc.

Overall the soundtrack and class acting make Philadelphia worth a watch, but when it comes to courtroom dramas I've certainly seen better.

With Hanks, who is always watchable, and Washington, who has also got a very good track record, this film was destined to be fantastic but not even I, who always has an optimistic view when it comes to movies, was ready for the impact that this film made. Tom Hanks excelled even himself with his performance as an AIDS striken homosexual who is fired from his job simply because of his condition. It is Hanks, by himself, who makes the whole scenario in the film believable. Although this is Hanks's best performance of his career, he is very closely followed by Denzel Washington who gives a perfect performance as the only lawyer who will take on the case although he is a homophobe himself. The emotional strain of the film on the audience is immense and in the later stages of the film it is almost impossible to watch because of that. The make-up which gives the impression that Hanks really does have the terrible disease is perfect and the simple yet striking direction from Jonathan Demme(The Silence Of The Lambs) make this utterly compelling viewing although at times it is very uncomfortable. All praise to everyone in the making of this beautiful film.

Anyone who hasn't seen this film must do as soon as possible.

"Philadelphia" may be the movie that changed Hollywood. For so many years, they portrayed gays as sissies, but this movie forced them to change. Tom Hanks gives the performance of a lifetime as AIDS-afflicted lawyer Andrew Beckett, fired from his law firm after they discover his condition. Equally good is Denzel Washington as homophobic lawyer Joe Miller, who is forced to ignore his own stereotypes in taking Andrew's case. Good support also comes from Jason Robards as Andrew's vicious ex-boss, Joanne Woodward as Andrew's ever-loving mother, and Antonio Banderas as Andrew's companion.

Maybe this is just me, but I think that "Philadelphia" was released at just the right time. Think back to 1993. We had just come out of the Reagan-Bush years and we now had Clinton. Maybe he wasn't openly pro-gay, but he did change the military's policy towards gays. Moreover, Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington are analogous to Paul Newman and Sidney Poitier: the embodiment of the new era under a new president (in Newman's and Poitier's case, it was Kennedy; in fact, those two co-starred in "Paris Blues" the year that Kennedy became president, much like Hanks and Washington were starring in "Philadelphia" the year that Clinton became president). But let's not get sidetracked. This is a great movie, and I recommend it to everyone.

To me, there are two definitions of the word classic, as pertaining to films. The first is a movie with great acting, plot, etc. The second is an idea, or an "important" first that breaks new ground. Philadelphia belongs to the second group, because it portrays AIDS and homosexuality, two things that were not common to films before. It features great acting, and an incredible song score.

It falters, though, for the lack of insight between Hanks' and Banderas' relationship, the suprisingly supportive family Hanks has, and the last minute melodramatic ending.

This is a film that people, especially film buffs, should see, but I doubt one will see it more than once.

Philadelphia is a truly amazing movie and a touching story. Tom Hanks plays a lawyer who has been stricken with a horrible disease. He plays a convincing role as Andrew Beckett, a man who knows the meaning of justice and knows what exactly his rights are. What Mr. Hanks also accomplishes with this role is he breaks free from the stereotypes society has dictated on the average gay man. Andrew Beckett is not feminine in any way, he does not have a flair for shoe shopping or hold his arms limp-wristed or talk with a lisp. For these reasons, it has been said that Tom Hanks was not believable as a gay man. I strongly disagree. Andrew Beckett is a normal man who enjoys smoking cigars and takes joy in the law. Who would think he was gay? This is precisely the point the movie is trying to make. A gay man may be walking among you, every day you may see him at school, may play raquetball with him at the gym, may work late hours with him at the office... but yet you'd never suspect he is gay because he does not wear loafers decorated with tassels and he has a low-pitched voice. Men are men, whether gay or not, and should be treated as such -- gays do not deserve special treatment but they deserve equal treatment. Because in most areas, gay men are just like straight men. I commend Tom Hanks for showing the world that gay men can be just as manly as any other. His Oscar was well-deserved and the movie was amazingly ground-breaking.

