zkonedog Over the last few years, I have been churning my way through the films of Denzel Washington. I love the intensity and passion he brings to his roles, plus the fact that, "Manchurian Candidate" aside, he hasn't really been in any bad films. For whatever reason, I had not yet seen "Philadelphia", which is hailed by film critics and garnered Tom Hanks a Best Actor academy award in 1992. After viewing, I found it to be not as epic as some would have me believe, but still an interesting two hours nonetheless.The basic plot of the film is the story of two lawyers (Denzel and Hanks). Hanks' character contracts AIDS and enlists the help of "Washington" to help him file a discrimination lawsuit against the company that fired him (supposedly due to the disease). Along the way, the plot actually morphs to become more of a "panel discussion" on the treatment/perception of gay people in the United States.In dealing with such a sensitive topic, the film is able to lay out its message without sounding too crass or too offensive to either side. Basically, director Jonathan Demme knows that viewers will obviously have pre-determined attitudes about the issue before viewing the film, and thus doesn't try to sway any perceptions. Instead, through the legal, court-room setting, he just invites both sides to think about the issues at hand and consider possible scenarios. I liken it to a more recent Denzel Washington film entitled "The Great Debaters", which discussed the issue of the Jim Crow south through a high school debate team. Some pretty meaty issues were thrown around, but under the guise of "debate" the viewers don't really feel any compulsion to take a side, instead just being privy to the information. A similar factor is what I believe is the true brilliance of Demme's film...he treats the viewers like a jury and allows us to come to our own conclusion about the issues he is discussing.Thus, unless you have incredibly strong feelings one way or the other about the issue of gay rights (then the film is bound to upset in its generalization of the topic), I would recommend this film to pretty much anyone. While it may not live up to critical hype (likely due to the fact that critics are usually bonkers over artsy or heavy-themed films), it will give you some things to think about.

pesic-1 Glorifies homosexuality and AIDS.What else can I say? That's all the film does. Apparently we should embrace AIDS because homosexuals would feel bad if we didn't. Well, I don't agree with that idea.I think society should stop pandering to all these protected groups, that get to be treated like royalty, even as they walk around with all kinds of diseases that are the result of their life styles.No red carpet for AIDS 'victims', as far as I'm concerned. Also, if you have unprotected sex in a manner that is likely to cause an infection, you are not a victim. You are a menace for society. The fact is that even with all the protection available on the market, homosexuals are many times more prone to be infected with HIV, and frankly, I think they should be held accountable.

inioi The topic is quite interesting, but everything depends on how you approach...Summarize a topic as susceptible of different interpretations in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys", I think it is unwise. I'm not arguing for or against the decision of the jury, or if Andrew Beckett's company was responsible for unfair dismissal. I'm just saying that the movie is not objective from the beginning.Anyway, is quite watchable in general. I therefore remain with Jonathan Demme's direction, concretely the first 5 min. of the movie, in which makes a lovely portrait of Philadelphia.6/10

Mr-Fusion It's hard to ignore the idea that the primary thrust behind "Philadelphia" is an entreaty to have a serious talk about AIDS; which meant a lot more back in 1993 when the fear was more palpable. But you can't talk about that disease without also discussing homosexuality, so the movie hasn't lost its compelling edge. And the really nice thing about it is that it plays the material straight and doesn't overdo things (even during the more dramatic moments). This could easily drift into Oscar bait, but it never does (at least, to me). Sure, a lot of it's hard to stomach, but it's some powerful stuff, and characters aren't just cardboard cutouts just dropped in there for the convenient teachable moment. And it's funny how the Oscars work; it's evident that Tom Hanks gave an award-worthy performance (transformation and all), but I was genuinely surprised that Denzel Washington was completely looked over by the Academy. This is one of my favorite Denzel performances.And on the whole, a pretty great movie.8/10