Am I the only one that hated "Philadelphia"...?

(the movie):shrug:

It just started a rotation on cable. I hate it. Anyone else?

It was just so depressing.

sorry for the mix up.

It's cool you liked it. Don't have to hate it because I did. ;)

Thanks for your honesty!

I tend to be more of a suspence/horror/comedy fan. I usually despise dramas in general. I did want to see Philadelphia though because of the hype. I will say it didn't measure up to the hype. It was so depressing, there was no way it could have.

It's almost a sure guarantee of disappointment.

I recall a few films that everyone seemed to think was fantastic, and I saw it and didn't like it at all. Oh well.

:hi:

I really like suspense films, too. Oh and comedy--as long as it isn't gross out comedy.

My significant other watches it EVERYTIME it comes on...hmmmm LOL.

I'm sure my so is disturbed by some of the movies I watch everytime they come on, too!

Makes life more interesting that we all don't have the same taste, doesn't it? LOL!

but i loved it

You don't have to hate it because I do. :)

I just felt it was more public service announcement, than film. It was depressing for me, because of all the hype. I expected it to be better than it was.

I didn't like the philadelphia too.

rentals aren't terribly expensive, anymore--at least if you take them back on time. LOL!

I found it to be rather predictable and cliche'd. But it wasn't horrible. My not liking it, doesn't mean you won't.

Alot of people apparently enjoyed it.

:)

"Philadelphia" isn't perfect (it's not nearly as emotionally resonate on the subject of AIDS as say, "Loingtime Companion").

But I can't say that I hated "Philadelphia"

was probably a much better film, regarding Aids.

I just didn't really care for the Hollywood representation of AIDS, gay relationships, the extended family, etc. in Philadelphia.

Few of my gay friends have or had the kind of family or extended family shown in that movie. Which isn't to say it doesn't or can't exist--just what is more frequently the norm.

For me, it was over the top, overwrought and rather manipulative.

I've seen far more intelligent films (mostly foreign)about gay life.

"Philapdelphia", again, isn't perfect.

But I think Jonathan Demme's intentions were pure in making it. I think he wanted to make a mainstream film that would address the subject of AIDS...from a gay man's point of view. It addressed homophobia (the partners of the law firm Tom Hanks' character worked after he came out as both gay and HIV+ and the homophobic lawyer Hanks hires to represnts him in his lawsuit agains the law firm), besides the issue of his becoming HIV+ and developing AIDS.

I wish the film would have focused more on Hanks' charcater's relationship with his pattner.

Yes, the movie has flaws. I just can't understand why someone would hate it.

in my post.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

manipulative even though I pretty much liked it at the time. I thought Philelphia was ok but I am with you in regards to foreign films dealing with gay life. Much much more intelligent. I just watched a few good italian ones as a matter of fact.

very, very moving film.

I liked the fact that it cut so close to the bone. It really spurred the conversation on AIDS a good bit.

I wish it had done that here.

It's one of my favorite :cry: movies.

I did get freaked out by the dramatic transformation of the Hanks character. The way he lost weight, and looked so sick--that made me cry. It's a very well done aspect of the film.

I'm sorry I don't like a movie that's one of your faves.

when they are showing the home movies of the family and they show Andrew Beckett as a child, I break into tears. Can't help it. It just gets to me to see the happy normal family in the home movies and what they all went through with the trial and Andrew's death.

that is a sad part. :cry: I can see how that would make you cry.

Home movie flashbacks in film always get me, too. LOL!

:hug:

:D :pals: :hi:

It made me uncomfortable, I hated the hypocrisy and the cruelty.

it had that affect on you.

Was it the hypocracy of the characters portrayed in the film? The way they were cruel to the lead character?

I can't stand people like that. I know some. Maybe I left too early in the film, but, I tragedy just isn't my favorite genre. I don't watch movies like Black Hawk Down, either. It's almost a joke at our house. If the kids go to rent movies, they look at me and say "something light and funny?". I did watch "Tears of the Sun", though. But I was by myself.

any time I can see the original Flirts is OK with me.
Liked the movie when it was first run,also.

You're right, it's definitely a plus! :thumbsup:

You're the only one.

...

:shrug:

drama.

I also thought "Longtime Companion" was superior, like some of the others on this thread. I really liked the soundtrack as well. Unfortunately there is no soundtrack album for it listed at amazon. The song at the end of the film I especially like but haven't been able to find it or download it.

I realize the films are different, in that "Companion" is the story of a person's whole community of friends being devastated by an epidemic, and "Philadelphia" is the story of prejudice against an individual...

