Reviews (16)

Hollywood History
If you're looking for a documentary full of facts, this movie is not your choice.

Fat Man and Little Boy uses history as the foundation of its story, which is really to illustrate the great moral dilemma the scientists and military personnel involved in the Manhattan Project were faced with as they realized the potential (both positive and negative) of "The Gadget" they were building. The story is not so much on "how" the bomb was built, but on the repercussions of the bomb. In this, it does quite well, trying its best to be balanced. In the end, however, the producers miss the balancing act and come across fairly strongly "anti-nuke". They do present both sides throughout, despite the stand they take at the end.

A well-acted movie, Newman and Schultz do a good job and the film is entertaining. History as a backdrop for a moral argument, rather than history for history's sake.

Entertaining enough
As most viewers will already know, the film basically depicts (inaccurately, from what I've heard) the developement of the first atom bombs.
What can I say? This drama is highly uneven; Paul Newman is in fine form as the general in charge of the project, his conflicts with Dwight Shultz, who plays the leading scientist, Dr. Oppenheimer is very enjoyable to watch, you got some very (good) dramatic acting there. However, the romantic subplots (especially the one between John Cusack and Laura Dern) are boring and wooden.
The most memorable scene in the film is the finale, where we have the final count-down to the testing of the world's first atom bomb (or, in humanity's case, the final count-down towards doom); with the scientists and military officers waited with both hopes and fears, any yet not really knowing the immense power of their creation; the clock ticks away; with the memorable Nutcracker's Suite playing away in the background.
Overall an entertaining movie; Newman's excellent performance makes this worth seeing.

"I am become Vishnu - the destroyer of worlds."
J. Robert Oppenheimer said on viewing the first atomic bomb explosion, "I am become Vishnu - the destroyer of worlds."

An intriguing rendition of the trials and tribulations of creating the first atomic bomb.

This is not the first or maybe the best and it surely will not be the last interpretation. However there is some fine acting and well designed story. This has held my attention more than once. Every part, in fact every line contributed to making you forget that you are watching a movie ant that this is real.

This is the story of how the need for the bomb came about and the building of a camp and the collection of men needed to accomplish the job. We see technical difficulties as well as emotional.

Mostly Fiction
Yes, there was a Manhattan Project and people named Groves, Oppenheimer and Szilard and yes Leo Szilard did like to spend as much time in the bath tub as possible (thinking) but other than that, this film was largely fictional. I was bothered by the historical inaccuracies including: 1. Groves met Szilard at the University of Chicago along with the rest of the scientists that worked there, not in a bathroom in Szilards hotel with Szilard in a tub and Groves on a toilet. 2. The Manhattan Project was much bigger than Los Alamos and Groves dealt with two other major groups that are mostly not even depicted. 3. Groves and Oppenheimer had a very different and more cooperative relationship than is depicted in the movie. 4. Groves was not subject to temper tantrums like Newman's depiction. He was actually very quiet, but extremely sarcastic, socially awkward, pear shaped and somewhat arrogant. He was also smart as a tack, having attended both MIT and West Point, where he was fourth in his class. He created three cities that are now major cities in their states and an industry bigger than the U.S. Automobile industry in just over three years. This was no dummy.

A more accurate movie is "Day One", at least as far as the plot goes, but even that fails to grasp the Manhattan Project's scope. The best film on it, which unfortunately no longer exists, was "The Beginning or the End" which was made in 1946 (Brian Donlevy played Groves). The main people on the project served as technical advisors for that one. Unfortunately, that was never put on video and probably rotted away in some warehouse.

A very good drama
This movie is the best film that depicts the story behind the atom bomb. It shows that although the original reason for building the bomb changed with the defeat of Germany, once the began, it was almost impossible to stop. ... Read more

Reviews (74)

Very Dramatic
This movie is indeed very touching. It really brings the AIDS crisis to life and raises many questions. Hopefully one day we will have some more answers. Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington are superb in their roles. It is very interesting to watch as Washington becomes more accepting of the lifestyle of homosexuals and the advent of the crisis of AIDS. What is also a nice in this film is the support Andrew Beckett(Tom Hanks) feels from his family regarding his discrimination battle. There needs to be more positive movies showing family support today.

The music of Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young fit in perfectly with the scenes of the film. People often overlook Neil Young's song and normally I do not like Mr. Young's music. However, this song is truly on a par with Springsteen Award Winning song as it amplifies the mood of Andrew Becket's fuenral perfectly.

Overall, this is one memorable movie from the 1990's and it can be appreciated by almost anyone.

