Review of Philadelphia (1993) by Travis N — 25 Jan 2012

Philadelphia explores one of the most difficult and misunderstood social issues of the late 20th century: Aids. And to its credit, it does a great job of humanizing the disease, dispelling some those nasty guilt-laden assumptions, and educating the public about the struggles faced by those affected by it.

The only problem is: that's pretty much all it does. Sure, Tom Hanks gives one of his most inspired performances, but it's Denzel who we need to be paying attention to here and he really gets the short end of the stick.

So much screen time is devoted to convincing the audience to empathize with Tom that we lose sight of Denzel's journey. We never really get to see (key word = see) Denzel grow from a two-bit personal injury litigator underdog into a civil rights courtroom powerhouse, or even shed his discriminatory views and learn that gay people aren't so bad after all (although, it is implied).

So much screen time was wasted (ie. the first 25 minutes) on Tom that could have been much better spent on scenes of Tom and Denzel challenging each others opinions/ideologies and learning and growing from each other.

All considered, the value of Philadelphia is mostly educational and partially its cultural heritage, but it shouldn't be owned or revered as good.