電影home英文觀後感

⑴ 電影≤弱點≥英文觀後感

This is a can't-miss family movie. After all, EVERYONE seems to like inspiring family films--especially when it's based on real people. And, not surprisingly, I had a thoroughly good time watching it--though I do recommend you see it with a box of Kleenex nearby.

The film is about a young man named Michael Oher--an extremely large black teenager who has bounced from home to home in the foster care system. Currently, he's in a new school and no one realizes that he has no place to live. Yet in spite of having a crack-addicted mother, a father who was killed in prison and every other reason to be an angry powder keg, he's a very gentle and sad soul---who is also enormous and has amazing potential to play football.

A nosy but very nice lady (Sandra Bullock) convinces her husband (Tim McGraw) to bring Michael home...at least for the night. But this one night turns into a permanent living situation and he becomes an important part of the family. However, despite this new living arrangement working out well, Michael is so far behind in school and his GPA so low that he hasn't a prayer to play football in college. That's because although many schools are now offering him athletic scholarships, his GPA is too low to allow him to accept these offers. So, with his new family's help, perhaps he can pull up those grades and have a future.

This film is super-inspirational and sweet--mostly because it's true. I am sure that some poetic license was taken when making the film (I especially wonder if the little brother could be THIS precocious and adorable), but overall they did a good job of sticking reasonably close the facts. While I loved Sandra Bullock's performance (she's great as usual), I was a bit surprised that she received Oscar for it--I did see a few performances in other films that year that I thought were a bit better (such as the leading young lady in "Precious"). Also, Tim McGraw, while a lesser role in the film, did a surprisingly good job--especially as he's really known as a country singer, not an actor. All around, a very good film and one that is meant to inspire.

⑵ 英文影片觀後感

給你篇 《小鬼當家》的觀後感，很簡單的，加分哦~~

Today, I saw large areas of the United States "Home Alone" with deep feeling. The main character is a little boy. Christmas is fast approaching, the little boy was always getting into trouble. As a result, they go to a holiday in Paris, but forget the little boy at home. There are two thieves, after a long period of the study, which determined that no one at home. Unexpectedly, there is a little devil at home it! The little boy with a lot of smart and witty way, to finally seize the thief. His parents, Christmas is the day to come back, and the boy's mother hugged tightly. Since then, the boy became everybody's favorite target.

I would like to tell you that the smart money is not unusual in some small inexpensive. But in the coming danger, to protect their own!

⑶ 英文電影觀後感

Ice Age 冰河世紀 英語影評

It』s not particularly surprising to be disappointed by any computer-animated film not bearing the Pixar logo. In fact, until Shrek, 2001』s rollicking success, I wouldn』t have even believed it could happen. What is surprising, is that Ice Age doesn』t even ATTEMPT to reach Pixar』s Toy Story heights, apparently content to revel in its status as Monster』s, Inc.'s second rate, half wit cousin.

Ice Age is yet another 「extinction for kids」 movie, one of many in a long line of baby dinosaurs, pterodactyl eggs, and sympathetic cavemen. This time, it』s the ice age, and wooly mammoths roam the earth alongside primitive man. Strangely enough, in this early world, animals can talk, and humans cannot. But when a group of would-be-enemies discover a lost human baby, wooly mammoth (Ray Romano), saber-toothed tiger (Dennis Leary), and giant sloth (John Leguizamo) must work along side each other in a journey to return the child to its home.

Visually, Ice Age is perhaps the poorest bit of CGI I have ever seen. Contrasted to the beautiful constructs of Monsters, Inc.; or even the gooey, gloppy creativity of Shrek; Ice Age is nothing but badly rendered polygons and Acme animated characters. No hint of photo-realism here. It』s like comparing a Bugs Bunny Cartoon to The Lion King. Actually, I suspect that is exactly what the folks at Ice Age were going for.

Ice Age is really little more than a collection of silly animal gags and Leguizamo one liners. Some of them are even quite funny. If that is all that we』re going for here, then I suppose I』m all for it. But then there are these strange attempts at gut wrenching sappiness, which fall painfully flat amidst sub-video game animation. Frankly, I』m not even sure the CGI they use here is up to the task of displaying the kinds of emotions these people are trying to illicit from their characters. The humans more closely resemble totem poles than they do living, breathing, creatures. It』s laughable watching their polygon-limited faces trying to emote in response to the story』s attempts at heartfelt, soft touches.

