X
- 1993
- PG-13
- 2 h 5 m
- 1993
- PG-13
- 2 h 5 m
Summary Hailed as a landmark film that dazzles with deep emotion and exceptional acting, Philidelphia is the story of two competing lawyers who join forces to sue a prestigious law firm for AIDS discrimination. And as their unlikely friendship develops, their courage overcomes the prejudice and corruption of their powerful adversaries. (Sony Pi...
Directed By: Jonathan Demme
Written By: Ron Nyswaner
- 1993
- PG-13
- 2 h 5 m
- 1993
- PG-13
- 2 h 5 m
Philadelphia
66
7.7
Where to Watch
Summary Hailed as a landmark film that dazzles with deep emotion and exceptional acting, Philidelphia is the story of two competing lawyers who join forces to sue a prestigious law firm for AIDS discrimination. And as their unlikely friendship develops, their courage overcomes the prejudice and corruption of their powerful adversaries. (Sony Pi...
Directed By: Jonathan Demme
Written By: Ron Nyswaner
Where to Watch
Top Cast
Metascore
Generally Favorable
Based on 21 Critic Reviews
66
71% Positive
15 Reviews
15 Reviews
24% Mixed
5 Reviews
5 Reviews
5% Negative
1 Review
1 Review
Metascore
Generally Favorable
Based on 21 Critic Reviews
66
71% Positive
15 Reviews
15 Reviews
24% Mixed
5 Reviews
5 Reviews
5% Negative
1 Review
1 Review
Jonathan Demme's long-awaited Philadelphia is so expertly acted, well-meaning and gutsy that you find yourself constantly pulling for it to be the definitive AIDS movie. [14 Jan 1994, p.13]
And yet Philadelphia is quite a good film, on its own terms. And for moviegoers with an antipathy to AIDS but an enthusiasm for stars like Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington, it may help to broaden understanding of the disease.
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 144 User Ratings
7.7
85% Positive
123 Ratings
123 Ratings
13% Mixed
18 Ratings
18 Ratings
2% Negative
3 Ratings
3 Ratings
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 144 User Ratings
7.7
85% Positive
123 Ratings
123 Ratings
13% Mixed
18 Ratings
18 Ratings
2% Negative
3 Ratings
3 Ratings
As a bisexual man this hit me right in the gut. I couls barely hold myself when the credits rolled.
Report
"Philadelphia" is the story of Andrew Beckett (Hanks), a promising young lawyer at an upscale law firm. When the **** Beckett suddenly contracts AIDS he is fired unfairly fired from his workplace. Beckett then seeks the help of a small time **** lawyer, Joe Miller (Washington), to establish a wrongful dismissal case. Now from initial premise and the fact that I had heard Tom Hanks earned a Best Actor Oscar for his performance, I was expecting a fairly memorable movie. And I got one. Tom Hanks delivers one of his best and most moving performances with his portrayal of Beckett. Probably one of the most dynamic roles I've ever seen Hanks take on. He starts out as such a vibrant young man, yet as the film progresses, Beckett's illness does as well. Consequently, the audience witnesses the decline of a seemingly healthy man to a man who's body has been ravaged by an incurable disease. It's really quite heartbreaking. Tom Hanks worked well for this Oscar. Along side Hanks is Washington, who also gives a fine performance as the conflicted lawyer Miller. Like Beckett, Miller goes through a significant change as well - only his soul changes, not his health. It's really quite interesting to see Washington and Hanks work together on screen, as I've never seen it happen in any other film. The film also features a very well written script and a very nice direction from Jonathon Demme. The ending of this film is really quite something, and. . .yeah, I'll say it - the conclusion of this film was really intense for me to watch. Pretty emotional stuff. Overall I felt that "Philadelphia" is a poignant tale that succeeds in addressing many issues that have often been neglected in our time. I felt that it was filled to the brim with fine performances and palpable pathos. It's a great movie that I won't soon forget. Awesome.
Report
Phildelphia, with its velvety textures and rhythms and heads-up soundtrack, does a good job of at least putting the topic on the mainstream table. And it's dramatically potent as well as historically important. [14 Jan 1994, p.73]
The result is an unorthodox blend of courtroom drama and old-style weepie, and somehow it comes off. [23 Dec 1993]
But Philadelphia turns out to be a scattershot liberal message movie, one that ties itself in knots trying to render its subject matter acceptable to a mass audience.
