Earnest, engrossing and certainly brave but in my opinion flawed film giving us mainstream Hollywood's reaction to the AIDS outbreak amongst the gay community. The film makes a strong case against bigotry in general, but for me at times fails its subject somewhat by occasionally using too broad strokes in making its points.

I'm obviously watching this film some 16 years now after its original release and would like to think that society has moved on at least a little since then so that some of the repulsive prejudices here wouldn't be tolerated today, but the film maintains its relevance, mainly of course because society hasn't and in all likelihood never will full accept the gay community as equals (consider the US Army still refusing to recruit openly gay soldiers).

The movie opens with an almost guided tour of different sites of the city of Philadelphia where people gather, to no doubt bolster the image of the cultural diversity and tolerance of its reputed broad minded populace. It's against this backdrop that Tom Hanks' AIDS-afflicted upwardly mobile city lawyer makes his brave stand against an obviously contrived dismissal. Turned down by every other legal practice in the city when seeking to prosecute an unfair dismissal case, he eventually hooks up with an old adversary, an "ambulance-chasing" litigation-specialist lawyer, the overtly homophobic Denzel Washington to take on the venerable partners of his old firm, in particular the formerly patrician senior partner, played by Jason Robards.

Whilst the movie held me throughout and was never less than entertaining, I have some major caveats with the portrayal of some characters and some of the scenes depicted. It's noticeable immediately of course that the director felt unable to show any physical intimacy between Hanks and his lover Miguel, played by Antonio Banderas. That said it took Hollywood another 15 years for its first gay-kiss between men in "Brokeback Mountain" and if to turn a cliché, a journey of a hundred miles starts with a single step, then "Philadelphia" played its part, especially when prejudices were arguably more ingrained than today. I liked the idea of Hanks' case being taken on by a black man, obviously no stranger to discrimination but with deeply held bias of his own and enjoyed the movie best in the courtroom scenes, well played by all the principals.

The device of the prosecution and defence attorneys directly addressing the jury and hence we the viewers face-on was also effective but against this we get Hanks' frankly embarrassing "drip-dance" to the strains of Maria Callas which is overplayed in the extreme. I could have done with a little of the similarly over-egged family scenes, (especially the "home-movie" footage too obviously tugging at the heart-strings. Worst of all was the over-dramatic collapse of Hanks' character at the crux of the trial, Hollywood betraying its predilection for melodramatic climaxes.

Take nothing away from the actors however. Hanks in particular deserved his Oscar for a well-rounded depiction of, if not an ordinary average guy, (an opera loving, city slicker lawyer, anyone?), certainly a believable character, not without fault (tacitly highlighted with revelation of Hanks' one-night stand while still in his relationship with Banderas). Washington, in the less showy and less well-written role of Hanks' defence acquits himself well and the heavyweight turns by the likes of Robards, Joanne Woodward (who doesn't get much to do in all honesty) and the under-appreciated Mary Steenburgen.

There are many interesting minor-characters on show whose stories might have borne more scrutiny, not least the sole senior partner who displays remorse for the corporate decision and Hanks' erstwhile colleagues caught between a rock and a hard place in giving their difficult testimony. Special plaudits too must go to the rock stars Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young who contributed the two telling songs which book-end the movie so effectively. Springsteen's lyric, in particular demonstrates a potent empathy (...and my clothes don't fit me no more...") with the subject which often eludes the director on the screen.

All in all then, certainly an epochal movie, let down in terms of credibility and ultimately as entertainment by too obvious concessions to the considerations of on the one hand the box-office and on the other, the censorship laws of the day.