Thankfully, the main characters are animals, which are at least bearably rendered to slapstick fun levels. As a result, what slapstick there is, is highly entertaining. Sure, Ray Romano』s vocal talents aren』t particularly spectacular. But Dennis Leary and the always-odd John Leguizamo cover for his mammoth ineptitude without hesitation.

The story itself is bland, boring, and uninspired, as is the almost laughably bad animation. The film』s only real saving graces are some slapstick side trips into the world of an unlucky squirrel and a group of soon-to-be-extinct melon-hoarding dodos. Ice Age』s comedy is worthy of Bugs, but unless you』re under 5, you』ll be bored with everything else.

看看行不行

《冒牌天神2》觀後感:

This should've gone straight to video. Evan Almighty was not able to manage the expectations of those who came to see it anticipating as riotous a ride as its predecessor Bruce Almighty. It retained the premise of the original as a spin-off but it doesn't work not because Steve Carell is less talented than Jim Carrey but because he had lousy material to work with. Even Morgan Freeman (who reprises his role as God) lost the zing and impressive qualities he had in the first installment.

Evan Almighty apparently targets a family audience with its decidedly more religious overtones (check out what ARK really means), so it shouldn't have attempted to fool the audience by maintaining the Almighty franchise because it doesn't fit; its brand of humor and story simply failed to keep up.
It would've probably done better if it were marketed differently instead of lazily riding on the success of Bruce Almighty when it painfully couldn't deliver the same punches.

⑷ 電影《fly away home》 英文影評700字

What do we have, if we don't preserve nature's wonders? What do you do with a flock of Canadian goose eggs, after the mother has been driven away by subdivision builders? Why, you hatch them, raise them, build an ultralight that looks like a giant goose, and teach them to follow you south to North Carolina.

Amy (Anna Paquin) is living with her mother in New Zealand, when an auto accident kills mom and forces Amy to go live with her eccentric father (Jeff Daniels) in Canada. A 13-yr-old, she does not adjust well, but her life changes when she finds those abandoned eggs. She hatches them in the barn, with the help of a light, and they "imprint" on her. She feeds them, sleeps in the bathtub so they can have the bathroom, swim in the toilet, they follow her everywhere.

Warden tries to clip their wings, the law, but Amy hits him over the head with a pot, dad chases him away. Geese grow, learn how to fly, dad says they can't stay, need to migrate, hits on the idea that they will follow her in a plane. Being a handyman, sculptor, and inventor, he builds the goose-looking ultralight and teaches her to fly. The geese follow her.

They plan a 4-day route, 2 planes, first stop at an airforce base near Niagra Falls, NY, creates a "scramble" and a little havoc. Second day, their geese follow some wild geese and land in a pond, near where hunters are shooting geese. Next morning, Amy uses her special "call" to round up all hers, and they take off again. The news media catch on, start to track her route, and anticipate their next landing. Dad has a rudder problem, crashes in a cornfield, Amy has to continue alone, makes it to the construction site as they were ready to destroy it.

Although a fictional account, the story is based on real migratory patterns of geese, and the imprinting and following a vehicle is real. The real stars of this film are the geese, from pecking out of their shells, to following Amy all over, to their flight with the ultralight, to their playfulness in the water after they reach their destination. Seeing that wonder of nature, from egg to alt in such a short time, is extremely moving for me.

Anna Paquin is so perfect in her role, and seems so natural with the geese. Jeff Daniels' role as her father seems just perfect too. Mary Chapin Carpenter's "10,000 Miles", both at the beginning and at the end, is beautiful and haunting.