There is a moment in the film in which I looked into his character's eyes and believed that Tom Hanks was actually gay. The commitment in his performance is monumental. The film is an episode of "The Practice" and not necessarily one of the best but if I feel inordinately happy I put "Philadelphia" on. It never fails to bring tears to my eyes. I loved Hanks in the part because I believed him so completely. The casting of Joanne Woodward is a stroke of genius. What an extraordinary actress. Her much to brief but perfect, moving, beautiful portrayal adds layers and layers to Hanks's character. We complete our understanding of him because of her. Denzel Washington is great fun to watch and as good as he is I haven't yet warmed up to him. There is something there that confuses me. Convincing in "Training Day" Unconvincing in "The Preacher's Wife" Banderas is lovely even if it was difficult to imagine him in a "Law of Desire" scene with Tom Hanks. I'm sure that a bit more explicitness about their relationship could have lifted this good movie into a great one, but probably wouldn't have made as much money. I'm not sure if I made myself clear, I'm recommending the film. I am, the qualms are all mine. Pay no attention. Hanks at his phenomenal best, Joanne Woodward and Bruce Springsteen. Of course I recommend it.

I am surprised at the praise this movie gets. The characters are all one dimensional. The lawyers at Tom Hanks' firm are all evil bigots, Tom Hanks plays the most brilliant and kind lawyer in the world, his gay friends are kind and supportive, every member of his family is kind and loving and supportive. Denzel Washington starts out as a bigot but is cured by the wonderfulness of Tom Hanks and friends. I could not buy any of these characters as real life people. They were all caricatures.

The movie was totally predictable. A wonderful beloved man man with AIDS sues the evil lawyers. Guess which lawyers present a pathetic, incompetent case. Guess who wins. Guess who dies. Guess who is sad about the death.

The pacing was very slow. The scene where Tom Hanks explains the Maria Callus aria goes on much too long. In the scenes with Tom Hanks giant family, all the family members have to get in their camera time.

Tom Hanks does a great portrayal of a Gay man struggling against bigotry, the effects of AIDS, and the fears of AIDS. It it too bad that character was not placed in a better movie.

This 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.

A movie for tough people because the topic is very serious. It made me cry so much and the actors did a great job playing so authentic, especially Tom Hanks who won his first Oscar for his role in this movie. The soundtrack underlined the tone of the movie perfectly. This movie is worth writing a review about it without a doubt. Philadelphia is a must- see!

This has become something of a classic and with good reason. Hanks and Washington are both spectacular, it's poignant and in many ways still relevant over 25 years later.

The only downside, and unfortunately it was significant to me, is that it's very much a product of its time and I don't think all of the techniques, editing, etc hold up super well. The music especially felt wildly over dramatic at times.

Still, those things don't ruin the movie, they just drag the grade down. Still a really good movie

Philadelphia (1993) was directed by Jonathan Demme. The AIDS epidemic started in the early 1980's, and movies about AIDS started to appear in the mid-1980s. However, to my knowledge, Philadelphia was the first high-budget, mainstream film about AIDS to appear on the screen.

TriStar certainly provided the funds to attract an all-star cast. Tom Hanks portrays brilliant lawyer Andrew Beckett. When Beckett is fired from his high-prestige law firm, no lawyer wants to touch his case for wrongful dismissal. Denzel Washington plays Joe Miller, who agrees to represent Beckett. (Joe is himself uncomfortable with AIDS. However, he knows injustice when he sees it.) Antonio Banderas plays Beckett's loving partner, Miguel Alvarez. Jason Robards is perfectly cast as Charles Wheeler, Beckett's mentor until he becomes Beckett's enemy. All four men are superstars, and it's easy to see why.

The film doesn't just have star power in the leading roles. Great actors like Roberta Maxwell and Joanne Woodward have small supporting roles.

The movie is courageous in facing AIDS directly. In the 1980's and 1990's, people distinguished between "good AIDS" and "bad AIDS." Good AIDS was AIDS that people contracted from blood transfusions. So, the thought was that these people were innocent victims.

Bad AIDS came from (mostly) men having sex with men. In retrospect, we can see the moral error in this good vs. Evil judgment. But, at the time, gay sex was considered evil, and many people thought that gay men with AIDS deserved the disease.

