Conference bookie::movies

    What is it about ?
    Maybe you can give a short overview as a spoiler ?
    A.

> What is it about ?

	I haven't seen it, but from all the press I've seen on it,
	the film is about Tom Hanks character who is a lawyer who
	is apparently fired from the law firm because they discover
	he has AIDS and is gay.  The character then sues the law
	firm ....

    Yes, that what it's about.  Tom Hanks lost 30lbs for this role and
    looked convincingly ill.

    Dp

    I enjoyed the movie myself.  If your looking for a pick-me-up type of
    flick this is not it, very moving and sad.  ***/****
    
    			Bart

    On the whole an excellent film. First-rate performances by Washington
    and Hanks. Very good supporting cast.
    
    The "opera" scene is an absolute heart-breaker!
    
    One nit after the spoiler warning...
    
    <SPOILER>
    
    
    
    I had a hard time figuring out the Denzel Washington character. In
    one scene he'll be blasting gays and then in the next he'll be
    supporting them. I couldn't figure out where he came down on the
    issue of gay prejudice. There didn't seem to be any kind of a
    "transformation" in the character's feelings. 
    
    Perhaps that just represented the ambivalence he felt. He came to
    like Hanks and feel for his suffering but still really didn't "like"
    gays in general. Am I missing something?
    
    -- Bill

    Well, someone has to voice the first negative opinion, so it might as
    well be me. I thought this was a very flawed flick: implausible scenes,
    underdeveloped characters, bad staging and bad timing. I blame the
    director, Jonathan Demme, entirely.  If you're looking for a
    tear-jerker, this may jerk you to tears at one point, but even that was
    so transparently manipulative, I was annoyed. 
    
    If movies are like paintings, this one should be advertised at a swap meet
    as "sofa-sized".

    Re: .-1

    Your "nit" is not a nit in my opinion, of course. It fits well in this
    poorly constructed effort.

    John
    

    Could you expand upon the "implausible scenes, underdeveloped
    characters, bad staging and bad timing" you refer to?
    
    I thought the film was very well constructed and directed.
    
    -- Bill

    Expand how? Examples?
    
    <SPOILER>
    
    An example of an implausible scene and bad staging might be: Judge
    calls Denzel to the bench, an action intended to permit judge and
    attorney to talk privately without the jury hearing. Denzel can't even
    get to the bench because there's a railing blocking his way, then turns
    his back on the judge to deliver a speech that belonged in the
    end-of-trial summation. No one objects.

    Of course, the whole basic premise is implausible, that Tom can't find
    a lawyer to take the case and has to depend on a sudden wave of
    sympathy, washing over the homophobic, ambulance-chasing Denzel.

    Your own "nit" reveals the lack of adequate character development. You
    didn't miss anything. There wasn't anything there to miss. There is
    nothing that explains how Denzel turns from hating homosexuals to
    hugging them. He just does. 
    
    Even Tom, doing a marvelous job I admit, is really playing a stock
    Hollywood character "the noble dying person". He's not fully realized,
    but just an object to elicit our sympathy and make our eyes moisten.
    
    Antonio just gets to play "intense concern".

    Other weirdness:
    
    Tom, madonna-like with child, encircled by his family, all practically
    glowing with love and adoration. 

    The parade saying good-night in the hospital. Did everyone in the film
    have to be there? What was the point of all these relatives? Were they
    the diretor's own underemployed family?

    The old movies of Tom as a child. What were they for? Director during
    edit: "Oops, we forgot to make Tom's character a real human being.
    Drat, he's dead now! Quick, throw in some old movies so the audience
    can pretend he had a childhood." 

    Tom, with his back to the camera, getting kissed by Antonio. What, the
    director was afraid to show two men kissing? Tom, the consummate actor,
    refused to do it?

    Sorry, I thought the opera scene was silly and went on too long. This
    was a point at which the two characters could have had a really
    cathartic conversation, but apparently the writer wasn't up to it.
    Substitute opera. At least it sounds dramatic and emotional. (Did you
    figure out why Denzel left, then turned around to go back, then turned
    around and left again? I didn't.)

    I also thought they dragged out the stagy collapsing scene in the
    courtroom and that the aforementioned, inexplicable home movies would
    never end.

