Philadelphia

Rating:
Summary: Sentimental, Tedious and Self-Righteous
Review: Tom Hanks is Andrew Beckett, a hotshot young lawyer with a prestigious Philadelphia firm. Denzel Washington is Joe Miller, a rather less respectable young lawyer and something of an ambulance-chaser. But it is to Miller that Beckett desperately turns when he is fired by his employers ostensibly over some small incident involving a mislaid document, really because he has developed AIDs. Trouble is Miller is straight and something of a homophobe. However he does eventually take the case and the film thereafter is largely about his slow shedding of his prejudices about homosexuality and AIDs, prejudices the film's makers doubtless expect a mainstream audience in great measure to share.

I watched it because I do love a good courtroom drama. Sad to say, it is a courtroom drama, but not a good one. It has a simple enough message. Homosexuals are people too and people who hate them are silly. And AIDs is a tragic disease whose sufferers deserves compassion and support not fear, exclusion and avoidance. This is of course a good message. And it's about the first time a mainstream big-budget, bit-star Hollywood movie took the topic on. Which is a good thing too. Good though these things are, the film is really pretty terrible, largely because it is just completely up its own arse with its own goodness. Because Demme, admirably enough, isn't aiming just to preach to the liberal converted, he doesn't take any risks by being subtle. The result is repellently cloying is its sentimentality and a repellent self-righteousness that ultimately patronizes rather than challenging its audience.

A good courtroom drama winds up pretty swiftly after the verdict. Not here: fifteen long minutes remain of Beckett protractedly dying. Determined to lay the thing on with a trowel, Demme even treats us to an interminable closing section of old home video footage of Beckett as a lovely cute little boy. And that sort of appalling aesthetic ham-fistedness sums the movie up. In particular an over-the-top and misguidedly over-extended scene towards the end where a near-death Beckett talks Miller through his favourite aria is surely a contender for one of the most embarrassing to watch scenes in the history of film. I can imagine someone insisting that this clumsy overdoing of everything in sight is justified when the cause is noble enough. I think not. If in any doubt, just look again, say, at Zoltan Korda's heartbreakingly good 1951 film version of 'Cry the Beloved Country' (the one with Poitier in the lead) with all its magnificently intelligent restraint, and compare it with this awful tosh. Or compare the predictable and boring moral journey Miller makes here with the far more interesting moral trajectory of Rod Steiger's character in 'In the Heat of the Night'. Either way, I think, you'll see what I mean.

Rating:
Summary: No extras and courtroom tempo is low
Review: This movie brings forth the social issues that our society deals with everyday. The highlight of this movie isn't the courtroom drama, as I initially thought. Instead, the strengths are the emotions that the characters portray. This movie doesn't merely deal with the discrimination against the AIDS virus and homosexuality. It deals with bias and segregation in a broad landscape. Andy Bennett (Tom Hanks) was fired from his job mainly because of his sexual preference. He was defended by Joe Miller (Denzel Washington). Hanks and Washington are powerhouse actors and they work well together. I particularly didn't like the female defense lawyer for Wheeler and Co. She somehow didn't "fit," or maybe her acting was just not convincing enough for me. I thought this movie would have some dramatic courtroom scenes, like those from "Rules of Engagement" and "A Few Good Men." But I was a little dissappointed. The DVD does not pack any extra whatsoever. Despite, these limitation, this movie is enjoyable to watch due to the great acting of Hanks and Washington.

Rating:
Summary: One of Hanks' best performances
Review: I'm not going to lie to y'all -- this movie is really difficult to watch. It portrays a once vibrant, young lawyer fight his battle with both AIDS and discrimination. But, it is a must-see, especially for those who possess fear of AIDS and homosexuality. It's in your face, but you could possibly learn something the hard way.

Tom Hanks is one of my favorite actors, but I believe that this is his stand out performance. His portrayal of Andy Beckett is out of this world. Denzel Washington also really rises to the occassion.

I highly recommend this movie to EVERYONE and I think it should be shown at schools, workplaces, etc. We could ALL learn a lesson from it.

The only reason that I gave it four stars instead of five is *because* it's so hard to watch. The lawyer for the defendant will INFURIATE you. (And that's only a start)

For you fellow Indigo Girls fans out there: listen for the Girls' amazing cover of "I Don't Wanna Talk About It" early on in the film. ;)

