Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #11637 in DVD
• Released on: 1998-05-26
• Rating: Suitable for 12 years and over
• Number of discs: 1
• Formats: PAL, Widescreen
• Original language: English
• Subtitled in: English, Italian, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Czech
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 120 minutes

Amazon.co.uk Review
Philadelphia wasn't the first movie about AIDS (it followed such worthy independent films as Parting Glances and Longtime Companion), but it was the first Hollywood studio picture to take AIDS as its primary subject. In that sense, Philadelphia is a historically important film. As such, it's worth remembering that director Jonathan Demme (Melvin and Howard, Something Wild, The Silence of the Lambs) wasn't interested in preaching to the converted; he set out to make a film that would connect with a mainstream audience. And he succeeded. Philadelphia was not only a hit, it also won Oscars for Bruce Springsteen's haunting "The Streets of Philadelphia," and for Tom Hanks as the gay lawyer Andrew Beckett who is unjustly fired by his firm because he has AIDS. Denzel Washington is another lawyer (functioning as the mainstream-audience surrogate) who reluctantly takes Beckett's case and learns to overcome his misconceptions about the disease, about those who contract it, and about gay people in general. The combined warmth and humanism of Hanks and Demme were absolutely essential to making this picture a success. The cast also features Jason Robards, Antonio Banderas (as Beckett's lover), Joanne Woodward, and Robert Ridgely, and, of course, those Demme regulars Charles Napier, Tracey Walter and Roger Corman. --Jim Emerson

Special Features
DVD 5
English
Region 2
Dolby Digital English
Dolby Digital

Synopsis
After a solid track record and a much-deserved promotion, Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks), a handsome, upwardly mobile Philadelphia lawyer, loses his high-paying corporate job when he starts developing full-blown AIDS. Though Andrew's firm attributes his dismissal to his supposedly poor performance, he knows otherwise, and he won't accept the firm's discrimination lying down. Andrew will do whatever is necessary to prosecute. But when nine other lawyers refuse to help him, Andrew reluctantly hires Joe Miller (Denzel Washington), a showy, homophobic, ambulance-chasing lawyer whose first reaction to the news that Andrew has AIDS is to rush to the doctor and have himself checked. Despite Joe's fear and dislike of gays, he and Andrew discover they've got quite a bit in common, and they decide they're going to fight to the finish. The result is an emotionally potent drama that doesn't flinch from exposing the long-term effects of the disease on Beckett and his friends and family. Jonathan Demme directs and Bruce Springstein sings the title song, 'Streets of Philadelphia,' part of an Academy Award-winning score.

Customer Reviews

Missed opportunity - wasted talent
Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, a courtroom drama, a major social issue ... what could go wrong?

Well, let's start with the positives. A truly stunning performance from Hanks, and his Oscar was well deserved. It's worth watching the film just for Hanks.

Denzel Washington was ... okay. One of my favourite actors, Washington gave it his best, but the character written for him was rather drab. The energy and passion he was later able to bring to his character in "Crimson Tide" (where again, he was fighting for what he believed was right) simply wasn't possible with this script.

The courtroom "drama" was a serious let-down. Nothing happened! I wasn't expecting (and I wouldn't have wanted) some vital piece of evidence to be rushed in at the last moment, but much was made of "did the law firm know about Hanks's condition" ... and that wasn't proven one way or the other during the trial.

The issue of who knew what within the law firm was very badly handled throughout. Jason Robard's character was clearly VERY impressed by Hanks ... then he fired him! He would NOT have fired Hanks simply on the basis of a misplaced file (which was found in time) ... especially without even letting Hanks have his say ... so he clearly knew about Hanks's condition, and fired him on that basis. So why did we then have Robard's saying to one of the other partners "Did you know about his condition? For heaven's sake! You did!" (or words to that effect) making it appear that Robards and the others DIDN'T actually know?

With no drama in the courtroom and the case just lumbering along, we suddenly just cut to the verdict! No summing up when any lawyer worth his money would have posed the issue of why Hanks had been given a top case if he was rubbish. That issue was lost in the muddy waters of the courtroom despite the fact that the entire case hinged on the premise that the law firm wouldn't have given Hanks a high profile case if, as they claimed, he'd been fairly useless. That was obvious from the outset, and to be expected to believe that the top law firm in Philadelphia wouldn't have worked that one out, and settled out of court, was absolutely ludicrous.