Human Beings
The movie Philadelphia, by Johnathan Demme, displays the struggle a homosexual man infected with AIDS encounters in obtaining justice because he was unfairly fired from his job. Andy Beckett, played by Tom Hanks, seeks a lawyer to defend his case. Joe Miller, played by Denzel Washington, is the lawyer who defends Andy Beckett. Miller is a character who the viewers can relate to because he is homophobic and has a great fear about AIDS. The disease was not well known in the early nineties when the film was made, and Miller expressed the same fears of the public. Joe Miller learned how to put his personal feelings aside and defend the law. Although he does not agree with homosexuality and has a fear of the AIDS virus, Miller learned to look past those emotions and defend a homosexual man with AIDS to ensure that the law was upheld through justice. Philadelphia is an excellent movie because the viewers can relate to the characters and learn from their experiences with homosexuality and AIDS.

Joe Miller is a public defense lawyer who takes pride in his work. He is up for any challenge and rarely refuses to defend a client. Andy Beckett walks into Miller's office one day, seeking a lawyer. Miller is startled by Beckett's appearance because he looks ill and has a few lesions on his face. They shake hands, but Miller is extremely cautious about everything Andy touches. Andy Beckett introduces himself and explains to Miller that his employer fired him because he lost a serious document. Beckett wants to sue the corporation because he believes that he was fired out of prejudice. Miller asks what the prejudice is, and Andy says that the prejudice was against AIDS. Miller is afraid of the AIDS virus and does not wish to defend Andy. Andy is disturbed by Miller's refusal, but kindly departs the office.

The doctor Miller saw directly after the meeting with Andy Beckett attempted to assure Miller that AIDS cannot be contracted through a hand shake or touch, it is only contracted through sexual encounters. Miller is still disturbed by the thought of AIDS, though, because he has a family to worry about. The fear of this disease, however, did not stop Miller from thinking about Andy. Miller is dedicated to the law and does not like to see unjust acts, but he did not know how to overcome his fear of Andy's virus. He tried to convince himself that he denied Andy because he did not agree with homosexuality, but the truth is that he could not face his fear. Many citizens of the United States had the same fear of AIDS in the late eighties and early nineties due to the rising number of outbreaks. Scientists and doctors could not figure out a cure for this and people panicked. The majority of outbreaks occurred in homosexual couples and people referred to the disease as the "gay plague" or "gay cancer". Thus, hatred formed against homosexual people. Miller displays this hatred in the movie.

One day Miller is in the library reviewing material. He sees Andy a few tables over. A clerk is asking Andy if he would like to go to a private room after he brings him novels about AIDS. Andy does not want to go to a private room and a small argument arises. Miller walks over to Andy and starts talking to him. The clerk leaves and a few people around him move to other tables. Miller could not let his fear hold him back any longer. He helps Andy research and decides to defend him in court. A man's legal rights are more important than his personal situation. Miller puts aside the fact that Andy is homosexual, and learns to focus on his rights rather than his AIDS.

As Miller grows close to Andy, he learns more about himself. Throughout the case Andy becomes more and more ill. Instead of being afraid of Andy as he was in the beginning, Miller is compassionate for him and the illness with which he struggles. Miller is not cautious about touching Andy or being around his homosexual friends. He learns to accept Andy for who he is and respect him as a human being. Miller sets an example for society to follow. The public needs to stop blaming homosexuals for the AIDS virus and learn about the disease. Homosexual people also need to be treated as every other human being and society needs to learn how to accept them. Miller proves that these acts can be accomplished in this movie.

Philadelphia is a strong movie because it demonstrates two serious issues that citizens of the United States face. Homosexuality and AIDS arose abruptly and many people panicked out of fear of the unknown. The easy way out was to hate homosexuals because they were believed to be the cause of this disease as Miller did in the movie. People merely needed to educate themselves on AIDS and get to know homosexuals. They would discover that homosexuals are human beings just like everyone else and that the AIDS virus cannot be contracted through touch. Joe Miller set an example for Americans to follow in the movie Philadelphia.

The Oscar Winning Philadelphia with Hanks
March was Oscar month, and TCM (Turner Classic Movies) who showcase great Oscar movied showed ''Philadelphia'' with Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington .

''Philadelphia'' is the powerful movie about a well educated and hardworking lawyer named Andy Beckette who contracts AIDS and is then illegally and prejudicely fired from his law firm when they find out he has AIDS.

The movie is nothing short of Excellent demonstrating not only the cold-blooded and hypocritical members of corporte society, but the indignities and prejudices that people living with AIDS have to go through.

The movie also brilliantly shows the courtroom tactics and lies that defendants and lawyers will use in order to win their case. The Defense (who represents the Law Firm who fired Andy Beckette) tries to make Andy Beckett's lifestyle
and often times varying performances at work
against him to try to bring down his reputation and his case.

From a law point of view, the movie is Excellent.
From a Film making point of view, the movie is Excellent.
From a societal message , point of view, ''Philadelphia'' is Excellent.

Jason Robards, plays Charles Wheeler, a sickening, prejudice man who resembles the most disgusting corporate boss there is: The corporate boss, who pretends to be friends with his coworkers or clients, only to stabbed them in the back later. He will do only anything to benefit himself.

