--- title: "Philadelphia" year: 1993 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/philadelphia" fi1m_id: "philadelphia" imdb_id: "tt0107818" tmdb_id: 9800 wikidata_id: "Q204057" fi1m_score: 76 critics_score: 61 critics_reviews: 9 published: "2026-09-14" updated: "2026-09-18T08:38:16.254004+00:00" region: "US" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Philadelphia (1993) Directed by Jonathan Demme · 2h 06m · MPA PG-13 · Drama ## Identity Philadelphia - **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/philadelphia - **Type:** Film - **Fi1m ID:** philadelphia - **IMDb ID:** tt0107818 - **TMDB ID:** 9800 - **Wikidata ID:** Q204057 - **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107818/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/9800, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q204057 **Fi1m score: 76** · Critics 61 from 9 reviews *In a sentence:* Tom Hanks gets us to care before the screenplay has finished explaining why we should > Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington make Jonathan Demme’s AIDS drama worth the occasional lecture. It is moving and humane, though a cautious screenplay leaves too little room for the lives beyond the case. ## Synopsis Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) needs someone to take his case, but finding representation brings him up against prejudice surrounding AIDS and sexuality. Joe Miller (Denzel Washington) becomes the man willing to help, placing the two at the centre of a legal dispute about discrimination and justice. Around them are Charles Wheeler (Jason Robards), Belinda Conine (Mary Steenburgen) and Miguel Alvarez (Antonio Banderas). Jonathan Demme directs a drama in which the case unfolds alongside questions about how people respond to someone living with AIDS. ## Review *Philadelphia* is a moving legal drama that makes its case too neatly, worth an evening for performances that complicate its careful lessons. Jonathan Demme directs Ron Nyswaner’s screenplay towards an audience that may need persuading about AIDS, sexuality and discrimination before it can attend to the people involved. That is a reasonable ambition, though it produces a film in which sympathy sometimes seems to require an explanation. The repeated explanations can be tiring, particularly when the actors have already done the necessary work. The opening montage of Philadelphia street life makes a persuasive start. Demme gives us a city full of people before concentrating on one case, and Tak Fujimoto’s cinematography keeps that interest in faces as the story narrows. The close-ups are direct and searching, with expressions carrying more uncertainty than the dialogue usually permits. This matters in a film so eager to establish where our sympathies should lie: we have time to look at the people doing the talking. Tom Hanks plays Andrew Beckett with the control this approach needs, resisting the temptation to make every moment an appeal for sympathy. We were moved by Beckett dancing to Maria Callas, because Hanks makes his pleasure in the music matter as much as his suffering. Denzel Washington, as Joe Miller, provides a necessary resistance to the film’s earnestness, and the two actors keep the legal exchanges from becoming entirely instructional. We want to spend time with these people even when we can see how carefully their encounters have been arranged. Nyswaner’s script is where the caution becomes a problem. It is so concerned to establish the correct response to prejudice that it reduces the space for uncertainty, especially for an audience already persuaded that discrimination is wrong. We wanted more of the lives around the case and fewer occasions on which the film appeared to be checking that its lesson had reached us. This is a familiar weakness of the courtroom drama, and Demme’s interest in people does not entirely overcome it. Craig McKay’s editing is patient with the performances, allowing a response to matter alongside the words that prompt it. That patience helps, although the orderly progress of the case can feel too comfortable for the suffering it concerns. Howard Shore’s score supports the emotion without giving us much that the actors have not already supplied. The most affecting passages give us time to watch someone listen, and the cutting is sensitive to how much those reactions can carry. Kristi Zea’s production design gives the legal proceedings surroundings that never compete with the actors for attention. That restraint works, although the opening street montage supplies a stronger sense of place than the spaces where the case is argued. Jason Robards as Charles Wheeler and Mary Steenburgen as Belinda Conine keep the supporting exchanges watchable. Still, Nyswaner distributes attitudes a little too neatly among his characters, leaving the cast to make them seem less predictable. We are warmer on *Philadelphia* than the consensus, because the charge of pandering gives too little weight to Demme’s attention to his actors. His care makes the film moving even when the writing seems determined to make it respectable. At 126 minutes, it asks for some patience with explanations that many viewers will not need. See it for Hanks and Washington, with a little tolerance for the speeches. *Fi1m score 76, published 14 September 2026.* ## Straight answers **Is Philadelphia worth watching?** *Philadelphia* is worth watching for Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington, whose performances carry a legal drama that explains its lessons too carefully, and we scored it 76. It is moving and humane, though a cautious screenplay leaves little room for the lives beyond the case. Viewers who do not need persuading about discrimination will have to tolerate the speeches. **How long is Philadelphia, and what is it rated?** *Philadelphia* runs 2h 06m and is rated PG-13 by the MPA in the US. It is a drama film. **Where can I watch Philadelphia in the US?** *Philadelphia* is not on any streaming or rental service in the US at the moment. It is available in 32 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily. **How violent or frightening is Philadelphia, and is it suitable for children?** *Philadelphia* carries a UK 12 certificate and is a courtroom drama rather than a violent or frightening film. Its difficult material is the illness and death associated with AIDS and the prejudice Andrew Beckett meets, handled with restraint but hard to watch at times. It suits older children and teenagers who can sit with a sad, talkative film about discrimination. **How does Philadelphia compare to The Verdict?** *Philadelphia* and [*The Verdict*](https://film.one/film/the-verdict) are both legal dramas whose strongest evidence is written on the lead's face, Tom Hanks in one and Paul Newman in the other. Jonathan Demme's film is the warmer and more persuasive, though its screenplay lectures where Sidney Lumet's trusts silence. *The Verdict* is the more solemn, sometimes self-important, and suits an unhurried evening; *Philadelphia* is the easier to feel for. **What should I watch after Philadelphia?