How this prejudice played out inside and outside the courtroom represents the plot of the movie. It's very strong and truly heart-wrenching.

We saw this film at the excellent Dryden Theatre at George Eastman Museum in Rochester, NY. It was shown at Rochester's wonderful ImageOut, the LGBT Film Festival. Almost all of the movies shown at ImageOut are new, cutting-edge films. Philadelphia was shown under the heading, "ImageOut of the Archives." The movie was made almost 25 years ago, and it's being shown again to mark that anniversary.

Philadelphia is an important film, and shouldn't be missed. It will work very well on the small screen. Find it and watch it. (Or, as I did, watch it again.)

P. S. Mary Steenburgen has a supporting role as Belinda Conine, the attorney representing Beckett's former law firm. I can't remember when an actor has made so strong an impression in a relatively small role. She's just what you'd expect in this context--brilliant, eloquent, with a heart that has no room for conscience or remorse. She knows that the law firm had dismissed Beckett because he had AIDS. However, that's not going to stop her in the least. It's not even going to slow her down.

While I was tremendously impressed by PHILADELPHIA when I watched it recently on cable TV, there were some things that bothered me. I thought the courtroom scenes were extremely well done except when it came time for TOM HANKS to take the witness stand. His scenes on the stand, instead of being as dramatic as the other witnesses, merely showed that he was becoming too ill to really give any insight into his character and motivations. Nothing was really revealed about the man himself.

Having said that, the other obvious weaknesses were in the script which was a little too contrived at times. Furthermore, Denzel Washington's willingness to overlook his homophobic attitudes and become a buddy to Hanks was just a little too implausible. Then too, the final hospital scene with all of the family gathered around Hanks was not quite convincing.

But credit must be given to Jonathan Demme's tasteful direction and to the very fine performances given by the large cast. Jason Robards, Jr. is a standout as the executive seeking to have Hanks dismissed. The only actor shortchanged by the script seems to be ANTONIO BANDERAS who is given little to do and does not really seem a plausible partner for the Hanks character. In other words, they have no chemistry together.

As for TOM HANKS, he surely deserved all the awards he received as the lawyer determined to find someone who will fight for his cause. DENZEL WASHINGTON is equally effective in a difficult role, demonstrating once again that he is an actor to watch as he matures with each characterization.

Absorbing all the way through--thoughtful, provocative and guaranteed to stir your interest in its delicate handling of a difficult subject.

This 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.

The 1993 Oscar winning film Philadelphia is a moving film for all. Directed by Jonathan Demme (the same director of Silence of the Lambs) and starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington focuses on the case of Andrew Beckett, an HIV positive gay lawyer at a growing law firm. Upon discovery of his disease and his sexuality Beckett is wrongfully fired from his job despite just receiving a promotion. Andrew takes his case to court for violating the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which protects against employment discrimination with the help of an initially homophobic small town lawyer Joe Miller. Joe initially refused to help Andrew (commonly referred to as Andy), but after witnessing the discrimination that he faces decides to take on the case. Over the course of the film Miller begins to change his homophobic thoughts while Beckett fights to win his court case before he succumbs to the AIDS disease. The movie is high on emotions and sentimental feelings as we not only watch Andrew fight for his rights, but see aspects of their personal lives as well.

The movie, for me, was incredibly well done, although there are some critiques.The movie played a great deal into feelings of either joy or sadness in the viewer instead of showing a wide variety of emotions from the characters. I felt that Andy, as an HIV positive man experiencing extreme discrimination, is very peaceful despite the events occurring around him. I personally would have enjoyed seeing really raw emotions such as anger or frustration in the characters instead of only the ones that tugged at the heartstrings. In addition to this, there is not a lot of romantic involvement between Andrew and his partner Miguel, which was a little disappointing. There was a lot of tender scenes between Joe and his wife, and missing that in the film felt like the movie was trying too hard to appeal to heterosexual audiences despite being a film about a gay man. However, this critique does come with the understanding that in order for Demme to have a successful movie he had to appeal to the broad audience he was aiming to reach, which was the heterosexual community. Despite these minor setbacks to the movie, the plot itself was a real threat to members of the LGBTQ community and does a good job showing what someone with AIDS might have to go through.