At the beginning, Wheeler pretends to be Andy's friend, heck he even ask him for legal advice on a special antitrust case called ''Highlite vs. Sander Systems''. Andy Beckett's becomes fired, from the job, once they find out he has aids, but try to make it look he was fired for other reasons. The movie also greatly shows the prejudices, and misconception people have about aids.

However, Director Jonathan Demme does bring up some controversial areas for example Andy was a guy with many sexual partners, and so his diagnosis of the Aids Virus while dating Miguel Alvarez (Antonio Banderas) is not surprising
at all. In fact the defense uses Andy's personal history against him very well.

Denzel Washington plays Jospeh Miller, the lawyer Beckette eventually to try to bring his AIDS case to court.
Miller himself, at first, displays his own prejudices against people with AIDS. When Beckette, touches items in his office, his face becomes terrified, showing his fear and ignorance that perhaps he will catch AIDS from Beckette.

Another gritty scene that shows people ignorance and prejudice is the library scene in which Andy Beckette, is conducting researching for his AIDS case against the lawfirm that illegally fired him. The librarian in the library, first asks Andy Beckette, if he would be more comfortable in a study room, but then it becomes evident that the the ignorant librarian is telling not asking Andy Beckette to go to another room.
Andy being, a very proud man, refuses showing his true dignity even while having AIDS.

Joseph Miller (Washington) eventually agrees to become Andy's lawyer and this is where more powerful scenes are shown along with brilliant and well scripted performances.
''Justice is blind regardless of color, sex and religion.'' is the line that the Judge in the case uses to ensure the parties involved that this will be a fair case. ''Philadelphia'' gathered many Oscar Nominations including Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor leading to Denzel Washington winning for Best Actor.

''Philadelphia'' is not the only movie that deals with the issue of AIDS, but it is by far one of the best made.

I Highly Recommended this movie for both educational reasons (educate people about AIDS along with the ignorant misconception people have about it), and for Journalistic and Filmmaking reasons.

An Oscar worthy film that has to be seen.

There is a dvd available for ''Philadelphia'' but unfortunately no, special features are given but still a great film.

Hear Springsteen's and Neil Young's songs, then press STOP
"Philadelphia" is Hollywood's pathetic, hygienic attempt to deal with the maelstrom of controversy surrounding AIDS. It just doesn't want to offend anyone. (Even the Talking Heads's song "Heaven," heard in one scene, has its "heaven is a place where nothing ever happens" lyric rendered not so offensive.) The performances of Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington are noteworthy, but the film refuses to fully explore how AIDS can lay waste to a person's body, mind, and relationships. Does our main character's family and friends struggle with an admixture of hatred, disgust, pity, and sorrow for their infected son? Of course not! That would be too real for the suburban megaplex crowd and for the gay community. No, in "Philadelphia," the AIDS victim's family and friends are supportive until the end. Who's the bad guy? Well, it's our hero's employer, whose somewhat understandable fears of a ravaging syndrome (which was not fully understood in 1993) being introuduced in the workplace are portrayed as malicious. The subject of AIDS is a powderkeg, but in "Philadelphia," it seems about as controversial as cancer.

Good movie, too preachy in areas
I finally got around to renting a copy of "Philadelphia". Honestly, I was bored and nothing seemed interesting in the video store at the time. I paid my money, took it home, popped it in, and watched for two hours. The plot is inherently well-known so I won't rehash it here. However, I do find the film to take their viewpoint in treating homosexuals as regular people to almost bashing you over the head extreme. I'm no longer a subscriber to any faith. I'm skeptical of all religions, but I still maintain a study to better understand people and show respect where I can. I respect the fact that one's personal preference in bedroom activites should not be included in workplace policy, or any other public discourse, unless mutually agreed upon. I tend to keep it behind the bedroom door. Whatever two consenting adults do is none of my business. However, if a religion states in it's holy book that the deity who inspired said holy book isn't pleased with same-sex relations, that is their belief and I respect it. Does that mean that religious people should be blindly labeled as "Homophobes"? No, only if they engage in the typical intolerance and prejudice shown to various ethnic groups the world over and apply that to actions consenting adults engage in, in the privacy of their bedroom. I've known and have worked with homosexuals in various jobs and also studied with in course during my college days, and I actually found a few to be more enjoyable and a breath of fresh air compared to some heterosexual people. I don't consider myself to be "Enlightened" (I have no time for people who claim to be anyways), but I eventually came to my current outlook in life long before I saw Philadelphia. I enjoyed the film for it's themes in removing intolerance, but the film just was a tad too preachy at times. Do I recommend it, yes, but I do know some won't change in their views no matter how foolish. ... Read more

Reviews (74)

Very Dramatic
This movie is indeed very touching. It really brings the AIDS crisis to life and raises many questions. Hopefully one day we will have some more answers. Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington are superb in their roles. It is very interesting to watch as Washington becomes more accepting of the lifestyle of homosexuals and the advent of the crisis of AIDS. What is also a nice in this film is the support Andrew Beckett(Tom Hanks) feels from his family regarding his discrimination battle. There needs to be more positive movies showing family support today.