Finally, for a film which was trying to tackle the stereotyping and misrepresentation of homosexuals, why on earth did they show a gay party with lots of guys dressed up in sailors' outfits, and a group singing "Mr. Sandman, bring me a dream; Make him the cutest boy that I've ever seen"? It seemed as though they were using the stereotypical images of homosexuals to make sure we KNEW it was a gay party. A real "own goal" in my opinion!

Overall, a missed opportunity.

Issue driven classic drama
In his first Oscar winning role, Tom Hanks (Big) stars as Andrew Beckett, an upcoming lawyer who is fired from a prestigious law firm. Knowing that he was fired because he has aids, Beckett hires Joe Miller to represent him, and gain justice.

Hanks has been dazzling our screens for over 20 years now and his portrayal of an intelligent man who is suffering from aids has to be one of his finest to date. His role in Big was a challenge and a complete contrast to the type of character he plays in this 1993 drama, and come the end of the film, you will have really associated with Beckett, and will be close to weeping.

Hanks is helped along by an equally impressive performance by Washington (Glory) as Beckett's lawyer, who has his own personal issues to deal with.

The on screen pairing is excellent, and no other two actors could have created such a dramatic relationship and storyline, which was essential to drive the issue of homosexuality to the audience's attention.

Set at a time of gay prejudice, Philadelphia grabs hold of the issue and shows audiences how sexual orientation affects everyone, your colleagues and your friends, and does so in a controversial fashion.

The script is excellent, and the idea of homosexuality being difficult is driven by Hanks, and the effects of aids and being gay are very powerful and dramatic in the context of this film, making Philadelphia a very thought provoking drama.

This film is a true testament to standing up for your beliefs and gaining justice for what you believe in and the context of the situation is exceptionally powerful.

After seeing this film, I was shocked to believe that these issues ever took place in the work place, and other people had such thoughts about sexual orientation.

Bruce Springsteen's Oscar winning "Streets of Philadelphia" truly sets the tone for the film and will gear you up for one of the most controversial and thought provoking films of the 1990's.

9/10

not as powerful as I expected
Hollywood's first big mainstream movie about ramifications of AIDS, anti-gay prejudice, bigotry, and sexual discrimination at workplace is a bold attempt, sometimes intense and thought-provoking experience full of social commentaries, but it falls short of being a true classic at the end.

Let's start with positives: Yeah, central performances are great. There are few films that depend so much on acting as "Philadelphia" does. Hanks is nothing but fabulous, as is Washington, so while both performances are top-notch. To take the advantage of the stardom and artistry of both actors to the hilt, the plot is character-driven. Demme brings well the main characters into focus. He gave them some powerful scenes in which to reveal their innermost feelings, achieving the intended emotional truth. The court scenes are well-made and well-executed. The final scenes are a good mixture of bouyancy and poignancy, and are delicately handled.

But, the film has a lot of credibility problems. It's impossible to believe that Andrew was turned away by several lawyers before finding Joe Miller, a homophobic, store-front ambulance-chaser. It is ridiculous to see that he couldn't find a hotshot lawyer on such a "juicy" case. While Andrew and Joe are fully fleshed out with emotions and motivations, Andy's employers are portrayed as WASPy, homophobic monsters. The script makes them less than one-dimensional, nasty egocentrics in that I had the feeling that two "real" people were assailed by cardboard cutout figures, all played like a necessity of the plot. Furthermore, Andy's family was unbelievably strong and supportive, even during the height of the AIDS scare in the 1980s, when everyone who had the disease was stigmatized, shunned, made redundant, or treated as lepers by the society. Really it was too sugary. Also, some melodramaric excesses, or trademark "Hollywoodized" moments such as the showpiece scene in which Andy interpreting a passionate aria sung was so apparently designed to win Hanks an Oscar.

To sum up, "Philadelphia" is a big, commercial film, elevated by the names of its cast. Albeit little less conventional and devoid of the taste and quality of an independent film, it's well worth a look. (3.4/5.0)