Philadelphia
|
List Price: Our Price: $0.50 You Save: $9.45 (95%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: VHS Video See more movie releases |
|---|
Buy this VHS video movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
VHS Movie Reviews of Philadelphia
Movie Review: awesome
Summary: 5 Stars
love this movie. it was awesome, it moved me. great acting, just awesome. it def. shows how awful AIDS is.
must see movie
Movie Review: "What do you love about the law Andrew?"
Summary: 5 Stars
If you are reading this review, you may have one of these 3 questions:
1) Are the extras on this DVD worthwhile? Yes, the documentaries not only remind us of the cultural mindsets that were dominant in the 1980s, but they also remind us of the sea change force this movie had on U.S. culture. The two main documentaries are exceptional and Springstein's video reminds us why we listen intently to whatever Springstein has to say.
2) Was Tom Hanks' performance worthy of the Oscar? Watch the movie and decide for yourself. Tom Hanks' understanding of pathos is lightning in a bottle. It is uniquely gifted. From the scenes talking to his mother on the phone, to defending his gay lover who's being threatened to be expelled from his hospital room, to his efforts to seek some basic human recognition (or call it justice) as his body is rapidly dying.
3) Is the movie worth watching again or for the first time? Yes, it is a well crafted movie. Jonathan Demme's direction is superb, coming off his Best Director Oscar for Silence of the Lambs, he chose this project and he is in full form. The movie moves quickly, with the pace of a thriller. The story had universal morals that, before this film's release, had not been so well presented to such a mass audience. Watching the acting performances gives a remarkable master class in understanding vocal demeanors, non-verbal cues, and concise word selection.
The title of this review is a question asked to Tom Hanks' character as he is on the witness stand, defending himself while he knows he likely only has a few days left to live. His response to the question is this:
"I . . . many things . . . uh, what I love most about the law? . . . Is that every now and again, not often . . . but occasionally you get to be a part of justice being done. That really is quite a thrill when that happens."
This movie was also a part of justice being done. It effectively helped change popular perceptions about AIDS & homosexuality. It did more good than 100 winning court cases. It disarmed so much stupid discrimination.
Before this movie, as is quoted in the film, the following was true: "Subsequent decisions have held that AIDS is protected as a handicap under the law, not only because of the physical limitations it imposes, but because the prejudice surrounding AIDS exacts a social death which precedes . . . which precedes the actual physical one."
After this movie, social perceptions about AIDS and the treatment of people with AIDS greatly improved, due in part to the artfulness and clarity of ideas beautifully expressed in this film.
What do I love about the arts? They have the ability to make practical, widespread cultural perceptual changes, changes that are more quickly and effectively enabled when the arts are allowed to be expressive and prominent.
Movie Review: Philadelphia
Summary: 5 Stars
Philadelphia is the best acting Tom Hanks has ever done. The movie shows how a struggle with AIDS cannot only kill but change someone's perspective. Movie Review: Philadelphia
Summary: 2 Stars
Denzel Washington is probably my favorite actor. Even in that dog of a movie called THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, he shone. Tom Hanks? Well, lemme quit hating the guy. This is a well-intentioned movie, Tom did a creditable job, and we had extreme close-ups with funny colors to camouflage the spots where he overreached. I was also pleasantly surprised to see Antonio Banderas fly in the face of his Latino studliness by playing a gay guy. A passionate one, though, since he's still a Latino, after all.
Actually, this is a Hollywood "message movie," and you know what that means. It's about as subtle as Michael Moore. Those who agree with the message flock to be beaten about the head by it for two hours. Those who the filmmakers would like to see the movie, those who don't agree with the message, stay as far away from it as possible.
There's a scene in the library where nobody wants to sit at the table with AIDS boy. The way they stared at him reminded me of "lao wei in China" experiences. Denzel's character was reminded of segregation, even though he's too young to remember it, and started to care about Tom Hanks' character.
AIDS discrimination is bad. Actually, any discrimination at all is bad. And that's the movie's message. I agree with the message, but still. That's all we've got.
As a totally irrelevant non-sequiter, if the name "Sam Francisco" means anything to you, you've seen subtle commentary on discrimination.
I love a great courtroom drama. This one was merely good. With so much of an agenda to squeeze into a two-hour film, they had to take a few shortcuts here. Sad, ain't it? But even so, a well-intentioned film that I'm glad I saw. Once. Not twice. Once is enough, thank you.
Movie Review: Certain times I like it, others I don't
Summary: 4 Stars
How do you separate a socially important film from a great film? Sure this film tackled the AIDS/homosexuality issue head-on but that doesn't automatically make it a great film. I'm not knocking this film, of course not. But there's a lot of parts in it that I didn't like which maybe made it appear to be a lesser film than what it wants to be, it is or what everyone makes it out to be.
Andrew Beckett works for a prestigious law firm working on a big account. His health declines a little bit nothing overly serious until he's fired for apparently botching the case. Turns out not only is he a homosexual but he has AIDS so he figures that's why he was fired. He needs representation so he hires Joe Miller, a top and famous attorney who is, rather bluntly, very intolerant of gays. So they form an unlikely duo to battle a top firm while dealing with gay bashers to closet gays.
One small nitpick: it seemed like anyone that is in Andy's family or friends circle is against him. There was not a lot of normal everyman citizens who supported him. A similar problem in Brokeback Mountain where any scene with the 2 men was gorgeously shot while them with their wives looked rather bland and desolate looking, complete with sad looking wives. It's nothing that derails the film though. And I don't know why but I never liked Jonathan Demme's trademark of looking in the camera. It works for Silence of the Lambs but here it looks...weird, and maybe a bit too on the nose.
Now Tom Hanks did win the award for Best Actor but honestly it should've went to Denzel Washington who manages to be visibly struggling with his less-than-enthusiastic view on gays and the changing perspectives dealing with the case. Hanks, in a way, reminds me of Charlize Theron who put on ugly makeup for Monster. Losing a crapload of weight does not automatically give you an Oscar. No knock against Hanks but it seems funny it went to him instead of Washington.
Is it a watchable film? Of course, it's quite good and performances are excellent. I don't know whether you should blind buy it though, that's up to you.