Caleb Deschanel's cinematography of flying geese is more than merely uplifting, like the film, it is extraordinary, and well deserved its Oscar nomination. This charming and delightful film is based upon the well-known fact that birds can 'imprint' on whoever or whatever is there when they hatch, and in this case it is the 14 year-old actress Anna Paquin. She was well worth imprinting on, as she is every bit as delightful as the film as a whole. Now that she is all grown up and glamorous, I wouldn't mind imprinting on her myself. - Give me an eggshell, quick! - The story is a wonderful fable about the girl who saves the goose eggs, hatches them, and becomes their Momma. They follow her around everywhere, but wild geese have to migrate, so she is faced with the dilemma: what to do at migration time? The girl's father is an eccentric, beautifully portrayed by Jeff Daniels. He is always tinkering with machines and likes to build what we now call 'micro-lites', tiny planes with engines that go 'put put' and carry a single person at low altitudes. So you guessed it, father and daughter get into their micro-lites and lead the geese south! Apparently, wild geese will follow a micro-lite if it is shaped like a goose. The story is a magnificent fable which is just believable, sensitively portrayed and with fabulous cinematography and special effects. It is what is called these days, amidst all the blood and gore and obsession with closeups of copulation, a 'family film', meaning no murders take place and people do something other than have sex all the time. (In a normal Hollywood movie it would be impossible to take the geese south because it would mean the director could not ask lots of actresses to take their clothes off.) Carroll Ballard directs this film really well. He is one of those rare directors who does not want to have all his characters mown down by machine guns or chopped to pieces by maniacs, and he does not want to invent unnecessary bath scenes where the girls show their tits so that he can get his jollies. He also likes animals a lot, and that is always a good sign that he might himself not be a monster like so many other directors are. Any normal person (and there still are some) would have to enjoy this film. It is what used to be called 'heart-warming'. In this era of cold hearts, we need that.

⑸ 求一篇英文電影的英文讀後感

功夫熊貓 1
I still remember way back in 2005 when I first heard about Kung Fu Panda I thought it was a pathetic idea. My thoughts had to do with 2 things… the concept and using Jack Black. Both I thought were terrible ideas that seemed to me to lend themselves to yet another cookie cutter, annoying, cheap and witless animated film (non-pixar) that would just rely on fart jokes, burp jokes, fart jokes and basically any simple little thing it takes to amuse 10 year old kids (which is just about anything) without bother to put any quality story telling or themes or idea into it. Just have Jack Black talk in outrageous tones, flash some pretty colors and have Po (that』s the name of the Panda) fart.

Yes, I thought I could already see the entire movie playing itself out in my head just from hearing the concept alone. So off I went to see Kung Fu Panda the other day. Was I correct in my first impressions? Actually… no I wasn』t. It』s actually not a bad film at all.

「The most important element」 in any film will vary according to its genre. For a film like Kung Fu Panda clearly the most important element it needed to pull off was comedy. If a film like this one doesn』t make you laugh… then there isn』t much left to fall back on. Thankfully the movie succeeds quite well on this level. I can』t recall any more than 1 hard belly laugh (usually a decent comedy needs much more than that), but it felt like it at least always had me smiling or giggling through the run time. Almost none of the joke were home runs… but then did all work. The end result was I found myself entertained almost all the way through.

Coming up with a good villain in a kids film is no easy task. The character has to be menacing, but at the same time you can』t give kids nightmarish visions and make them crap themselves. I mean come on… it』s Kung Fu Panda… you can』t exactly have Violator (from the Spawn comics) showing up can causing kids across the nation to spontaneously crap themselves in their theater seats… then requiring therapy for the next 3 years to make the nightmares go away! It is a fine and delicate balance… and the villain in Kung Fu Panda, Tai Lung, was PERFECT. He was certainly menacing… but at the same time easy enough for the kids to handle without needing pampers. I think the presence of such a villain really helped the film work.

Doing good action in an animated film is also no easy task. I mean, it』s easy enough to DO… just not so easy to do WELL. However, Kung Fu Panda and the folks at Dreamworks really did pull of some BEAUTIFUL animation with complex yet extremely smooth kung fu fighting that was a treat to watch. It was also a lot of fun seeing how each character had a totally different fighting style in keeping with which animal they were. I mean come on… how on earth do you animate a snake doing Kung Fu and have it look cool? Well… they found a way!

功夫熊貓2
Kung Fu Panda is an American animated comedy film released in 2008. After its release it is welcomed by most alts and children and receives very positive and favorable reviews. I think the film is trying to tell us that if you have a dream and hold on to it, you will be successful one day.

The movie is about a lazy, fat and clumsy panda called Po. He helps his goose father in his family noodle shop every day. And his father expects him to take over the shop and tell him the secret ingredient of making noodle soup. However, Po is fanatic of Chinese Kung Fu and is always dreaming to become a Kung Fu fighter.

Everyone is surprised to find the result but they have to accept the reality. Eventually Shifu takes sage advice from Oogway and begins to teach Po martial arts. Po is carefully prepared to fight. But is Tai Lung defeated in the end by the panda? I urge you to find out the result on your own.