    There was also a generally strange use of close-ups. Admittedly, Tom's
    face is very expressive and it was always a pleasure to have the camera
    focus on him, but in the opera scene, for example, the camera kept
    giving us close-ups of Denzel's perfectly inscrutable face. Why bother?
    Also, Antonio's "intense concern" filling the screen made me jump back
    in my seat.

    John

    possible spoilers..
    
    >Your own "nit" reveals the lack of adequate character development. You
    >didn't miss anything. There wasn't anything there to miss. There is
    >nothing that explains how Denzel turns from hating homosexuals to
    >hugging them. He just does. 
    
    I have to disagree.  Joe Miller(Denzel) didn't turn from hating
    homosexuals to hugging them.  He was still homophobic but he got to
    know Tom Hank's character and liked him in spite of the fact that he
    was gay.
    
    Donna

    One taboo this film breaks repeatedly is having characters speaking
    directly to the camera.  Not often done.  Somewhat distracting.
    

    This was a bit of a let down.  Sure, it's timely, and somewhat
    emotional at the end, but what struck me most about the movie was the
    absolute lack of involvement I felt for any of the characters.  The
    only thing that made me feel for the character of Tom Hanks was simply
    the fact that he was a dying man -- I would have feel as much sympathy
    if he had been playing someone dying from, say, being hit by a truck.
    
    I found the unusual cinematography really distracting (like Dennis
    mentiones in the previous note).  Was there a reason for the talking
    heads and Batman-esque slanted shots (you know, the ones where there's
    a 45-degree tilt to the floor that makes it look like everyone should
    be sliding off to the left of the camera)?  The editing was
    inconsistent and poor--there were some interminiably long pauses that
    were, I think, supposed to bring tension, but only brought me a sense
    of impatience.  You shouldn't notice a scene is going on too long.  The
    opera scene went on too long.  The scene with the librarian asking
    Hanks if he'd prefer a private study room went on too long.  We should
    have been shown Hanks' firing and the other flashbacks in real time,
    not as flashbacks.  The courtroom scenes felt surreally dull (probably
    due to the monotone-plagued dialog and Mary Steenbergen's porcelain
    peformance as the defense attorney).  I can deal with no courtroom
    fireworks ("realism")--to a point of boredom, then I don't care what's
    going on.  Nobody seemed to put much energy into anything.  The
    courtroom dialog (usually the testimony of the witnesses) was sometimes
    so out of kilter with what was trying to be done, I had to wonder if
    the writer threw together the script because an AIDS movie was overdue.
    
    The characters were flat, listless and almost sleepwaked their way
    through the movie.  Denzel Washington's character was the most
    interesting, and even then, we weren't shown enough to really justify
    his change of heart.  The movie seemed extremely timid to show much of
    Hanks' and his lovers presumed affection for each other other than a
    slow dance scene and a quick hug or two.  If this had been a standard
    sick guy lives with girlfriend movie and had about the same level of
    emotional interaction, you'd wonder where the real couple of the movie
    was.  
    
    Anyway, enough.  Philadelphia had all the ingredients there, but the
    cake didn't rise.  It wasn't a bad movie, it was just a ... mediocre
    one.  Demme should have forgone different camera tricks and lingering
    pauses and worked on telling a solid, emotional, INVOLVING.  This is not
    Best Picture material (but it will be nominiated because it's about
    AIDS and Oscar is as PC as anyone).
    
    Maybe next time.
    
    
    Cheers,
    
    kim

    RE: .11  by 65320::RIVERS 
    
    >The scene with the librarian asking Hanks if he'd prefer a private
    >study room went on too long.  
    
    Yes.  It went on twice as long as the preview clip we've all seen a
    dozen times.  The same applies to just about every other scene in the
    movie.  It seems like we've seen all the clips so many times there's
    nothing left to anticipate.
    
    And who was the actor who played the Librarian, anyway?  Oh, I remember
    now.  He was in "Repo Man".
    
    Oh, and wasn't that an uncredited Quentin Crisp as Mona Lisa's date?
    