The music of Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young fit in perfectly with the scenes of the film. People often overlook Neil Young's song and normally I do not like Mr. Young's music. However, this song is truly on a par with Springsteen Award Winning song as it amplifies the mood of Andrew Becket's fuenral perfectly.

Overall, this is one memorable movie from the 1990's and it can be appreciated by almost anyone.

Human Beings
The movie Philadelphia, by Johnathan Demme, displays the struggle a homosexual man infected with AIDS encounters in obtaining justice because he was unfairly fired from his job. Andy Beckett, played by Tom Hanks, seeks a lawyer to defend his case. Joe Miller, played by Denzel Washington, is the lawyer who defends Andy Beckett. Miller is a character who the viewers can relate to because he is homophobic and has a great fear about AIDS. The disease was not well known in the early nineties when the film was made, and Miller expressed the same fears of the public. Joe Miller learned how to put his personal feelings aside and defend the law. Although he does not agree with homosexuality and has a fear of the AIDS virus, Miller learned to look past those emotions and defend a homosexual man with AIDS to ensure that the law was upheld through justice. Philadelphia is an excellent movie because the viewers can relate to the characters and learn from their experiences with homosexuality and AIDS.

Joe Miller is a public defense lawyer who takes pride in his work. He is up for any challenge and rarely refuses to defend a client. Andy Beckett walks into Miller's office one day, seeking a lawyer. Miller is startled by Beckett's appearance because he looks ill and has a few lesions on his face. They shake hands, but Miller is extremely cautious about everything Andy touches. Andy Beckett introduces himself and explains to Miller that his employer fired him because he lost a serious document. Beckett wants to sue the corporation because he believes that he was fired out of prejudice. Miller asks what the prejudice is, and Andy says that the prejudice was against AIDS. Miller is afraid of the AIDS virus and does not wish to defend Andy. Andy is disturbed by Miller's refusal, but kindly departs the office.

The doctor Miller saw directly after the meeting with Andy Beckett attempted to assure Miller that AIDS cannot be contracted through a hand shake or touch, it is only contracted through sexual encounters. Miller is still disturbed by the thought of AIDS, though, because he has a family to worry about. The fear of this disease, however, did not stop Miller from thinking about Andy. Miller is dedicated to the law and does not like to see unjust acts, but he did not know how to overcome his fear of Andy's virus. He tried to convince himself that he denied Andy because he did not agree with homosexuality, but the truth is that he could not face his fear. Many citizens of the United States had the same fear of AIDS in the late eighties and early nineties due to the rising number of outbreaks. Scientists and doctors could not figure out a cure for this and people panicked. The majority of outbreaks occurred in homosexual couples and people referred to the disease as the "gay plague" or "gay cancer". Thus, hatred formed against homosexual people. Miller displays this hatred in the movie.

One day Miller is in the library reviewing material. He sees Andy a few tables over. A clerk is asking Andy if he would like to go to a private room after he brings him novels about AIDS. Andy does not want to go to a private room and a small argument arises. Miller walks over to Andy and starts talking to him. The clerk leaves and a few people around him move to other tables. Miller could not let his fear hold him back any longer. He helps Andy research and decides to defend him in court. A man's legal rights are more important than his personal situation. Miller puts aside the fact that Andy is homosexual, and learns to focus on his rights rather than his AIDS.

As Miller grows close to Andy, he learns more about himself. Throughout the case Andy becomes more and more ill. Instead of being afraid of Andy as he was in the beginning, Miller is compassionate for him and the illness with which he struggles. Miller is not cautious about touching Andy or being around his homosexual friends. He learns to accept Andy for who he is and respect him as a human being. Miller sets an example for society to follow. The public needs to stop blaming homosexuals for the AIDS virus and learn about the disease. Homosexual people also need to be treated as every other human being and society needs to learn how to accept them. Miller proves that these acts can be accomplished in this movie.

Philadelphia is a strong movie because it demonstrates two serious issues that citizens of the United States face. Homosexuality and AIDS arose abruptly and many people panicked out of fear of the unknown. The easy way out was to hate homosexuals because they were believed to be the cause of this disease as Miller did in the movie. People merely needed to educate themselves on AIDS and get to know homosexuals. They would discover that homosexuals are human beings just like everyone else and that the AIDS virus cannot be contracted through touch. Joe Miller set an example for Americans to follow in the movie Philadelphia.

The Oscar Winning Philadelphia with Hanks
March was Oscar month, and TCM (Turner Classic Movies) who showcase great Oscar movied showed ''Philadelphia'' with Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington .

''Philadelphia'' is the powerful movie about a well educated and hardworking lawyer named Andy Beckette who contracts AIDS and is then illegally and prejudicely fired from his law firm when they find out he has AIDS.

The movie is nothing short of Excellent demonstrating not only the cold-blooded and hypocritical members of corporte society, but the indignities and prejudices that people living with AIDS have to go through.