In order to achieve the goal of being an emotional movie that hopefully opens the eyes of viewers to the world of AIDS, according to Demme, the film employed many cinematic techniques such as very slow music that swelters to a climax. This happens often during the scenes that took place in court, although there is a scene dedicated completely to Andy's love of opera music. For me this was a very odd scene but it depicted the struggle that Andy was going through and how the music made him feel as if he was not suffering the way that he was. It was a very emotional moment. The movie also used camera lighting and angles to depict important moments, especially between characters. For example, as Joe begins to overcome his homophobia the camera will begin to zoom in on his face while he is talking or looking at Andy. These relatively subtle moments depict the very small yet important changes that happen in Joe as the movie progresses. In terms of race, as Joe is an African American, his race is important from time to time. For example, when Joe is watching Andy in the library as he is being judged by one of the librarians, it is assumed that Joe can relate because African Americans at the time are also being discriminated against Establishing this parallel between Joe and Andy creates a bridge that leads Joe to taking on Andy's case. During this scene, once again the camera zooms in on Andy and Joe's face There is also diversity shown in the African American community. Joe is homophobic but his wife by contrast is very accepting of homosexual people and encourages Joe to change his ways. Joe is then hit on by a black gay man which sends Joe into a small fit of anger, showing that his homophobia is not going away as easily as it was believed. However, the movie as a whole is pretty diverse in racial terms, and does a great job of depicting prejudices between any race.

Overall, Philadelphia is a very moving film that does a good job showing the point that it is trying to portray. Despite minor setbacks such as lack of emotional diversity and predictability, Philadelphia is an interesting insightful movie that is definitely worth watching. The characters are well developed with a strong plot, and is a nice movie for anyone of any race, creed, or sexuality. A must see for all!

God Bless Jonathan Demme. Philadelphia is not your typical courtroom drama. It's an AIDS crisis, early 90's epic. Take whatever conventional wisdom you have about courtroom dramas and throw them out the window, because Demme wasn't interested in them here. It is above and beyond what it ever needed to be for it to work. It's an intimate portrait of so many things. A beloved American city, a man's desperate final journey for justice, a young swashbuckling lawyer's first high-stakes case, a misunderstood community of people and the elite powers that try to crush them. All interwoven to tell a classic American story as only Demme could tell it. For filmgoers who carefully examine cinematic technique, Philadelphia is an entire encyclopedia of the Jonathan Demme style of filmmaking. His style brings this film alive. Close-ups, whip-cuts, flashbacks, POVs as well as tricks with lighting and editing. Demme puts on a clinic in how traditional stories can be enhanced in a gratifying cinematic way. The Opera scene sticks in my mind as the most beautiful and haunting moments of the entire film. For just a few minutes, Andrew Beckett's love of opera sends him into bliss, and so does our film. Everything else good about Philadelphia is just the gravy on top. It's Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington in their prime, and that goes without saying.

This movie had the potential to tell a compelling story, but they did it all wrong.

The movie had good believable acting from Hanks and Denzel Washington, but they completely failed in the way they chose to tell the story. There's just too many courtroom scenes and not enough character development, and that gets very boring and repetitive, very fast. You can't give the movie credit for the story it's TRYING to tell, because as far as I'm concerned, the story it DID tell was not told in an entertaining way, this should've been more character driven.

The two main characters weren't developed enough. For one, the transformation of Denzel's feelings about gay people was not believable, there just wasn't enough shown on screen to make the viewer believe that he would have any reason to change his feelings. The way it was directed, it looked as if that opera scene is what changed Denzel's feelings about Hanks, and that's ridiculous to have someone's lifelong feelings that has been etched into their persona be changed almost because of a single incident (like I said, the way it was directed implied this). They should've shown a gradual change and made it interesting, maybe throw in a scene where Denzel protects Hanks from ridicule or something, I don't know, just show some sort of growing relationship to make the viewer care.