Rating:
Summary: Important social commentary
Review: Based on a real-life case, director Jonathan Demme ("The Silence of the Lambs") sets out in "Philadelphia" to recount the struggle of one AIDS-infected man seeking judicial redress after he is fired from his job, he believes because of his sexual orientation and terminal illness. Though it certainly wasn't the first film to deal with AIDS, "Philadelphia" was the first major studio to take on the subject with an A-list cast. As attorney Andrew Beckett seeking to challenge his job termination in court, Tom Hanks, of course, won the first of his two back-to-back Oscars ("Forrest Gump" followed a year later), and has solid support by Denzel Washington as the reluctant fellow attorney who pleads Beckett's case; Jason Robards, in the dispassionate role of the law partner who orchestrates Beckett's dismissal; Antonio Banderas as Beckett's lover; and Joanne Woodward as Beckett's supportive mother. On that count, the film may be somewhat idealistic in that, tragically, not all gay and AIDS-infected men have the support of their families. But the film does provide important social commentary on institutional prejudice and case law as it applies to the person with AIDS. Sadly, while the film ends with some measure of justice for Beckett, his real-life counterpart was not successful in winning his case against the employer who fired him. The film garnered a second Oscar, that one for Bruce Springsteen's powerful "Streets of Philadelphia." In sum, "Philadelphia" is a relevant social film that speaks to our individual and collective conscience.

Rating:
Summary: The confilcting issue of AIDS in our society
Review: Philadelphia, 1993, 125 minutes, directed by Jonathan Demme. Actors and Actresses include; Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Antonio Banderas, Roberta Maxwell, Buzz Kilman, Karen Finley, Daniel Chapman, Mark Sorensen, Jr., Jeffrey Williamson, Charles Glenn (1), Ron Vawter, Anna Deavere Smith, Stephanie Roth, Mary Steenburgen, Lisa Talerico, Joanne Woodward, Jason Robards and more.

The film takes place in 1973 in Philadelphia, PA, the city of brotherly love. The theme of the film consists of a man with AIDS fighting for his right to work although he is disabled with debilitating disease.

The plot of the film involves a man with AIDS being terminated from his position as Senior Associate with a prestigious law firm in the city of Philadelphia. Shortly after he is promoted to Senior Associate of the law firm and given the most important case the law firm has ever received, he is terminated from his employment with the law firm. The genre of the film is a drama.

I would give this film four star. I believe the film deserves four stars because of the truth of the AIDS disease it brought forward to our society. This was a very empowering film. Although at the time of its release, AIDS was though of a disease you could contract by just touching a person with AIDS, this film opened up the eyes of our society by showing that AIDS is a disease just like Cancer and Heart Disease.

Rating:
Summary: Nice try, but no cigar.
Review: 'Philadelphia' was Hollywood's first major story on the AIDS issue. It gave a nice try, but still no cigar. What bothered me were the courtroom sequences, which seem ridiculously unrealistic. Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington give stellar performances though.

Rating:
Summary: Human Beings
Review: The movie Philadelphia, by Johnathan Demme, displays the struggle a homosexual man infected with AIDS encounters in obtaining justice because he was unfairly fired from his job. Andy Beckett, played by Tom Hanks, seeks a lawyer to defend his case. Joe Miller, played by Denzel Washington, is the lawyer who defends Andy Beckett. Miller is a character who the viewers can relate to because he is homophobic and has a great fear about AIDS. The disease was not well known in the early nineties when the film was made, and Miller expressed the same fears of the public. Joe Miller learned how to put his personal feelings aside and defend the law. Although he does not agree with homosexuality and has a fear of the AIDS virus, Miller learned to look past those emotions and defend a homosexual man with AIDS to ensure that the law was upheld through justice. Philadelphia is an excellent movie because the viewers can relate to the characters and learn from their experiences with homosexuality and AIDS.

Joe Miller is a public defense lawyer who takes pride in his work. He is up for any challenge and rarely refuses to defend a client. Andy Beckett walks into Miller's office one day, seeking a lawyer. Miller is startled by Beckett's appearance because he looks ill and has a few lesions on his face. They shake hands, but Miller is extremely cautious about everything Andy touches. Andy Beckett introduces himself and explains to Miller that his employer fired him because he lost a serious document. Beckett wants to sue the corporation because he believes that he was fired out of prejudice. Miller asks what the prejudice is, and Andy says that the prejudice was against AIDS. Miller is afraid of the AIDS virus and does not wish to defend Andy. Andy is disturbed by Miller's refusal, but kindly departs the office.

The doctor Miller saw directly after the meeting with Andy Beckett attempted to assure Miller that AIDS cannot be contracted through a hand shake or touch, it is only contracted through sexual encounters. Miller is still disturbed by the thought of AIDS, though, because he has a family to worry about. The fear of this disease, however, did not stop Miller from thinking about Andy. Miller is dedicated to the law and does not like to see unjust acts, but he did not know how to overcome his fear of Andy's virus. He tried to convince himself that he denied Andy because he did not agree with homosexuality, but the truth is that he could not face his fear. Many citizens of the United States had the same fear of AIDS in the late eighties and early nineties due to the rising number of outbreaks. Scientists and doctors could not figure out a cure for this and people panicked. The majority of outbreaks occurred in homosexual couples and people referred to the disease as the "gay plague" or "gay cancer". Thus, hatred formed against homosexual people. Miller displays this hatred in the movie.