The movie also brilliantly shows the courtroom tactics and lies that defendants and lawyers will use in order to win their case. The Defense (who represents the Law Firm who fired Andy Beckette) tries to make Andy Beckett's lifestyle
and often times varying performances at work
against him to try to bring down his reputation and his case.

From a law point of view, the movie is Excellent.
From a Film making point of view, the movie is Excellent.
From a societal message , point of view, ''Philadelphia'' is Excellent.

Jason Robards, plays Charles Wheeler, a sickening, prejudice man who resembles the most disgusting corporate boss there is: The corporate boss, who pretends to be friends with his coworkers or clients, only to stabbed them in the back later. He will do only anything to benefit himself.

At the beginning, Wheeler pretends to be Andy's friend, heck he even ask him for legal advice on a special antitrust case called ''Highlite vs. Sander Systems''. Andy Beckett's becomes fired, from the job, once they find out he has aids, but try to make it look he was fired for other reasons. The movie also greatly shows the prejudices, and misconception people have about aids.

However, Director Jonathan Demme does bring up some controversial areas for example Andy was a guy with many sexual partners, and so his diagnosis of the Aids Virus while dating Miguel Alvarez (Antonio Banderas) is not surprising
at all. In fact the defense uses Andy's personal history against him very well.

Denzel Washington plays Jospeh Miller, the lawyer Beckette eventually to try to bring his AIDS case to court.
Miller himself, at first, displays his own prejudices against people with AIDS. When Beckette, touches items in his office, his face becomes terrified, showing his fear and ignorance that perhaps he will catch AIDS from Beckette.

Another gritty scene that shows people ignorance and prejudice is the library scene in which Andy Beckette, is conducting researching for his AIDS case against the lawfirm that illegally fired him. The librarian in the library, first asks Andy Beckette, if he would be more comfortable in a study room, but then it becomes evident that the the ignorant librarian is telling not asking Andy Beckette to go to another room.
Andy being, a very proud man, refuses showing his true dignity even while having AIDS.

Joseph Miller (Washington) eventually agrees to become Andy's lawyer and this is where more powerful scenes are shown along with brilliant and well scripted performances.
''Justice is blind regardless of color, sex and religion.'' is the line that the Judge in the case uses to ensure the parties involved that this will be a fair case. ''Philadelphia'' gathered many Oscar Nominations including Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor leading to Denzel Washington winning for Best Actor.

''Philadelphia'' is not the only movie that deals with the issue of AIDS, but it is by far one of the best made.

I Highly Recommended this movie for both educational reasons (educate people about AIDS along with the ignorant misconception people have about it), and for Journalistic and Filmmaking reasons.

An Oscar worthy film that has to be seen.

There is a dvd available for ''Philadelphia'' but unfortunately no, special features are given but still a great film.

Hear Springsteen's and Neil Young's songs, then press STOP
"Philadelphia" is Hollywood's pathetic, hygienic attempt to deal with the maelstrom of controversy surrounding AIDS. It just doesn't want to offend anyone. (Even the Talking Heads's song "Heaven," heard in one scene, has its "heaven is a place where nothing ever happens" lyric rendered not so offensive.) The performances of Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington are noteworthy, but the film refuses to fully explore how AIDS can lay waste to a person's body, mind, and relationships. Does our main character's family and friends struggle with an admixture of hatred, disgust, pity, and sorrow for their infected son? Of course not! That would be too real for the suburban megaplex crowd and for the gay community. No, in "Philadelphia," the AIDS victim's family and friends are supportive until the end. Who's the bad guy? Well, it's our hero's employer, whose somewhat understandable fears of a ravaging syndrome (which was not fully understood in 1993) being introuduced in the workplace are portrayed as malicious. The subject of AIDS is a powderkeg, but in "Philadelphia," it seems about as controversial as cancer.

Good movie, too preachy in areas
I finally got around to renting a copy of "Philadelphia". Honestly, I was bored and nothing seemed interesting in the video store at the time. I paid my money, took it home, popped it in, and watched for two hours. The plot is inherently well-known so I won't rehash it here. However, I do find the film to take their viewpoint in treating homosexuals as regular people to almost bashing you over the head extreme. I'm no longer a subscriber to any faith. I'm skeptical of all religions, but I still maintain a study to better understand people and show respect where I can. I respect the fact that one's personal preference in bedroom activites should not be included in workplace policy, or any other public discourse, unless mutually agreed upon. I tend to keep it behind the bedroom door. Whatever two consenting adults do is none of my business. However, if a religion states in it's holy book that the deity who inspired said holy book isn't pleased with same-sex relations, that is their belief and I respect it. Does that mean that religious people should be blindly labeled as "Homophobes"? No, only if they engage in the typical intolerance and prejudice shown to various ethnic groups the world over and apply that to actions consenting adults engage in, in the privacy of their bedroom. I've known and have worked with homosexuals in various jobs and also studied with in course during my college days, and I actually found a few to be more enjoyable and a breath of fresh air compared to some heterosexual people. I don't consider myself to be "Enlightened" (I have no time for people who claim to be anyways), but I eventually came to my current outlook in life long before I saw Philadelphia. I enjoyed the film for it's themes in removing intolerance, but the film just was a tad too preachy at times. Do I recommend it, yes, but I do know some won't change in their views no matter how foolish. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Just short of perfect
This film takes a look at the leopold/loeb case that is often glossed over in other films and even books on the subject. The focus is obviously on Leopold and Loeb rather than the crime itslef and the importance their personalities play in their connection to each other. The film seems rushed at times but it just seems to add to the intensity of it all. It's rushed but you can't seem to think of it being any other way. You're not left thinking one of the two boys is any more 'evil' than the other (which is perhaps the best thing about the film).