    The librarian was played by Tracey Walter, whom some might remember
    from the short lived "Best of the West" as Frog, the sidekick.  To keep
    this movie related, he was also Arnold's sidekick in the second Conan
    movie.  And he was sorta a sidekick as one of the two men who menaced 
    Sissy Spacek in  "Raggedy Man".  And he was Bob, the Joker's sidekick 
    in "Batman".  
    
    And so on.  He's aged a bit these last couple of years.
    
                                                           
    kim

    Re: .9

    <spoiler>

    
>    I have to disagree.  Joe Miller(Denzel) didn't turn from hating
>    homosexuals to hugging them.  He was still homophobic but he got to
>    know Tom Hank's character and liked him in spite of the fact that he
>    was gay.

    I just noticed the sure sign of how little these characters came to life
    for me. I can't remember any of their names, just the names of the actors.

    Anyway, not to stress this nit too much (it's really the collection of
    flaws that bother me, not any given one), but I was thinking of when Miller
    (thanks for supplying that name) hugs Antonio's character. I don't know
    when he got to know him that well. Certainly not in this film. 

    Still, things do go on off-stage. Let's assume it happened in numerous
    scenes we never got to see. The fact of the matter is, hugging is not a
    commonplace gesture among american heterosexual men. You might find some
    who will hug a really close male friend. You might find some more who would
    hug a close relative, like a father, son or brother. But even if Miller
    were just an ordinary straight male, I think the idea that he would hug
    Antonio's character is unlikely. Given that he was established as being
    utterly disgusted by homosexuals, the hug was a truly remarkable gesture.
    The most he should have offered, in character, having learned a little more
    respect and tolerance, was a thoughtful handshake.  Most likely, the
    director, sloppy to the last, just overplayed it. Otherwise, the character
    must have been profoundly changed somewhere along the line, not just
    grudgingly in his intellect, but at the deep levels of culture. 

    John
    

    
    
    Tracey Walter said one of the best lines i've ever heard in a movie.
    (repo man) Quote "The more you drive the stupider you get!".
    
                 -=-=-R~C~W-=-=-

    
    I'd have to agree with the dissenters.  A tear-jerker, no doubt, but
    a thoroughly mediocre movie.  The best parts were Bruce and Neil's
    theme songs.
    
    - Sean

    spoiler warning:
    
    
    
    
    I think the main flaw of the movie's construction was its lack
    of suspense.  It's set up for all of us to know that Andy was
    fired for having AIDS, and after nearly two hours, we get
    5 minutes of the jury deliberating, with one man summing it
    up in one sentence "Would you put anyone but your best on
    such an important case?"  
    
    Also the idea was ludicrous that a gay man in 1990's Philadelphia
    would have trouble finding a laywer for such an obvious case of
    discrimination.  Even if it *weren't* so obvious, he wouldn't
    have had to settle for a non-gay, homophobic lawyer.
    
    But, that said, it's worth seeing if only for Hanks' performance.
    
    Richard
    

    I thought Tom Hanks was just ok in his role - anyone could have played
    it. Denzel Washington,though, played a very credible, difficult role
    and did so quite well. He should be the one up for an award.
    
    I disliked the filming style, which seemed to be a closeup shot, then
    zigzag to the next closeup. Felt disruptive, and made me feel like I
    was sitting too close to the screen :-)
    
    

    
    > I disliked the filming style, which seemed to be a closeup shot, then
    > zigzag to the next closeup. Felt disruptive, and made me feel like I
    > was sitting too close to the screen :-)
    
    Yes, I agree.  You usually see this (and it usually is a good idea)
    with TV movies - sometimes see this with TV-directors going to the
    big screen for the first time.  But Demme?  Whatever effect he was
    going for didn't work for me.
    
    - Sean

    I just saw this over the weekend, and I enjoyed it quite a bit.  I
    thought it was good, not mediocre.  On the other hand, I wouldn't call
    it excellent either.  I did think it was a good story, though.  It held
    my interest, and I did care about the main characters.  I think it's a
    movie that a lot of Americans still need to see.  Sometimes, in my own
    personal life, I hear people say things that make me realize there is
    still quite a bit of homophobia out there in America, even among
    educated people.  
    
