| Overall Grade: |
A+ |
|
| Story: |
A+ |
|
|
| Acting: |
A+ |
|
|
| Direction: |
A+ |
|
|
| Visuals: |
A+ |
|
|
Best Picture - 1993
by Baloo (movies profile)
Jul 15, 2005
3
of
3 people found this review helpful
I have not seen that many movies that were made in 1993, but I must say that "Philadelphia" would probably take my "Best Picture" award for that year. As I have given Philadelphia A+'s all across the board, I must now explain why I gave them such a high rating.
The story behind Philadelphia is like no other movies that I have seen. I also give the story credit because in 1993, homophobia was VERY prominent. The story writers, the producers, the actors and the director all stuck their necks on the line to make this movie. The story follows a gay lawyer with AIDS (Tom Hanks), and his lawyer (Denzel Washington) in their efforts to sue a major company for discrimination, and how the unlikely partnership in law is formed.
The acting by Tom Hanks won an Oscar for "Best Actor", and he deserved it. I would have to say that he did do an amazing job at portraying his character. He is an amazing physical and verbal actor (as we know from Toy Story and Toy Story 2), but his ability to make all of his character human beings is not matched by any actors in Hollywood. Denzel Washington again plays his usual character of "Denzel Washington versus the World". He does play this role very well, but he is always put into that role. That is what makes Tom Hanks a much better actor. Tom Hanks plays a military leader (Saving Private Ryan), a toy (Toy Story and Toy Story 2), a dramatic character (Philadelphia), and a calm collected character (Apollo 13). He can act well in just about every role. I give Antonio Banderas a lot of credit for taking on his role. In 1993, if you were to say "what do you think of Antonio Banderas?", you would probably get some weird looks. He was not known then, and for an unknown actor to accept a role as a "hated group", a gay man, it probably took a lot of guts. He is a good actor, but people didn't know that back then.
I will talk about the visual effects next. There are no visual effects as far as people being blown up or scientific scenes like CSI, but the makeup on Tom Hanks was amazing. I am assuming that Tom Hanks did not have AIDS when he did this role, and I am also assuming that he was completely healthy. As it is, you really thought (by the haircuts, the colour of his face and how thin he looked) that he was sick. It was really neat to see the progression through the movie of a person with AIDS over 2-3 months. I would give this movie the Oscar for best visual effects for 1993.
The director (Jonathan Demme) was great. Not a lot was known about AIDS when this movie was made, but Jonathan Demme and screenwriter (Ron Nyswaner) included a lot of facts about AIDS. The biggest one was that AIDS is not contagious (a common thought at the time of people who were not in the scientific community). It also shows in one scene in particular with Denzel Washington in a drug store that you don't know if someone is gay or not by what they look like. I thought that that was neat as well.
Okay, that was just how technically great this movie is. I will now just say that I really enjoyed this movie. It has a few cute moments, but it is very heavy content. For the record, I would have to say that the audience of this movie would enjoy it most after a year in high school (or around the age 15 for people who do not share the same school system of Canada). I had not had any experience in this matter before high school, but after a year of meeting people who turned out to be gay (there were about 5-6 people) I was able to use personal experience to understand and enjoy certain scenes in the movie. I had the benefit of it being at my local library, but I would easily spend $3.50 to rent it. It was just that good.
By the way - NOT the feel good movie of the year...
- ***** |
My Public Profile 