** After *Philadelphia*, try [*The Verdict*](https://film.one/film/the-verdict) (1982, Fi1m 84): Another legal drama whose strongest evidence is written on its lead’s face. Then [*A Separation*](https://film.one/film/a-separation) (2011, Fi1m 93): For a harder account of justice, where sympathy never settles the case; and [*Pride*](https://film.one/film/pride) (2014, Fi1m 82): A warmer, funnier account of solidarity that still makes room for prejudice. ### Reviews we read (9) - **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (80/100, inferred): Ebert calls “Philadelphia” a good film and sometimes more than that, a ground-breaking mainstream Hollywood treatment of AIDS that uses stars and courtroom drama to reach broad audiences. He singles out the opera aria scene in which Hanks passionately explains the music to Washington as a brilliant and original moment of conversion. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/philadelphia-1994) - **Time Out**, GA (75/100, inferred): Hollywood's first major movie about Aids is at the very least as good as expected and succeeds as a deeply affecting humanist drama. It singles out the film's tone of quiet restraint and omission of expected big emotional scenes for avoiding easy manipulation. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/philadelphia) - **Empire**, Angie Errigo (70/100, inferred): The review describes the film as a determinedly mainstream but groundbreaking Hollywood take on gay rights and AIDS discrimination, succeeding as a touching demand for fraternity and justice despite some sentimental and timid elements. It recommends the picture for its compassion, understanding, and exploration of attitudes toward sexuality. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/philadelphia-review/) - **The New Yorker**, Anthony Lane (70/100, inferred): Despite patches of preachiness, the film will get to you with its clean aim at our hearts and extraordinary closeups focused on the human face. Demme has reinvented the weepie with cleareyed determination in charting the hero's descent and the ascent of unlikely feelings in others. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/12/27/against-the-law) - **The New York Times**, Janet Maslin (70/100, inferred): The film mostly succeeds in being forceful, impassioned and moving as the first high-profile Hollywood picture to take the AIDS plague seriously, though it often works in safely predictable ways. It begins with a stirring montage of Philadelphia street life and shows tact in introducing the central character. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/22/movies/review-film-philadelphia-tom-hanks-aids-victim-who-fights-establishment.html) - **Variety** (70/100, inferred): This extremely well-made message picture about tolerance, justice and discrimination is pitched at mainstream audiences as the first major Hollywood film to directly tackle AIDS. It is intelligent but too neatly worked out in its political and melodramatic details, fronted by a dynamite lead performance from Tom Hanks. [Read](https://variety.com/1993/film/reviews/philadelphia-1200434876/) - **The Independent** (50/100, inferred): The critic highlights a powerful scene where Hanks's character dances to Maria Callas as a turning point that makes the film unequivocally about living and dying with AIDS. While praising standout acting and inventive direction, the review faults the cautious, commercial script for placing message before drama and its overly safe approach to prejudice. [Read](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/film-hesitation-and-deviation-1396819.html) - **Los Angeles Times**, Kenneth Turan (30/100, inferred): The air of do-goodism hangs like a pall over the film and hampers its impact, though it is a milestone as the first major studio release to deal with AIDS and features strong performances. Demme ends up being more emphatic than needed, trying too hard to break America’s heart. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-12-22-ca-4314-story.html) - **Slant Magazine**, Keith Uhlich (30/100, inferred): The critic views Philadelphia as an unfortunate misstep for Demme, pandering to straight audiences rather than addressing AIDS with complexity. They single out the opening credits sequence for its visual and aural humanism amid the broader criticism of the film's superficial approach. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/philadelphia/) ## Details - **Director:** Jonathan Demme - **Director:** Jonathan Demme - **Writer:** Ron Nyswaner - **Cinematography:** Tak Fujimoto - **Editor:** Craig McKay - **Music:** Howard Shore - **Production design:** Kristi Zea - **Costume design:** Colleen Atwood, Lisa R. Frucht - **Producer:** Jonathan Demme, Edward Saxon - **Cast:** Tom Hanks as Andrew Beckett; Denzel Washington as Joe Miller; Jason Robards as Charles Wheeler; Mary Steenburgen as Belinda Conine; Antonio Banderas as Miguel Alvarez; Ron Vawter as Bob Seidman; Robert Ridgely as Walter Kenton; Charles Napier as Judge Garnett - **Runtime:** 2h 06m - **Certificate (MPA):** PG-13 - **Release (the US):** 14 January 1994 - **Genres:** Drama - **Budget:** $26 million - **Box office:** $207 million - **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf49UApA88s ## Where to watch in the US Not streaming, renting or buying in the US at the last check. Also available in: AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, GB, HR, HU, IE, IN, IT, LT, MX, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SI, TR. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## Awards - Academy Awards 1994: Best Makeup and Hairstyling (nominated); Best Writing, Original Screenplay (nominated); Best Actor (won); Best Original Song (won) ## If you liked this - *The Verdict* (1982), Fi1m 84: Another legal drama whose strongest evidence is written on its lead’s face. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-verdict.md) - *A Separation* (2011), Fi1m 93: For a harder account of justice, where sympathy never settles the case. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/a-separation.md) - *BPM (Beats per Minute)* (2017): Anger, desire and collective action give this AIDS drama a different urgency. - *Pride* (2014), Fi1m 82: A warmer, funnier account of solidarity that still makes room for prejudice. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/pride.md) - *All About My Mother* (1999), Fi1m 88: Grief, care and improvised families, with none of the courtroom’s tidiness. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/all-about-my-mother.md) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/philadelphia