One day Miller is in the library reviewing material. He sees Andy a few tables over. A clerk is asking Andy if he would like to go to a private room after he brings him novels about AIDS. Andy does not want to go to a private room and a small argument arises. Miller walks over to Andy and starts talking to him. The clerk leaves and a few people around him move to other tables. Miller could not let his fear hold him back any longer. He helps Andy research and decides to defend him in court. A man's legal rights are more important than his personal situation. Miller puts aside the fact that Andy is homosexual, and learns to focus on his rights rather than his AIDS.

As Miller grows close to Andy, he learns more about himself. Throughout the case Andy becomes more and more ill. Instead of being afraid of Andy as he was in the beginning, Miller is compassionate for him and the illness with which he struggles. Miller is not cautious about touching Andy or being around his homosexual friends. He learns to accept Andy for who he is and respect him as a human being. Miller sets an example for society to follow. The public needs to stop blaming homosexuals for the AIDS virus and learn about the disease. Homosexual people also need to be treated as every other human being and society needs to learn how to accept them. Miller proves that these acts can be accomplished in this movie.

Philadelphia is a strong movie because it demonstrates two serious issues that citizens of the United States face. Homosexuality and AIDS arose abruptly and many people panicked out of fear of the unknown. The easy way out was to hate homosexuals because they were believed to be the cause of this disease as Miller did in the movie. People merely needed to educate themselves on AIDS and get to know homosexuals. They would discover that homosexuals are human beings just like everyone else and that the AIDS virus cannot be contracted through touch. Joe Miller set an example for Americans to follow in the movie Philadelphia.

Rating:
Summary: Very Dramatic
Review: This movie is indeed very touching. It really brings the AIDS crisis to life and raises many questions. Hopefully one day we will have some more answers. Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington are superb in their roles. It is very interesting to watch as Washington becomes more accepting of the lifestyle of homosexuals and the advent of the crisis of AIDS. What is also a nice in this film is the support Andrew Beckett(Tom Hanks) feels from his family regarding his discrimination battle. There needs to be more positive movies showing family support today.

The music of Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young fit in perfectly with the scenes of the film. People often overlook Neil Young's song and normally I do not like Mr. Young's music. However, this song is truly on a par with Springsteen Award Winning song as it amplifies the mood of Andrew Becket's fuenral perfectly.

Overall, this is one memorable movie from the 1990's and it can be appreciated by almost anyone.

Rating:
Summary: Hear Springsteen's and Neil Young's songs, then press STOP
Review: "Philadelphia" is Hollywood's pathetic, hygienic attempt to deal with the maelstrom of controversy surrounding AIDS. It just doesn't want to offend anyone. (Even the Talking Heads's song "Heaven," heard in one scene, has its "heaven is a place where nothing ever happens" lyric rendered not so offensive.) The performances of Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington are noteworthy, but the film refuses to fully explore how AIDS can lay waste to a person's body, mind, and relationships. Does our main character's family and friends struggle with an admixture of hatred, disgust, pity, and sorrow for their infected son? Of course not! That would be too real for the suburban megaplex crowd and for the gay community. No, in "Philadelphia," the AIDS victim's family and friends are supportive until the end. Who's the bad guy? Well, it's our hero's employer, whose somewhat understandable fears of a ravaging syndrome (which was not fully understood in 1993) being introuduced in the workplace are portrayed as malicious. The subject of AIDS is a powderkeg, but in "Philadelphia," it seems about as controversial as cancer.

Rating:
Summary: Good movie, too preachy in areas
Review: I finally got around to renting a copy of "Philadelphia". Honestly, I was bored and nothing seemed interesting in the video store at the time. I paid my money, took it home, popped it in, and watched for two hours. The plot is inherently well-known so I won't rehash it here. However, I do find the film to take their viewpoint in treating homosexuals as regular people to almost bashing you over the head extreme. I'm no longer a subscriber to any faith. I'm skeptical of all religions, but I still maintain a study to better understand people and show respect where I can. I respect the fact that one's personal preference in bedroom activites should not be included in workplace policy, or any other public discourse, unless mutually agreed upon. I tend to keep it behind the bedroom door. Whatever two consenting adults do is none of my business. However, if a religion states in it's holy book that the deity who inspired said holy book isn't pleased with same-sex relations, that is their belief and I respect it. Does that mean that religious people should be blindly labeled as "Homophobes"? No, only if they engage in the typical intolerance and prejudice shown to various ethnic groups the world over and apply that to actions consenting adults engage in, in the privacy of their bedroom. I've known and have worked with homosexuals in various jobs and also studied with in course during my college days, and I actually found a few to be more enjoyable and a breath of fresh air compared to some heterosexual people. I don't consider myself to be "Enlightened" (I have no time for people who claim to be anyways), but I eventually came to my current outlook in life long before I saw Philadelphia. I enjoyed the film for it's themes in removing intolerance, but the film just was a tad too preachy at times. Do I recommend it, yes, but I do know some won't change in their views no matter how foolish.