However, if you're not familar with the leopold/loeb case much of the movie could potentially be confusing and while many of the lines are actual things said by the two boys they are often placed in a different context or said to different people. If you've previously read Hal Higdon's book on the subject the movie makes much more sense than it would otherwise. However, if you have not, it is still a disturbing yet touching story. You'll realize the complicated nature of the boys' relationship and question who really contributed to the crime.

Very Different
This is a great film. Its prospective is very different from the two previous films(Rope/Compulsion) made on the Leopold/Loeb case. These other movies were both highly fictionalized versions of the case. This film is considered the most historically accurate to be made so far on the case, the trial scenes were taken directly from the actual trial transcripts. For this reason the film is often shown in Criminal Justice, Law and History classes.
This movie is also the first to boldly examine the homosexual relationship between the two killers.
Actors Daniel Schlachet (Loeb) and Craig Chester (Leopold) do an excellent job in the very diificult roles of two child killers.

A film that borderlines on greatness.
In my 11th grade English class, we were given a study on the case of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold, two college students who came from well-to-do families, who committed a most gruesome act of murder against a small boy by the name of Bobby Franks. The question throughout our studies: why would two well-off young men, with everything going for them, do such a thing to ruin their futures?

Tom Kalin's "Swoon" answers that question in gritty detail, using an unrelenting style that is admirable but brings little emotion to the film's central story. Told in black and white, with small bits of narration cast into the sequence of events, the movie provides us a look we've never seen before at the duo, one that is intriguing at times, though becomes tedious and dismal in others.

Daring in its approach to reveal the truth behind the scandal, Kalin's script goes into the relationship of Loeb and Leopold, whose sexual relationship with one another serves as the drive for their crimes and grievances against others. Their murder of the Franks child, to them, was little more than a promise kept by Loeb to Leopold, while to the rest of the community, it was a sheer act of horror for which, everyone hoped, they would pay with their lives.

But this new theory that becomes the center of the story is never quite full of the energy it needs to make it more engrossing. There is a certain amount of gratification with the exploration of the relationship between the two; in one scene, Leopold tells a shrink of a slave/master fantasy, which describes his views of his relationship with Loeb. The two find themselves together not out of want, but out of a need for one another, which makes for some very twisted yet intriguing mind games between the two.

The way the material is handled creates a problem: there's no energy to it. Throughout the second half of the film, primarily after their arrest and imprisonment, the movie loses what little momentum it had reserved, settling into stages of boredom without becoming absurd or redundant. The black and white photography is in the film's favor, placing us in Chicago during the mid-20's with an authenticity that accentuates the time and setting. Actors Daniel Schlachet (Loeb) and Craig Chester (Leopold) are convincing in their portrayal of Loeb and Leopold as emotionless, and without remorse for the crime.

So what is it about "Swoon" that keeps it from being a first-rate film? I just don't know. Here is a film that borderlines on greatness, boasting a daring story with style and acting to boot, and yet it never seems to cross the line into something interesting. It doesn't have the spark needed to make the story worth getting into; there's no emotional drive or connectivity, which allows us to get into the plot only so much before we start wondering what we should be feeling for it.

Great black and white/brutal irony
I was really impressed by the quality of this film, particularly considering its budget. Good black and white shooting is nearly lost in my opinion but apparently the photographer of this one had studied his Earnie Haller and Leni Refenstahl. I also found it highly ironic that in this retelling of the story that Leopold and Loebe escaped death due to a lack of understanding of homosexuality. They were declared mentally deficient by virtue of phrenology and old freudian neurosis. Had the establishment of the 20's understood homosexuality, Leopold and Loeb would surely have hanged, for they were guilty as can be. I was very pleasantly surprised at how good this film was. When it came out, any film with a gay theme got a good review so I have avoided the late 80's and early 90's gay movies. This film was quite the exception. Very good.