I read a couple of reviews that seemed to feel the same way about it. That it was formulaic, Oscar fodder. LOL! I don't know that I would go as far as those particular criticisms, but I could definitely see their point.

I liked it on first viewing--liked not loved. Something about it bugged me. Then I spoke to friends about it. Some of the things they pointed out about Hollywood's representation of gay culture bugged them.

Upon subsequent viewings, I liked it less and less.

What did you think of the Philadelphia soundtrack? Wasn't that a Grammy or Oscar winner, too?

what else was on there. BTW I edited my post just above.

What specific depiction of gay culture bothered your friends?

Also I like Denzel Washington too much to hate that movie.

Denzel is always good,isn't he? LOL!

It seems a few of my friends were put off by the way they didn't really focus on the relationship with his lover. They also thought the representation of the family of the Hanks character was typical Hollywood bullshit (their words, not mine).

One said, sure there are supportive gay families. But it may have done more for the gay cause to show more of what many more have encountered. A family that wants nothing to do with the gay relative...or maybe they are supportive of their relative but want nothing to do with the lover.

They said some other things as well--but won't post those things, as they get into personal information about their lives--and I don't feel comfortable sharing their private lives here. (out of respect). The above, was something I also had a problem with, and stated in an above post, so felt ok with sharing that.

made it occur to me that I don't "hate" /any/ movie (doesn't really apply to so-called documentaries) at all, no matter how stupid or contrived I think they are. If I were given a list and 15 hours I might come up with one that I hated, but nothing off the top of my head. Strange.

I'm not exactly proud to have such a strong dislike for someone's artistic expression.

So I'd think that's a good thing,that in all the films that have been made you don't hate any--Good for you!

that that is ridiculous, and that in many cases it's just a way to inflate a bank account/

That comment made me laugh(about the bank account).

Are you an artist? You have such an open minded attitude about film/aft--that's admirable.

Nice talking to you...

the same way about it (though I'm very open to constructive criticism).

..and thanks, always appreciative of constructive criticism. :hi:

I was pretty young when I saw it and frankly it bored me.

I watched an interview with Antonio Banderas last night & he mentioned Philidelphia. Apparently they filmed a scene with him & Hanks in bed, completely non-sexual, but the studio yanked it. Seems incredible to think that that would be taboo a) given what the film was about and b) in the early nineties.

Because I lived in a bubble. In my world, even at age 14 (how old I was when it came out) the knowledge that gay, HIV-positive men face horrible discrimination in the workplace and the rest of the world seemed--well, I thought the film depicted those issues in a contrived, melodramatic way. Because I was, um, stupid? And I thought that because I had some gay friends who were accepted by their peers, and that my gay aunt had made a successful life for herself, that discrimination and bigotry were gone or something. Additionally, it was the beginning of the Clinton years. My parents were acting as if we were all going to be safe in a new, liberal paradise forever. I personally hadn't ever witnessed anything like what Tom Hanks' character and friends go through because my city was actually behaving half-way decently toward HIV-positive gay folks at the time (there was actually a well-funded new treatment center in town, with many patients, who reported a stabilization of certain issues through its use, as well as a high standard of care). So, basically, the whole story seemed passe to me. Because I was--a goddamned moron kid? Not to mention that, I admit, I'd never had to live with fears of persecution, abandonment, isolation, destitution or loneliness in my life in relation to my health status or identity. That'd be that "goddamned moron kid" explanation for my disinterest again. Finally, I thought of myself as Film Expert Extraordinaire at the time, and believed the reviewers on NPR were brilliant for saying that "Philadelphia" sucked because of its use of the "tired" "courtroom drama" "schtick" to structure its plot. And, in my defense there, I had seen a veritable ton of other courtroom-based film that year.

I saw the film on cable again last year and I started crying all over the place about halfway through. My reaction was due to a lot of perspective I've gained since then, namely--having faced the prospect of homelessness, having had my health status altered, having had "friends" and "family" treat me cruelly because of these changes and having encountered certain social prejudices in connection with my health and life--experiences which were horribly painful for me, even though they are nothing like what people living with HIV disease go through. At all.

Also, I've gained some sickening insight in the Bush years about how much bigotry still exists toward GLBT people and how ugly it is. I've also gained insight into how much of it existed in the world in '93, despite what my little bubble of unlikely suburban enlightenment looked like. I actually said to my mother after the credits rolled, "when it originally premiered, I thought it was unimaginative and sentimental; now I cannot believe it was ever made in that era." I think the filmmakers were taking quite a few risks addressing stigmas that aren't even addressed honestly today, and not just because of the backward ultra-conservative slide that is currently warping this nation's social attitudes.

Finally, I feel like I should be preaching to the choir here at DU with this story. It makes me really sad that I am not.

