Rewatch Review: Philadelphia

[iamwhatiseem]

Have not seen this movie again since the year it originally came out.
Tom Hanks, of course, accomplished another landmark performance. His first all -serious movie in his career.
The movie is very good, albeit problematic political history rewriting throughout it.
The movie is based on Geoffrey Bowers, who sued his employer Baker McKenzie law firm for unlawful termination due to him having AIDS.
He won.
The problems with political rewriting was several.
In the movie the entire law partners, sr. and jr. - were all ageing white men. Not true. At the time, there was an Asian and Hispanic man. There were also two women. In fact, Baker McKenzie is one of the first international law firms to include women as Senior Partners. Look it up.
Secondly, in the movie the hero of the show was his lawyer played by Denzel Washington. However, the real lawyer was white. He had a total of three lawyers on his team... all were white.
And then of course the writers couldn't help themselves by, twice labeling the old white men as "conservative". Even though that is highly unlikely given the fact the law firm is based n Chicago.

Once again showing Hollywood cannot stop themselves from injecting political theater and sentiments in just about every film.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Have not seen this movie again since the year it originally came out.
Tom Hanks, of course, accomplished another landmark performance. His first all -serious movie in his career.
The movie is very good, albeit problematic political history rewriting throughout it.
The movie is based on Geoffrey Bowers, who sued his employer Baker McKenzie law firm for unlawful termination due to him having AIDS.
He won.
The problems with political rewriting was several.
In the movie the entire law partners, sr. and jr. - were all ageing white men. Not true. At the time, there was an Asian and Hispanic man. There were also two women. In fact, Baker McKenzie is one of the first international law firms to include women as Senior Partners. Look it up.
Secondly, in the movie the hero of the show was his lawyer played by Denzel Washington. However, the real lawyer was white. He had a total of three lawyers on his team... all were white.
And then of course the writers couldn't help themselves by, twice labeling the old white men as "conservative". Even though that is highly unlikely given the fact the law firm is based n Chicago.

Once again showing Hollywood cannot stop themselves from injecting political theater and sentiments in just about every film.

The movie didnt present itself as history,it was telling a story. The colour of the principals was not really relevant because race was not an issue in the story.
I think conservatism was the baddie in this film and the film was correct in highlighting it as the issue. Denzel played a very conservative lawyer at the start of the film but he had the intelligence to evolve through his experiences. Sadly most conservatives do not evolve.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Have not seen this movie again since the year it originally came out.
Tom Hanks, of course, accomplished another landmark performance. His first all -serious movie in his career.
The movie is very good, albeit problematic political history rewriting throughout it.
The movie is based on Geoffrey Bowers, who sued his employer Baker McKenzie law firm for unlawful termination due to him having AIDS.
He won.
The problems with political rewriting was several.
In the movie the entire law partners, sr. and jr. - were all ageing white men. Not true. At the time, there was an Asian and Hispanic man. There were also two women. In fact, Baker McKenzie is one of the first international law firms to include women as Senior Partners. Look it up.
Secondly, in the movie the hero of the show was his lawyer played by Denzel Washington. However, the real lawyer was white. He had a total of three lawyers on his team... all were white.
And then of course the writers couldn't help themselves by, twice labeling the old white men as "conservative". Even though that is highly unlikely given the fact the law firm is based n Chicago.

Once again showing Hollywood cannot stop themselves from injecting political theater and sentiments in just about every film.

The movie didnt present itself as history,it was telling a story. The colour of the principals was not really relevant because race was not an issue in the story.
I think conservatism was the baddie in this film and the film was correct in highlighting it as the issue. Denzel played a very conservative lawyer at the start of the film but he had the intelligence to evolve through his experiences. Sadly most conservatives do not evolve.

Sadly you are a troll, whose opinions are baseless, often irrelevant and always wrong.
Bigotry and non acceptance of homosexuals in the 1980s and before knew no political party. Indeed, when gay marriage was first introduced... Democrats right along with Republicans lined up in front of microphones to loudly proclaim they were against it. Including the President at the time - and the President we have now. And also the Democrat who ran for President in 2016.
But - like I say, as usual, you are full of bologna.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Have not seen this movie again since the year it originally came out.
Tom Hanks, of course, accomplished another landmark performance. His first all -serious movie in his career.
The movie is very good, albeit problematic political history rewriting throughout it.
The movie is based on Geoffrey Bowers, who sued his employer Baker McKenzie law firm for unlawful termination due to him having AIDS.
He won.
The problems with political rewriting was several.
In the movie the entire law partners, sr. and jr. - were all ageing white men. Not true. At the time, there was an Asian and Hispanic man. There were also two women. In fact, Baker McKenzie is one of the first international law firms to include women as Senior Partners. Look it up.
Secondly, in the movie the hero of the show was his lawyer played by Denzel Washington. However, the real lawyer was white. He had a total of three lawyers on his team... all were white.
And then of course the writers couldn't help themselves by, twice labeling the old white men as "conservative". Even though that is highly unlikely given the fact the law firm is based n Chicago.