In my opinion, the most impressive part of the movie is the sacred Dragon Scroll and the secret ingredient of making noodle soup. When Po is ready to open the sacred Dragon Scroll, which promises great power to its possessor, he finds nothing but blank. He was in despair and everyone is shocked and desperate. So Shifu has to order his students to lead the villagers to safety while he stays to delay Tai Lung for as long as he can. Then Po meets his father on the way back, and unexpectedly his father tells him the secret ingredient of the family's noodle soup: nothing. He explains that things become special when people believe they are. I think this is the theme of the movie. Once you hold a firm belief, you can get what you want.

On the whole, the movie is funny and entertaining. Its theme of 「believe in yourself」 is loved by the parents. And for alts there are some wonderful actions and sceneries. If you have not watched the Kung Fu Panda, I sincerely recommend you to watch it and enjoy the enthusiastic and funny Panda.

音樂之聲1
Watching the DVD of "The Sound of Music" wasn't exactly a revelation -- after all, I was a teenager when the film came out, and saw it in a theater, lo those many years ago -- but it was a delight.

I hadn't seen it for many years, and it was a great treat to see it again via the excellent proction values of the THX digitally mastered DVD.

That long tracking shot over the Alps to Julie Andrews' wonderful, crystal-ringing voice set the pace for a delightful movie.

There are people who turn a cynical eye and ear to this film, which is too bad for them. Musicals have a limited audience in this age, I suppose, but for those who love music in any form, and who can stand some sweetness from time to time, this film is deeply enjoyable.

The music is almost completely great (there is one tune I just can't warm up to), the performances are charming, the Austrian locales are beautiful and the story is touching, involving love, personal drama and world drama. What else do you want?

"The Sound of Music" is a mostly true story, of the Von Trapp Family Singers. Austrian Captain von Trapp, wife Maria and his children had sung in the Salzburg Music Festival in 1936, then scooted out of Europe in 1938 to get away from Hitler and his evil ways. Eventually they opened a music school, then an inn, in Vermont.

Maria wrote a book, "The Story of the Trapp Family Singers," which became a German film, "Die Trapp Familie," in 1956. By 1959, the story of the von Trapps had become a successful Broadway musical, with a little help from Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II. The movie version -- directed by Robert Wise and somewhat improved from the stage version, most agree -- was released in 1965.

It is the story of the lively novitiate nun, Maria (Andrews), who -- too flighty to concentrate on religious ties -- is sent to be governess to the von Trapp children. She soon thaws out the icy Captain von Trapp (played by Christopher Plummer) and he sings "Edelweiss" with his children, and before too long he's in love with the noviate and eventually they are wed.

Watching the DVD -- again, many years after the last time I'd seen the film -- I was continually thrilled by Andrew's great charm and beautiful voice, which rings as pure as the finest crystal. She is so delightful in the role that it is no wonder she has been the star she is for so long.

There are photographs of the real Maria, and interviews with some of the von Trapp children. It's amusing to hear them talk about the liberties the film took with their story.

"The Sound of Music" was the most popular movie ever made to that date, and held the box-office record for a long time. For good reason. It is a complete delight, and still highly recommended.

音樂之聲2

THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965) was one of the most popular films of the 1960s. Although a bit corny, it is a joyous musical odyssey suitable for the entire family. Today, too often what goes for musicals, see for example EVITA, is little more that a show with a single decent song. In THE SOUND OF MUSIC every song is tuneful and most are memorable and moving.

Some shows are meant to be seen in a movie theater on a large screen with an impressive sound system to match. THE SOUND OF MUSIC is one of them. Nevertheless, our family enjoyed it at home. We have a high quality home theater setup, but the full effect can only be experienced in a real theater. I have not seen the film that way in thirty years. This review is from the home viewing rather than my memory.

The movie is filled with songs, and there are even some simple dance numbers. When Liesl dances in the conservatory at night with Rolfe (Daniel Truhitte), she ends up giving him a single kiss. This sends him into total rapture. I can remember a time when I was a teenager like him and one kiss from a girl, especially a beautiful one, could evoke a response as strong as Rolfe's. Times change and teenagers are regretfully much more sexually sophisticated now. Still, the lone kiss in that scene remains powerful.