    I thought both Hanks and Denzel Washington did a good job with their
    roles.  It could have been better, but it was still pretty good.
    
    Lorna
     

    I've got to weigh in with the nays on this film for all the reasons
    mentioned; though I give some special non-kudos to the opera scene, 
    and the very weirdly staged scene when Denzel Washington's character
    approaches the bench in the courtroom.
    
    I commented to my wife before I saw this film that I would have
    preferred seeing Philadelphia on the small screen (videotape) and
    Schindler's List on the big screen. She felt the opposite and she
    was paying so we saw Philadelphia.
    
    Any comparisons out there to the theatre experience one gets viewing
    Schindler's List vs viewing Philadelphia. Or are the films just too
    dissimiliar?
    
    

    
    Finally got to see this on Friday night when it opened nationwide over
    here in the UK. My first surprise was how empty the cinema was. The
    film has been getting a fair bit of publicity with Tom Hanks on the UK
    chat show circuit.
    
    Still, I enjoyed the film, but the performances of both Denzel
    Washington and Tom Hanks were superb. The comments in here that they
    couldn't figure out Miller, to me, is the problem that the charcater
    goes through. He is still homophobic, but has great affection and
    admiration for Beckett. I think that Washington plays that internal
    conflict well.
    
    The only major plot flaw that I felt should've been covered better was
    the comment made by the jury. Why do you give such an important job to
    an incompetent rookie. The fact that that wasn't used in the courtroom
    defies belief. However, I don't criticise the plot for the lawyers
    refusing to take his case. It wasn't necessarily because of what Hanks
    was going to court for, but who he was going against. Not many lawyers
    would be willing to take on the biggest legal firm in the city. But
    ultimately, this film isn't supposed to be a courtroom drama in the style
    of A Few Good Men. Philadelphia is about the emotional side of the
    tragedy and how peoples perceptions change when they find how he caught
    AIDS. IMHO, Philadelphia does this well.
    
    4/5
    
    Graham.

  We went to see Philadelphia this past weekend and I'm glad I saw it before it
got away. Tom Hanks performance was one of the best performances I've ever seen
and Danzel Washington was great as his lawyer. 

  I don't agree with the criticism on the nits. It sort of reminds me of Jerry
Seinfield's father who was complaining that those French Impressionist painters
weren't all that good because they painted their pictures all out of focus. As
one noter said, it wasn't really a movie about court rooms, it was more of a
movie about emotions.

  1st rate movie, no question that Hanks deserved his Oscar. I never realized
that he had that kind of talent for dramatic acting. Definite go see,

  **** of 5
  George

    Great movie.  Hanks did a great job.

    While this is late, I just got to see it on video and was disappointed.
    Really not much of a story here but, as many other noters have
    mentioned, Denzel Washington should have got the best actor nomination.
    This guy is dynamite in every role I have seen him in and, after
    watching this, I am still wondering why Hanks got the Academy Award for
    best actor. dir
    

    This movie is about the dismissal of Andrew Beckett, played by Tom
    Hanks, from the law firm he works for, because he is gay.  Andrew seeks 
    representation to fight his case in court.  Denzel Washington who plays
    the counsellor accepts to take on the challenge.  The counsellor is
    homophobic.
    
    I loved Denzel's performance.  Two scenes that come to mind are 1) in
    his kitchen with his wife when he tries to explain to her what he
    thinks about homosexuals, and 2) the scene at the drugstore.
    
    I had avoided this film for some time for several reasons.  One was
    because I had heard about the story so much I thought I wasn't missing 
     anything.  Another reason was because I felt this would be a "made for
    t.v." genre of film.  Finally because of the several nits expressed in
    this note.
    
    I rented it nonetheless, when I saw the box on the shelf the song
    popped into my head, it's a great theme song, and I thought what the
    heck, let's see what all this is about.  Well, what a pleasant
    surprise.  Tom and Denzel both gave excellent performances.  They
    should have shared the award.  Two thumbs up.
    
    PChaplinsky

> Tom and Denzel both gave excellent performances.
> They should have shared the award.

	Not to reopen the rat hole, but Denzel should of been nominated
	for Best Actor, and Tom for at most Best *Supporting* Actor.