A stunningly beautiful and original film
"Swoon" starts out with a surrealistic reading of Leopold van Sacher-Masoch's "Venus in Furs." The tone set in this opening scene, both in the artistic and narrative sense, continues throughout the film. Told first through the journal entries of its two main characters and then through an objective, reporter-like narration, "Swoon" presents the story of the real-life murderers in a fashion that is both historically accurate and cinematic. The research is admirable, creating a depiction of the events that stays true to real life and allowing the audience to peek inside the minds of Leopold and Loeb. (Save for the film's one flaw: a minor inaccuracy that occurs when Leopold mentions a fantasy that is sadistic, when he was in fact masochistic.) The performances delivered by the two leads are breathtaking, turning the characters into humane figures while never trying to excuse their actions. The directing is ingenius, creating an atmosphere that not only cultivates a true sense of the trial of the killers, but of the entire twenties era.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who has any interest in history, cinema, or is simply able to enjoy a complex story-line. While the film may not be suitable for an audience that is not prepared to exercise its mind, it would be a pity for anyone to miss such a work of art. Suspenseful, humorous, dramatic, and heartbreaking, it is a story that stands both as a documentary and a brilliant story. "Swoon" is an example of what historical cinema should be like: unnervingly beautiful and strikingly unforgetable. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Crispin Glover fans beware
I wanted to like this movie, being a Crispin Glover fan. Would "Back to the Future" have been the same without him? Heck, no. And he was absolutely perfect for "Willard." He also does standout work in a number of other movies, such as "River's Edge." But his reputation as a major weirdo is not reason alone to cast him in a movie like "Twister," a film ostensibly about a really weird family which I guess is supposed to be funny and quirky, but winds up being a frustratingly dry bore. And this family isn't particularly weird at all. They're just white trash. I'm sure the director cast Glover because he's the goofiest actor most people can think of, but instead of making the family wacky by his mere presence, he's just stuck in what is essentially a very boring movie.
The plot, such as it is, mostly concerns a man named Chris attempting to reconcile with Maureen, the mother of his daughter, Violet. Why he wants Maureen back in his life is perplexing, to say the least, since within the first fifteen minutes of the movie we have seen that she is a horrible mother and a lazy drunk to boot. Glover plays her brother, a moron named "Howdy". He doesn't have much to do except act like a nutcase. Meanwhile, Maureen and Howdy's father (Harry Dean Stanton), a soda pop/miniature golf tycoon, is busy romancing a young televangelist. Not much else happens. Howdy runs around being irritating. There's also a tornado that arrives halfway through the movie and has absolutely no effect on either the characters or the plot. Tim Robbins, a stellar actor who has no business being within ten miles of this dull mess of a movie, has a cameo; he plays a guy who does what we as viewers have been longing to do, which is punch Howdy in the face.
How did this movie get made? Why did a reputable company like Artisan agree to distribute it? How can anyone watching this movie be anything but disappointed? (Although, I must admit I should have known I was in trouble when I saw that Stanton got top billing in the credits.) It's not that the movie is awful or stupid, it's just plain... well, boring. The acting is fine (with the exception of the miscast Glover; as discussed above, there is the type of movie in which his bizarreness works wonders, and there is also the type of movie in which he is simply grating), but there is no sympathy to be had for any of the characters. The plot is fairly cohesive, but devoid of any interesting conflict. The pace is plodding.
Some poeple enjoy a movie that meanders. Some people like certain movies in which "nothing happens." I can be one of those people. But "Twister" simply fell flat, in my opinion. I can't quite put my finger on why. Oh, well. I'm going to sell my copy to the used book store. Maybe they'll give me a dollar for it. Then I can buy an ice cream cone, which I'm sure will be a much more rewarding experience.

The Best Film About Kansas Since The Wizard of Oz
Crispin Glover fans will be in hog heaven when they see this neglected classic. He chews up the scenery, spits it out, and chews it up all over again. He wears leather jackboots, cracks a whip, and plays echoplex guitar-drenched love songs that don't seem to go anywhere. He also sings a great song called "Daddy Was So Mean". His delivery is so delicate that every line spoken trembles with sensitivity.
Watch out for the million-dollar cameo from Bull Lee, author of "Junky".

Crispin Glover fans be happy
Real excited about this DVD. If we could just get "The Dark Backward," and "Rubin and Ed" to be released on DVD, we could view these strange oddities all the time. "Twister" is a very strange movie with a nice cast. Everyone is pretty damn nuts, it's nice to see all these actors out of their minds. This is Crispin's strangest role to date, and that is a BOLD statement. Be sure to buy this if you like a dose of insanity once and a while. ... Read more

Album Description

Canadian edition of 1992 surrealistic black comedy starring Brad Pitt & Catherine Keener, directed by Tom Di Cillo ('Living in Oblivion'). ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Brad Pitt Sparkles as a Surreal Anti-Hero
Brad Pitt is obviously the main draw here, and although he brings his great physical beauty to the role, as in every role he plays, it is not all he brings. He is able to capture the essence of Johnny "Suede", a quiet, disconnected young man whose dreams of being an idol are much more real to him than his aimless and odd real life. You hear Brad sing too! This movie is completely weird and wonderful and Brad is so captivating. It's a wonderful hybrid of Twin Peaks meets Melrose Place. A must see, for both men and women, I think.