Once again showing Hollywood cannot stop themselves from injecting political theater and sentiments in just about every film.

The movie didnt present itself as history,it was telling a story. The colour of the principals was not really relevant because race was not an issue in the story.
I think conservatism was the baddie in this film and the film was correct in highlighting it as the issue. Denzel played a very conservative lawyer at the start of the film but he had the intelligence to evolve through his experiences. Sadly most conservatives do not evolve.

Sadly you are a troll, whose opinions are baseless, often irrelevant and always wrong.
Bigotry and non acceptance of homosexuals in the 1980s and before knew no political party. Indeed, when gay marriage was first introduced... Democrats right along with Republicans lined up in front of microphones to loudly proclaim they were against it. Including the President at the time - and the President we have now. And also the Democrat who ran for President in 2016.
But - like I say, as usual, you are full of bologna.

Im not sure where I mentioned political parties. I do agree that in the 80s homophobia crossed party lines. However,as stated, one side has evolved whilst one side still think that homosexuality is a sickness that can be cured by voodoo.

 

[G.T.]

Have not seen this movie again since the year it originally came out.
Tom Hanks, of course, accomplished another landmark performance. His first all -serious movie in his career.
The movie is very good, albeit problematic political history rewriting throughout it.
The movie is based on Geoffrey Bowers, who sued his employer Baker McKenzie law firm for unlawful termination due to him having AIDS.
He won.
The problems with political rewriting was several.
In the movie the entire law partners, sr. and jr. - were all ageing white men. Not true. At the time, there was an Asian and Hispanic man. There were also two women. In fact, Baker McKenzie is one of the first international law firms to include women as Senior Partners. Look it up.
Secondly, in the movie the hero of the show was his lawyer played by Denzel Washington. However, the real lawyer was white. He had a total of three lawyers on his team... all were white.
And then of course the writers couldn't help themselves by, twice labeling the old white men as "conservative". Even though that is highly unlikely given the fact the law firm is based n Chicago.

Once again showing Hollywood cannot stop themselves from injecting political theater and sentiments in just about every film.

And you can't stop yourself from ignoring it

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Have not seen this movie again since the year it originally came out.
Tom Hanks, of course, accomplished another landmark performance. His first all -serious movie in his career.
The movie is very good, albeit problematic political history rewriting throughout it.
The movie is based on Geoffrey Bowers, who sued his employer Baker McKenzie law firm for unlawful termination due to him having AIDS.
He won.
The problems with political rewriting was several.
In the movie the entire law partners, sr. and jr. - were all ageing white men. Not true. At the time, there was an Asian and Hispanic man. There were also two women. In fact, Baker McKenzie is one of the first international law firms to include women as Senior Partners. Look it up.
Secondly, in the movie the hero of the show was his lawyer played by Denzel Washington. However, the real lawyer was white. He had a total of three lawyers on his team... all were white.
And then of course the writers couldn't help themselves by, twice labeling the old white men as "conservative". Even though that is highly unlikely given the fact the law firm is based n Chicago.

Once again showing Hollywood cannot stop themselves from injecting political theater and sentiments in just about every film.

The movie didnt present itself as history,it was telling a story. The colour of the principals was not really relevant because race was not an issue in the story.
I think conservatism was the baddie in this film and the film was correct in highlighting it as the issue. Denzel played a very conservative lawyer at the start of the film but he had the intelligence to evolve through his experiences. Sadly most conservatives do not evolve.

Sadly you are a troll, whose opinions are baseless, often irrelevant and always wrong.
Bigotry and non acceptance of homosexuals in the 1980s and before knew no political party. Indeed, when gay marriage was first introduced... Democrats right along with Republicans lined up in front of microphones to loudly proclaim they were against it. Including the President at the time - and the President we have now. And also the Democrat who ran for President in 2016.
But - like I say, as usual, you are full of bologna.

Im not sure where I mentioned political parties. I do agree that in the 80s homophobia crossed party lines. However,as stated, one side has evolved whilst one side still think that homosexuality is a sickness that can be cured by voodoo.

You watch too much CNN.
People don't care about homosexuality anymore really.
I don't judge Democrats by the whacky fringe you shouldn't judge conservatives by their fringe either. Course you have no intention of doing so.

 

[whitehall]

They tried to promote the idea that AIDS threatened the general public but it was restricted to the homosexual community and I.V. drug users and the occasional unfortunate who contracted the disease from a blood transfusion. They are arresting people today for refusing to wear a mask in the Covid epidemic but they made a freaking movie about an AIDS infected patient who was fired. They arrested Christians for congregating at a Church service during the Covid epidemic but they refused to close the gay related "baths" in San Francisco during the AIDS epidemic.