In a show that is so upbeat it has been criticized as being sappy, there is the tension of the looming war. The Captain's friend Max Detweiler (Richard Haydn) is apolitical and ignores the coming Anschluss. "What's going to happen is going to happen," he advises the Captain. "Just make sure it doesn't happen to you." Although this war reality is ever-present and although the film is based on a true story, the movie feels like a lovely and enring fairy tale.

This is a movie filled with exuberance, memorable songs, and great beauty. A joy to be savored and seen by each generation.

⑹ 求一部英文電影的英文觀後感

《勇敢的心》
一個勇敢的男人，一個嚮往自由，渴望愛情的心。用黨內的話來講，他真可以算作為了民族的事業，為了不滅的愛情，拋頭顱撒熱血了。佛羅伊德說過人的三大慾望，生的慾望，愛的慾望，被尊重的慾望，這個男人被負著沉重的負擔，挺起寬闊的胸膛，去證實自己的存在。拋棄個人英雄主意不談，慾望是原動力，愛情是導火索，最終嚮往自由的口號把整個行為推向了新的高度，華萊士僅僅是個符號，自由在引導人民。
華萊士兩次深深受到傷害時的舉動猶如電擊般觸動我的心。一幕是在心愛的女人慘遭毒手後，自己已經無力回天，他那有如閃電一樣的目光，義憤填膺，氣勢有如滔滔江水，一發而不可收拾。另一幕出現在盟友背叛他的那一刻，孤獨，無助，失望而沒有絕望，他拋掉幻想，重新拿起武器，進行著一個人的戰斗，向世界討回自己的公道。

A brave man, a longing for freedom, love hearts desire. Terms of use, then the party, he can be counted as the cause for the nation, in order to immortal love, shed blood of Caesar. Floyd said that three people desire, raw desire, the desire for love, the desire to be respected, the man was a heavy burden of negative, broad chest stood to confirm their existence. Not abandon the idea of personal heroism, the desire is the driving force, love is the fuse, yearning for freedom eventually put the whole conct of the slogan to a new height, Wallace is just the symbol, the people freely in the guide.
Wallace deeply hurt when the two act as if the electric shock-like touch my heart. Favorite scene in the hands of the women were after, have been unable to return to their own days, his eyes like lightning, like, filled with indignation, as the momentum rolling river, far out of control. Another screen appears in the betrayal of his allies at the moment, loneliness, helplessness, despair, disappointed but not that he throw away the illusion, to take up arms again to carry out a people fighting to get their fair world.

⑺ 神秘代碼電影介紹（英文）觀後感（英文）、

《神秘代碼》是好萊塢巨星尼古拉斯·凱奇的一部科幻新作，講述了尼古拉斯·凱奇飾演的大學教授約翰在妻子過世後扮演著單親爸爸的角色。對兒子的嚴格管束，使得父子二人之間始終存在隔閡，然而就在兒子的校慶典禮上，一封來自「過去」的神秘信件，將徹底打破父子二人的平靜生活，將他們捲入一系列的恐怖事件和一場未知的命運當中。

神秘代碼 劇情簡介
1959年，在慶祝威廉·道斯小學的建成儀式上，孩子們將自己作的畫放在了時間囊里，並將其埋在地基下，其中一個看起來頗為神秘的小女孩露辛達在她的畫上寫下了一行行看起來毫無規律的數字。
轉眼間50年過去了，在威廉·道斯小學的50年校慶上，校方開啟了時間囊並將50年前學生的傑作分發給現在的學生。露辛達的繪紙到了一個叫凱利布·柯斯勒(錢德勒·坎特布瑞飾)的孩子手裡，這張繪紙引起了卡利布的父親——麻省理工大學天文學教授柯斯勒(尼古拉斯·凱奇飾)的注意。柯斯勒教授發現，這張繪紙上的數字精確地記載了過去50年間所發生的重大災難的日期及死亡人數；令他更為驚訝的是：上面還記載了將要發生的三起災難事件，其中最後一件更是涉及全球的重大災難，而他與他的兒子也將捲入其中。 柯斯勒教授試圖通過當局來化解即將到來的危機，但是其他人認為他是杞人憂天，他只能選擇孤軍奮戰。在黛安娜·韋蘭(羅絲·巴瑞恩飾)與其女兒阿比·韋蘭(勞拉·羅賓遜飾)的幫助下，柯斯勒教授不斷的努力，與時間賽跑，直到不得不面對終極災難與犧牲……

