Julian RuncanPhiladelphia: Hard to Nitpick, But...
July 26th 2010 19:53
Alright, just to get this out of the way, I believe Philadelphia is an incredibly important film that did amazing things for AIDS awareness at a time when it was most needed. Because of the brave way it deals with such hot-button social issues, the film deserves all of the praise it gets and more. The movie is a fantastic one, and I would recommend it to anyone. This being said, (raises flame shield), I did have quite a few issues with the film's execution.
Director Jonathan Demme makes his hand felt several times throughout the film. Rather than becoming totally immersed in the narrative, several times atypical shot framing or jarring cuts called attention to themselves, acting as a distraction. Whether it was intentional or not, I kept finding myself asking why Demme chose a particular shot style rather then using an "invisible" editing style that didn't take me out of the narrative so much.
To call the performances excellent is an understatement. Tom Hanks is at the top of his form, Denzel Washington is perfect, and even Banderas demands attention despite his relatively small role. Actually, the actors in this movie are so good that it annoyed me how much the directorial style distracted from them. The movie was still very good, but if handled just a little differently it could've rivaled The Shawshank Redemption in terms of quality.
I guess these complaints aren't that important since the turned out great, but I honestly feel that with only a few minor changes it could've been much more than it was. Despite my annoyances, making such a film at such a time was an incredible step forward. The exact kind you wish Hollywood took more often.
7.5/10
| 92 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