I really appreciate your honesty. It isn't easy for anyone to admit to having prior views that are so different from their present views.

I totally see why you disliked it the first time, and why you now are a fan of the film. Thanks so much for sharing this!

The courtroom stuff didn't bother me. I can admit it was a well done film. I just didn't care for it. But hearing so many people share what they do like about it, gives me a different way to look at it. That's why I like threads like this. It's always cool to learn a different take on something you didn't really consider before.

Thanks again for sharing!

for their pitiful loss in Dallas today. The movie was pretty good, and the Eagles suck.

:(

Hope they do better in the next game!

but I am decidely NOT an Eagles fan. Although, my Bears did lose as well, and they REALLY suck. If you don't mind I'll transfer the sentiment from thr Eagles to the Bears. Cheers.

Go Bears! :woohoo:

lol.

This thread showcases a lot of interesting comments from our contributors.

but it was more an exercise in me to learn more about a film I went from mildly liking, to disliking to really not liking at all.

LOL!

In your OP you said you hated the film. How do you now claim to have started this thread mildly liking it and only now not liking at all? I am so confused.

LOL!

I meant in the grand scope of the time the film has been in existence, the times I have seen it, and now.

The first time I saw it was what I was referencing, not when I started this thread.

This was referenced in some of my other responses to others on this thread. I can see how, taken out of context you may think that, though.

edited for clarity...

I'm a tad disappointed, as I feel some may have misunderstood that I hated the film, but not the subject matter.

I can isolate the two, and have respect for the integrity of the subject and still have a desire to see it treated in a different light.

Thanks to all that participated. It's always cool to gain some insight from another perspective on a subject. :hi:


edited for clarity.

The suggestion I would like to leave you with is that when you start a thread using the word HATE, you should expect some equally passionate responses with an opposite perspective.

Did you expect something different?

(On edit, I see you edited your post to appear less personal, after I posted my response. Mine still stands.)

I got different. I've had interesting dialogues with several people about this film. We didn't agree, but they didn't seem to take as much 'offense' that I stated I hated the film.

Yours seemed to be only one of a few that was so, may I say passionate about the fact that I hated the film. Most others just stated their views, without feeling the need to put down my view.

If you noticed, I didn't put down anyone that shared they really liked the film or even loved it. I simply talked to them about what they liked, etc.

I'm not at all sure, why you have responded as you have. I'm frankly rather confused by your comment and they way you have responded. When I attempted to talk to you about it, and confront your comment directly, I feel you were rather brusque with me.

This wasn't personal. I commented on a film , not a person, not a lifestyle, not AIDS, just a film.

Seems to me that you were the one spinning it into something personal.

What I don't understand, is how you don't understand that gay people may be offended by someone stating something as passionate as HATE about a film that meant a lot to the gay community, with all the film's faults. Your OP was so cavalierly dismissive of the film that it was insulting, frankly.

It may be just a film to you... but to many, it is more than that. I don't care one little bit whether you liked it or hated it. You start a thread saying you hate it and I'm gonna say that I think that's odd.

You have taken that one little perspective and reacted as if someone attacked you. You attacked the film. I only responded that I thought it was odd that you HATE it.

This whole series of posts leaves me completely confounded. What on earth? What IS your point? You hate the film, and I think it's odd. End of story. Wow.

to someone else. I was hurt by that.

I'm also hurt and confused and angry, that you would make such statements and assumptions about me and my post.

You don't know me. You don't know anything about me.

Unbeknownst to you, I've had gay friends, still do. I've had open discussions with them about this. Didn't think DU lounge would be any different. No other gay people have suggested such things to me, that my hating a film--is expressing hatred for them. only YOU!

(edited to delete my own assumption--out of line on my part).

Maybe I hated the film because I've had family members that were ill, and I wanted to see them treated better in film. Maybe I watched friends die of AIDS...how dare you?

You insult and offend me. I really don't want to talk to you anymore.

It is difficult to talk to someone like you. One that acts like you know me and to assert such demeaning things of me.

YOU took offense of this thread... NO ONE else. YOU.

You need to take a breath now.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

About this, er, conversation.

Is this really necessary?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I did not see any attack.

I can see how this poster may feel ganged up on however...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But you know what they say about opinions ;) I thought it was a great movie that accomplished a lot. Has flaws? Of course. But overall it was a great film and did a lot of good.

I lost a family member to AIDS back in 1990. He was gay and did have the same type of family support as the Tom Hanks character.

Overdramatic, yes, but it was a thought provoking film for mainstream USA. (Of course, those people that most need to see a film like Philadelphia are the ones least likely to go see it.)