[{豆瓣 里 最好的 影評}]
影片的開始，女老師將小朋友們畫作放進一個叫"time capsule"的容器中。雖然女老師輕松自然的說出"time capsule"，但就在那時，一種詭異的感覺襲遍全身，一股涼氣從地底下鑽出來，連雞皮疙瘩都不放過我。於是，我心中假定：這是一個「懸疑劇」。
當黑衣人頻繁出現，飛機空難81人罹難，地鐵災難和那張能預示災難的紙被指指點點的時候，一種對「災難片」慣有的煩感湧上心頭。因為那好像只表示人類自身的「無辜」和沒有改變自己命運的能力的的那種無助與不安。災難片除了讓人覺得自己無用之外，還能帶來什麼？或許是票房而已。
後來發現看這部影片，有一種「山重水復疑無路，柳暗花明又一村」的暢快。因為John在Lucinda故居急急找尋災難證據時，他發現了一幅畫，這幅現的下面寫了一個單詞"Ezekiel"。這個單詞就是聖經中「以西結書」，一卷先知書預示了以色列民族，以至所有民族的結局，世界的結局。因著信仰的永恆性，頓悟這是一部「宗教性」影片。但值得關注的並不是它的宗教性，也不是它的虛構性，而是它烘托出的信仰真締。

淺釋一下我眼中的Knowing:
1. Knowing中文翻為「先知」
我思來想去，這是最適合的一個片名。因為只有這個片名，才能體現出人類現在的光景。在聖經中，先知是能夠聽到神話語並且將所聽到的命令和預言傳遞給眾人的人，但是他也無力改變神對某個人或某個民族的興旺或衰微的計劃。而這一點，正是本影片的主線--神對人類的末世有一個不可逆轉的計劃，大部分人完全無法探知和了解這個計劃而盲目的生活著；而極少部分知道了這個計劃的人，也無法通過自己的能力去改變一切（計劃或者他人的思想），他們可以做的是接受事實，"if it's the time, it's the time."，這不是消極的接受，而是積極的面對。
2. 黑衣人是天使
我不得不承認，黑衣人的造型的確非常雷人，完全不像早期天主堂壁雕上的天使，但是恕我直言，真的是天使。整合劇情後，發現他們天使的位分一點都不為過。
前半段電影中他們的演出更像是惡魔，偷偷的出現，偷偷的遞給Caleb黑色小石頭，似乎掩飾著什麼不可告人的玄機。這樣的行為讓我想到未信主之前的一些趣事。我剛搬來洛杉磯，教會姊妹常來家裡做客，問還缺什麼，還需要些什麼，十分熱情。可是我的心裡，一百個不願意，因為以前受到的教育是「滴水之恩，湧泉相報」，就不願意欠這個人情，怕是還不起。她們就會「偷偷的」送來這個，送來那個，而且誇張的說一切都不用還。我的心裡七上八下，就覺得有什麼不對勁兒的地方。果真在幾個星期後，「偷偷的」送我一本聖經。這下子徹底證實了她們接近是「不安好心」。昨天看到電影中那段情節，忽然使我打開心中的匣子，原來當時的她們真的是天使，可當時的我看她們越看越像惡魔。只是，當時的我，看不清楚罷了。
後半段電影中，他們告訴小孩子們，如果願意，就跟他們走；當John追上天使時，他用藍光使他不看見，沒有傷害他；當John找到兒子Caleb的時候，發現兒子抱著小兔子，完全不會受到傷害。他們在外形上和行為上與普通人不同，只是因為他們是天使。而他們一再的出現，只是要讓人們知道世界末日近了，即聖經上所謂的「天國近了」。
3. Everyone Else
Lucinda女士死前在她的床板下寫了許多Everyone Else就是她小時候寫的那張紙中最後兩個字母EE。本來後邊的四字數字是事情發生的經緯度，而最後這一次，是全球人類的滅亡，沒有經緯度了。意思就是：人人都要死！讓我忽然想起聖經上的一句話「人人都有一死，死後且有審判。」
4. Ezakiel那張圖
這個在前邊的段落中敘序過了。
5. 小孩子能聽到天使的聲音，但他的父親聽不到。
這個大概就是對應聖經上說的：「人若不回轉成為小孩子的樣式，斷不得進天國。」事實上，聖經上的意思是說一個人的心思意念要回到小孩子的樣式，並不只是身體上像小孩子的樣子。如果是那樣，豈不是所有的小孩子和侏儒才能進天國？這句話的反面意思是說，成年人若心思意念清潔，也一樣進天國。
6. 兩個小孩子跟天使被接上天
是末世論中的「被提」。這是說一部分人沒有經歷死亡，就回去天堂了。
7. John和他的家人相擁一起經歷末日災難
這一點是大家看了都比較容易受感動的地方，因為親情的凝聚力是世界中最強大的凝聚力。為什麼他們有這樣的篤定呢？因為這里--本片最經典的地方，烘托出了信仰的真諦，就像我前面所講的。信仰的真諦就是這種精神，是經歷了苦難，經歷了災難，還依然相信神掌管一切，也掌管著他們的生命，不只是有形的生命，更是無形的生命。又重復一遍這句經典台詞："if it's the time, it's the time. We won't go anywhere."
8. 黑色小石頭
我理解為耶穌，因為信仰角度上他是世界的磐石。
9. 那些藍色飛行物從不同地方離開地球上升
帶兩個小孩子離開地球的飛行物上升到空中以後，鏡頭中出現了許多相似的藍色飛行物從地球的不同地方離開地球上升。其實，飛行物是什麼不重要，它的樣子只是一種表現形式。雖然算不上科幻，但只是世界末日末到來前，導演的一種憶想。重要的是許多這種東西在不同的地方上升。它主要表現了導演的宗教觀：地球上所有的人，不論什麼民族的人，不論什麼膚色的人，都可以選擇敬畏神，都有機會「被提」（這是我在前面講過的一個觀念）。
10. 劇終的那棵樹
那棵樹是生命樹，世界的終結是生命樹，永遠的生命。不是創世之初的那棵善惡樹。兩個小孩子奔向那生命樹，意味著從此人類擁有了不朽的生命。擁有永恆生命的人類，不需要輪回。沒有世界的輪回。
11. 為什麼這些知道要來之事的人不把這些事情告訴更多的人呢？
有些人會問以上的問題，可是，我的問題是：「即使這些人把他們所知的這些未來之事告訴人，又有多少人信呢？」影片中也出現過類似的場景，比如大家都認為Lucinda是一個「神秘的瘋」孩子。

