IMDb user comments for
Philadelphia (1993)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 19:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

187 comments in total

---

55 out of 64 people found the following comment useful :-
Philadelphia is about life, and making it matter., 14 February 2004
Author: budmassey (cyberbarrister@gmail.com) from Indianapolis, IN

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.

---

49 out of 63 people found the following comment useful :-
Not a better film in sight, 11 March 2001

Author: cossallpsycho from Nottingham,England

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.

---

55 out of 87 people found the following comment useful :-
Gay Men Are Macho Too, 13 December 1998

Author: Angela K. Dyson (sugar_n_spice0@hotmail.com) from Winnipeg, Manitoba, CANADA

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.

---

24 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :-
Moving and Powerful! Demme shines!, 6 September 2004
Author: pjaldo1 from New Mexico, USA

Jonathan Demme's "Philadelphia" throws us into a world of pain and stark truth that is few and far between in mainstream cinema. The sheer idea that a film would so blatantly take on the difficulty of AIDS and homosexuality, helmed by the director of "Silence of the Lambs", the actor in "Big" and the guy who played Malcom X, is staggering.

AIDS is a reality and homophobia is a nasty truth that permeates our "United" States of America, as well as the rest of the world. At the time that this film was released (about 1993), the U.S. found solace in the idea that AIDS and homosexuality were dirty brothers in a distant family. By placing the film in the "City of Brotherly Love", hiring Bruce Springsteen to sing the title song and having an up-and-coming Tom Hanks star, director Jonathan Demme wisely readied an ignorant America for our first, uninhibited glance into the face of AIDS.

Tom Hanks embodied his role in an Oscar-worthy performance, allowing us to watch as his lovely and lively Andrew Beckett deteriorate before our eyes. Tom Hanks and the writers took to task the difficult and annoyingly controversial hurdle of playing the "gay" character and placing the "straight" audience into that different world. Stereotypes are mostly shied away from in the script with a few "fem" gays and drag queens. These scenes are few, but are also a reality. Many a Christmas party have I attended with the same crowd ("fems" and drag queens) in the mix. The other, mildly annoying, factor in this film is that the writers inform us that squeaky-clean gay Andrew Beckett contracts AIDS at a porn theater from an anonymous stranger, while in a committed relationship. This annoyed me because I wanted a righteous victim, not a impure victim. Yet as time has gone by and I have had the opportunity to work with many a victim of AIDS, whether be it male or female, gay or straight, I have seen that this too is an unfortunate reality. No one is perfect (gay or straight, male or female) and mistakes are often made. Costly mistakes are often made. This was a painful truth, but it is a truth nonetheless. In this, Tom Hanks as Mr. Beckett, brilliantly gave AIDS an honest face for a distant America.

Denzel Washington, on the other hand, allowed America to have a relatable character, one whose shoes we've fit in before. Denzel's views of homosexuality were (and still are) commonplace in the American psyche and his reactions to AIDS were understandable to the average audience. Yet all in all this dramatic film brought a message home.

Demme's directing style is nothing amazing; he tastefully weaves a tale without flashy shots or fancy cuts. At times the film borders on preachy, but, as always, it is Demme's story that grasps the audience, his mood that sets us into the tale, his actors and his direction of them that gives the film honesty. This film is highly recommended if not for the great acting but for lovers of a great story.

---

27 out of 37 people found the following comment useful :-
Hanks gives his best performance ever, 5 October 2005

Author: Lee Eisenberg (eisenberg.lee@gmail.com) from Portland, Oregon, USA

"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.

---

20 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
Wonderful., 10 August 1998
Author: Marc-David Jacobs from Portland, Oregon, United States

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.

---

35 out of 59 people found the following comment useful :-
Carefully Inspiring, 24 January 2005

Author: arichmondfwc from United States

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.

---

9 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Compelling, but over the top, 22 April 2005

Author: scubergmu from Fairfax, Virginia

To me this movie is both a relevant and compelling story, as well as a model of overcompensation. I feel as though Philadelphia was trying desperately to show a touching, human side to the AIDS epidemic, but at the same time overly conscious of the lack of compassion much of middle America has for homosexual victims of AIDS. As a result, our protagonist Andrew Beckett is made to be a virtual superman. I would have had more respect for the film if they'd made him more like you and me. If he had been a bright, successful lawyer with friends, a loving family, and a serious relationship that would have made him someone we could really relate to. Instead, Andrew was a legal phenom, THE rising star, future senior partner, the future leader of the law firm. And in his personal life, he was the most popular person at his firm, beloved by all. More than that, he was the most popular member of his whole family, he was brilliant, affable, going straight to the top, simply AMAZING!!! Doesn't it seem like they tried too hard to get us on his side? To show the human story of AIDS, show us an actual person, not superman. That is problem with Philadelphia.

Having said that, Tom Hanks was fantastic, as usual. Denzel was also rock solid, his character basically representing all of us, the general public, the ones who don't empathize with gays because they either don't know any, or aren't conscious they know any, and fail to appreciate that they are real people and not merely stereotypes. His enlightenment with regards to this is one aspect of the movie I felt they came through on exceptionally.

Philadelphia was an important story to be told, for just like so many other human tragedies, for us the unaffected to be able to see just one example up close and personal, it carries so much more weight than all the news reports and statistics in the world. I hope it had some positive impact in creating compassion among the general public. I just wish the film makers hadn't felt it would be necessary to go to superhuman lengths to give us a character we could feel for.

---

12 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Great, 22 June 2003

Author: LeThAlWeApOn389

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.

---

14 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Powerful and for once me and Oscar agree, 6 January 2004
Author: Tob147258 from Manchester

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

It's hard to say what I think of "Philadelphia". I say to a lot of people that the better a film is, the less there is to say about it. The problem, as this film shows, is that simply that phrase doesn't work. Whilst it's true that for most films, having little to say shows that it's been well made and there is nothing to complain about. With "Philadelphia", it's not accurate as all I want to do is sing the praises of Tom Hanks and Denzil Washington.

In this film, Hanks plays Andrew Beckett, an outstanding lawyer fired after the discovery that he is contaminated with the aids virus. Beckett seeks out Washington's Joe Miller as a lawyer as he progresses to sue the company for wrongful dismissal.

First things first, lets be honest, Jonathan Demme took a huge chance directing a film about such a difficult matter, but fair play to him, he pulled it off. This film is a powerful, moving, eye-opening experience which will leave even the most unemotional person with a tear in their eye at one point or another.

Hanks, Best Actor at the Oscars for this film, is truely magnificant and worthy of his award. Washington too is superb as the homophobic lawyer being taught a thing or two about his beliefs.

Ultimately, I find very little wrong to say about this film. The last five minutes seem almost rushed, and it would have been nice to have seen the Company suffer a bit more, but ultimately, this film is worth it's weight in gold and worthy of all the awards it picked up in it's time. If you haven't seen this film before, and I know for a guy who's just watched it eleven years after it was first released this is hypocracy, but go out and rent it. "Philadelphia" is a gem.

---

---

Page 1 of 19:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history