For all its weaker aspects, it is to be recommended as a denunciation of intolerence made with understanding, compassion, and some humour.
Directed by Jonathan Demme, and starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington, this AIDS courtroom drama is so pumped full of nitrous oxide, you could get your teeth drilled on it.
Not sure how this film is rated so low. At the time this movie came out, AIDs had more mystery wrapped around it than Watergate did. Not only was this movie timely but gave dramatic dialog and was held together by a great cast at the apex of their careers. Now a days, heavy dialog movies don't play very well with audiences, but this is a classic.
Report
After catching flack for his portrayal of transsexuals in The Silence of the Lambs (still my favorite film), director Jonathan Demme returned two years later with Philadelphia. An urgent and deeply important film about raising awareness to individuals suffering from AIDS and pulling back the stigma surrounding the illness, Philadelphia is an often powerful film for this very reason. Yet, make no mistake, this film is hardly a full-throated endorsement of **** rights by Demme. Rather, it is a step. It is a step towards acceptance of the lifestyle, as the film essentially argues that it is not unnatural to be ****, nor is it something to be looked down upon. **** are people like anybody else and deserve to be treated as such, even if you do not approve of their lifestyle. As of 2016, we have obviously come much further with **** rights, but for 1993, Philadelphia was practically a revelation. In spite of its previous timeliness, however, Philadelphia is a largely predictable and typical courtroom drama that rides on great acting to really accomplish anything whatsoever.
As with all courtroom dramas, Philadelphia's conclusion is clear from the beginning. If you do not know that Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) will win the case, then you have never seen a courtroom film before. As such, reaching the conclusion is inherently tedious when rarely (if ever?) has a courtroom film ended up by reversing the cliche. The protagonists win and the antagonists lose. End story. Thus, while the film spends a lot of time in the courtroom, this only hurts the end product. The drama is outside of the court, not inside of it and, often, Demme loses sight of this in the film. After a certain point, he just settles into showing us testimony and the prejudiced beliefs of those around him in the office and that was why he was fired. While it was a wrongful termination, the film scores no dramatic points for this.
Also hindering the film is the opening. Slow and meandering, the film really never hits its emotional stride until after Andrew meets with Joe Miller (Denzel Washington). In the opening, Hanks' acting is spotty at best and the film is largely just an introduction to his illness and his life as a whole. While these moments are effectively told, they are simply never that intriguing, as it is merely the foundation of the case which, again, is never that interesting.
However, once that meeting between Andrew and Joe does happen, Philadelphia hits its stride quite solidly. Here, we find Andrew - a **** man suffering from AIDS - opening up the worldview of his lawyer, Joe Miller. Deeply **** and bigoted, Joe has a violent hatred for **** and finds their lifestyle deeply disgusting. Once he meets Andrew, however, his world begins to change and he sees **** completely differently. In many ways, Joe is intended to mirror the audience in 1993 who, entering the film with extreme prejudice, wind up leaving with an understanding and compassion for **** worldwide. While they may not fully accept them yet, there is no longer that hatred, which is an important hurdle to cross. To be clear, Joe does not like **** or understand them by the end of the film, but he is more accepting of their lifestyle and no longer carries the weight of hatred he once held.
Denzel Washington brings Joe to life brilliantly, from the man filled with vile hatred to the man who learns compassion from his encounters with Andrew. Meanwhile, Hanks brilliant as Andrew Beckett. Though initially spotty, once the disease begins ravishing Andrew, Hanks really begins to shine. He compassionately brings to light the suffering experienced by AIDS patients and does a terrific job capturing this pain and torment. This is where Demme's film is so truly important, as it humanizes the suffering and does not make it appear other. It shows the suffering of AIDS patients to be no different than anybody else's suffering. They may be ****, but that is okay and it is not a reason for them to suffer, which was previously a belief held by many. The film does not spare us the gory details of the toll AIDS has on the body and, for this, it makes it far more intimate and hits close to home for everybody in the audience.
Philadelphia is a slight and cliche film about an important topic, which is really unfortunate. Though Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks are terrific in the film, Philadelphia never diverts from courtroom drama cliches enough to really breathe life into the film. Yet, what does breathe some life into the film is Demme's sensitive handling of a very timely and vitally crucial issue: the AIDS epidemic. Bringing to light the suffering of those with AIDS, Philadelphia manages to play an important role in raising awareness to the issue of **** rights in America.
