MovieChat Forums > Philadelphia (1994) Discussion > Hanks was very good, but not great

Hanks was very good, but not great

posted 11 years ago by SeasonalAffective
11 replies | jump to latest

Don't get me wrong, I like this film a lot, but I think all the hulabuloo about Hanks' acting in this film is overdone. He did a very good job, but not a great one. Very good.

No, I'm not homophobic (I thought it was one of the best movies of the year), and no I don't dislike Hanks (I thought he deserved the Oscar for FG, and probably also should have gotten it for SPR). I thought, for example, that the Opera scene was pretentious and just not as powerful as it should have been, and as it's touted to be. That said, there are plenty of other scenes that are much more subtle, and more powerful, but aren't given as much recognition.

I'm not sure if this makes a lot of sense. I just watched the movie again, and was reminded of how good it was and how much I appreciated it--but also of what I didn't like about it.

Something I will say, that doesn't get said a lot, is that it has some great writing in it. Cinematography, acting, and direction are always praised in this movie, but I think the writing gets overlooked.

[–] riverwalk 11 years ago

i like hanks but personally i thought daniel day lewis was robbed that year for his role as the wrongly imprisoned Irish guy Gerry Conlon for the IRA bombings in 'In the Name of the father'. Such a brillant performance.

[–] ali8970 11 years ago

Totaly agree about Daniel Day Lewis. He was AWESOME in that film.

[–] riverwalk 11 years ago

For many people it was the performance of day lewis's career. Oscars don't always get it right, the fact that cher lost for mask was a disgrace-she pulled a hell of a performance in that movie which is why people think she got the best actress a few years later in moonstruck as compensation from the academy who realised their mistake even though the role was no way near as great as mask.

[–] ali8970 11 years ago

You know the ending scene........when Gerry says......."I'm an innocent man. I spent 15 years in prison for something I didn't do. I watched my father die in a British prison for something he didn't do. And this government still says he's guilty. I want to tell them that until my father is proved innocent, until all the people involved in this case are proved innocent, until the guilty ones are brought to justice, I will fight on. In the name of my father and of the truth!"

Gives me goosebumps. Love it so much. Seen it like......don't know how many times.

[–] riverwalk 11 years ago

yea both day lewis and emma thompson did such outstanding performaces in that film. However in hindsight i suppose nothing was going to get passed philadelphia at the oscars that year considering its subject matter being hiv/aids. It was an issue that was still relatively new in 1993 and was a highly taboo topic that the general public had little information over really as i don't think there was the surge in public awareness campaigns back then as there is now and no mainstream film had really touched on at the moment. Remember too that pre 1996 when the big hiv breakthroughs in medicine were discovered having hiv/aids was considered a death sentence so a film on aids in 1993 was highly racy/controversial for its time and thus was gonna stand out against all the films. So when you compare a film about terrorism in ireland/england in the 70s against a film on the aids epedemic i guess the aids movie would stand out more as it's a more universal issue. I guess no matter what alist actor was signed to play tom hank's role was gonna get that oscar considering many thought it was such a risky role to take for its time. Today however in 2013 if philadelphia was released it would not have as much impact or gain as much publicity i don't think as aids/hiv is more accepted and understood and been explored in many tv shows and it's no longer considered to be the death sentence it once was. In essence, it would'nt have the shock value it had in 1993.

[–] ali8970 11 years ago

Your reply makes me feel so ignorant lol. But you're right. Its not the performance it was the issue the film dealt with.

For the supporting actor role in same year, I think Ralph Fiennes should have won for Schindler's List. But I guess he didn't because he played a Nazi officer who actually existed. Christoph Waltz won for a similar role in Inglorious Basterds but it was fictional. That's the only explanation I can come up with for robbing RF for his Oscar. What do you think?

[–] riverwalk 11 years ago

ha your reply making me ignornant now as i did'nt even know ralph fiennes was in schindler's list. Ha ah i saw schindler's list when i was a kid and can only recall liam neeson and the gruesome scenes in it so i don't really have an opinion of the actors in it. But i do feel it was an outstanding film that deserved to get something, god there were some very racy films that year between aids and the holocaust. I never saw inglorious bastards either so i can't comment on that. The reason i'd be so well up on 'in the name of the father' is because i'm irish and grew up right beside the border so the political troubles in northern ireland/england/republic of ireland were something i could relate to as i saw some of the troubles 1st hand. The reason i could relate to philadelphia and had an interest in it is because i'm gay myself and had a hiv scare several years ago and used to see a guy that had the virus and i knew him when he was diagonised and saw what he went through dealing with it so both topics are close to my heart. As for the oscars, well they don't always do justice-another example is linda hamilton not getting nominated for her role in t2 which was a disgrace as it was the best performance i ever seen by a female on film. Even cameron lobbied to get her nominated but the academy rejected her.

[–] rascal67 11 years ago

Hanks was the least deserving of the nominees for 93' and only won due to the popularity syndrome that permeates these awards and also it would have been perceived as brave of him to tackle a role that could have been seen as career damaging. This was a strong year for acting contenders and I place Hanks 5th place. There was nothing overtly deep or realistic about his performance and he was embarrassing to watch in the pretentious opera scene, when he is describing his gayness. There is a much better and more involving and educational film about the gay community and the AIDS virus that came out the same year, produced by HBO and that is AND THE BAND PLAYED ON.

Personally, I would have given the oscar® to Anthony Hopkins for an exquisite performance in THE REMAINS OF THE DAY—if not him, then Liam Neeson for SCHINDLER'S LIST.

[–] wylierichardson-966-922691 9 years ago

Well, Day-Lewis was great in that "Name of the Father" movie, but he had already won an Oscar (for "My Left Foot"). This was Tom's first Oscar. And Cher wasn't even nominated for "Mask", so she didn't 'lose' that year. Even if she had been nominated that year, she likely would have lost to Geraldine Page - who was considered to be the sentimental favorite.

[–] one8teen 9 years ago

I would give these actors the Oscar;
Al Pacino, The God Father part II
Denzel Washington, Malcolm X
Liam Neeson, Schindler's List
Tom Hanks, Forrest Gump
Ian Mckellen, Gods and Monsters
Tom Hanks, Cast Away
Russell Crowe, A Beautiful Mind

[–] hnt_dnl 9 years ago

There were at least 3 or 4 actors not even nominated in '93 that I would have chosen over some of the ones that were:

Al Pacino for Carlito's Way
Kevin Costner for A Perfect World
Harrison Ford for The Fugitive
Michael Douglas for Falling Down