A haunting tale of loneliness and isolation
I stumbled across this movie by chance, when watching Australian SBS's movie of the week slot with Margaret Pomeranz. When renting the video some-time later the blurb on the back did not do the movie any justice. Johnny Suede is an original and haunting movie which touched my heart like no other. Brad Pitt is excellent as Johnny Suede. He captures all the emotions so well; alienation,loneliness,dreaminess, naivety. The catchy guitar riff at the start sets the scene so well as you drift off into Johnny Suede's idealic dreamworld. I can relate to Johnny Suede's character very well. Being an outsider with a very naive but positive outlook on the world. People using you for their own needs (eg, Darlette, Yvonne even Deek.)Also having a bizarre but unique way of thinking and saying. The shoes were great symbolism also. This movie could well be about the director himself in Tom DiCillo. It seems to be a very personal movie. I also loved the supporting cast; Deek made up his own mind on Johnny, Darlette just used Johnny for support, Was Yvonne still seeing the married guy (remember the bruises, Flip Doubt was great as the weird, possesive photographer guy, I think he was actually a nice guy, Freak storm was convincing as the con- man muso. Being a big fan of James Dean, you can see the comparisons between Pitt and Dean. Unfortunately in my opinion, Brad Pitt ended up taking the easy road playing no emotion macho types which are not really him. This movie is the closest to Brad Pitts personality - vulnerable and sensitive. Anyone could've played Tyler Durden. The bleak wasteland environment where Johnny lives demonstrates the hardships you have to endure when you follow your heart as an artist. This movie deals with issues that I struggle to accept about myself; intimacy, belonging, trying to fit in, being too nice, being a doormat. Pitt has some excellent dialogue. Some of my favourites are; These hands were not meant to hold a god-damn paintbrush, What'ya think I was doin' playing hockey! Babe..you look so beautiful right.. now, The name's suede johnny suede, With these shoes on I'm pretty light on my feet. And heaps more. Johnny Suede will touch those dark subterrannean caverns in your heart where you hardly ever visit. ....

Not to mention the hair
This was really quite a deplorable little movie. The awfulness of the acting, with one exception, eclipsed even the painfulness of the concept. Brad Pitt, never very gifted as an actor, here hit rock bottom, fortunately early in his career. When I say fortunately I mean for him, not for the rest of us, who have had to endure his later somnolent roles whose dreadfulness is said, by some, to be compensated for by his abs and pretty face.
I am sure this movie would have sucked out my life and left me a vegetable, except for the performance of Catherine Keener, whose brilliance as an actress has, alas, never been rewarded with the success that she deserves.

Suede is groovy man
filled with great direction and sparkled together with the likable performance of Brad Pitt as Johnny Suede. Suede wants to make a band and he does but then things fall apart as he spirals into relationships and conflicts. Catherine Keener is also great. Samuel L. Jackson and Calvin Levels also star, though Jackson has a small roll as Pitt's band bass player. a great movie

Is Johnny For Real?
"Johnny Suede" is a wonderfully refreshing off-beat comedy that blends surrealism and a critical pop-culture sensibility while challenging film conventions in a playful, entertaining way. The story follows would-be retro rocker "Johnny" (Brad Pitt) though his adventures in love and music. Katherine Keener plays Johnny's "real" love interest as the girl who rescues him from his shallow ambitions. This is an extremely unusual film that mixes magical events and dream sequences energizing the work with a highly surreal feeling. Set in a decaying and spooky section of Brooklyn, the relationships between characters take on a greater, more universal significance. If I didn't know better, I might consider Tom Dicillo a cinematic genius, with a touch of Beckett for good measure. But, funny enough....

In an interview years later, Tom Dicillo said that "Johnny Suede," his first feature film, was the product of a "shooting nightmare." According to Dicillo, Brad Pitt (Johnny Suede) played the character as if he recently had a "frontal lobodomy." There was even a suggestion in the interview that Pitt willfully dumbed-down the character despite Dicillo's direction to play him as an ordinary mixed-up guy "just trying to figure things out." There was even a hint that Pitt was intentionally sabotaging the shoot as buzz began to circulate that he was destined for stardom (think Thema & Louise). However, I believe he was simply too good an actor to take a character like Johnny without irony. Dicillo considers the movie a failure and said that he was forced to leave in strange, awkward scenes because he simply had no choice (read money) to shoot them again.

"Johnny Suede" remains forever a puzzle. Is Johnny brain-dead or really a perfect symbol for a fallen and lost humanity? Nobody knows...Perhaps, the wasteland in which the action takes place is merely a sign of low-budget, low-awareness-film-making, or is it a deeper, more spiritual wasteland, one in which we all inhabit? Do we, like Johnny, need to have a shoe tossed into our face to understand the true nature of love. Is Tom Dicillo just writing about himself, or did he really intend to make one of the dreamiest, way-cool films about love and art? Nobody knows... ... Read more