Report
Philadelphia will always hold a place in cinematic history, as it is the first major film to really address the discrimination against Aids and ****. It also was the beginning of Tom Hanks amazing run of Academy nominated film, that may never be duplicated. The message of the film comes across loud and clear, but not quite in the way that the film's producers intended. Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) was a top attorney with one of Philadelphia's top law firms, when all of a sudden he's fired. Beckett believes he was set up and fired because he has Aids, but can he prove it in court? As the film goes, it is easy to see the discrimination and stereotypes that Beckett has to face on a daily basis, and weather or not you accept ****, it's powerful ending will make you feel for the plight of any **** who suffers from this horrible disease. The majority of this film takes place in the courtroom and centers around Beckett's case against his former employer, and as someone who has studied the law, I can tell you that the case destroyed the merits of this film. There are things that both sides do, that would never be allowed in a court of law, and in my opinion neither side really makes it's case. As far as the legal aspect of this trial goes, it is very subjective and would never lead to the verdict that was handed down. As for the stars of this film, they are the ones that make it as powerful as it was. Hanks gives a performance that was absolutely worthy of the best actor award, as following him and his story is really what gave the film it's reputation. Quite ingeniously, Hanks is paired with Denzel Washington, who plays his attorney. Washington's character is meant to represent how much of the audience felt at that time, as even while representing Beckett, he speaks out about Aids and ****. The more he works to represent Beckett, the more you can see his attitude change, the same way the audiences attitudes change as the film moves alone. I loved Philadelphia for it's performances and it's message, but as far as the story goes, the trial is the majority of the film, and the trial is completely unbelievable. In my opinion the trial takes away much of the film credibility. The issue and the case should have been more clear cut and the legality of it all should have been easier for the audience to understand. That being said, if you choose to watch this film, you will be hard pressed to find better performances by a better cast, but the story will leave you feeling somewhat incomplete.
Report
Successful Lawyer contracts AIDS, his company then fire him for other reasons but an unfair dismissal claim brings out the truth.
Well, I was a little disappointed with the film in general. Thought it should have had more background on Beckett so you got to know the character better. Instead it rushed along then straight to the old tearjerker ending, complete with video footage as a kid, etc.
Denzel Washington stood out however with a great performance as Joe Miller.
I agree with the people who says that Hanks' character was "underwritten & incomplete".
Report
Un film à procès procédurier qui défend une "grande cause" et dénonce les injustices et discriminations comme on peut en voir de temps à autre dans le cinéma américain. C'est donc long, lent et avec pas mal de guimauve même si je trouve qu'ils auraient pu faire mieux en la matière (c'est-à-dire encore plus de guimauve, car on reste sur sa faim).
Evidemment, le film s'abîme rapidement dans la caricature à l'insu de son plein gré, puis c'est un défilé de clichés et de fausse dignité auxquels les acteurs participent plus qu'ils ne devraient, accentuant encore le côté superficiel de ces chevaliers servants de la justice sociale qui rétabliront l'ordre et les mentalités à coups de millions de dollars d'indemnités.
Pourtant, le dossier reste bancal et ambigü et le film se prend les pieds dans le tapis avec l'avocat nettement **** qui s'en va défendre **** atteint du SIDA... malgré son **** sévèrement ancrée. Oui, on nous prend vraiment pour des jambons dans ce film et on ne s'en cache même pas.
Tom Hanks est comme de coutume excellent mais sombre dans la surenchère alors que Denzel Washington, peu convaincant comme à son habitude, est pris dans les contradictions de son personnage invraisemblable qui n'a pas même l'appât du gain et/ou de l'éclairage médiatique pour excuses.
Voilà donc un film moralisateur à la petite semaine, au mieux abrutissant et au pire tout simplement ridicule.
Report
Production Company
TriStar Pictures,
Clinica Estetico
Release Date Dec 23, 1993
Duration 2 h 5 m
Rating PG-13
Genres
Tagline No one would take on his case... until one man was willing to take on the system.
Awards
Academy Awards, USA
• 2 Wins & 5 Nominations
Golden Globes, USA
• 2 Wins & 3 Nominations
Awards Circuit Community Awards
• 5 Wins & 7 Nominations