很喜歡電影中的這些隱喻，甚至更多，作為一名基督徒，看的是酣暢淋離，評的是如醉如痴。可轉念一想，大多數人呢？太多的隱喻對於沒有信仰經歷的人來說是多麼難理解的事情啊。這樣的話，美國人應該看成了一部Fiction film，中國人應該成了一部無厘頭的雷人影片。總之，這個世界末日只是憶想、假設罷了，因為真正的世界末日是無人知曉的。「那日子，那時辰，沒人知道，連子都不知道，唯獨父知道。」這樣，連耶穌都不知道，誰還能知道呢？這部電影也提醒我們說，我們不過是人。

Honestly, I couldn』t tell you what was more fantastic about Knowing. The spectacular ending, or the thunderstorm of brain matter it wrought with its mind-blowing stupidity. Fortunately, I』ve worked up a healthy resistance to Nic Cage fatuousness, so I was able to wipe the gray-and-red globules from the exploding skull sitting next to me off my shirt and make it home with only a ll ring in my ears, a ring I expect will probably keep me out of the armed services when the rest of you are enlisted to stave off the impending brain-dead apocalypse proced by the stupor suck-hole of Cage』s seven upcoming films over the next year and a half.

It』s a shame, too. Because there is a moderately compelling premise beneath the layers and layers of imbecility shrouding Knowing. Fifty years ago, a stark-raving school girl with pigtails and psychosis dropped a sheet of paper with a series of numbers on it into a time capsule at her elementary school. In the present day, John Koestler (Cage) and his son, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury), come into possession of that sheet of paper when the time capsule is unearthed. A drunken John — recently widowed — discovers the meaning behind the numbers. They represent every major national tragedy of the last 50 years — the date, the number killed, and the GPS location. In the simplest terms, the numbers challenge John』s belief in the randomness of life, which he holds in contradiction to his father』s theological convictions. If, in fact, these events were predicted by a schoolgirl 50 years ago, then determinism is at play, perhaps proving the divine nature of our universe. God didn』t merely set things into motion; he』s still got his hands on the stick shift.

If Knowing had settled there, then perhaps the film would』ve been a bland thriller marred only by Cage』s obtuseness, his insistence on gritting his teeth occasionally and speaking as though he had a jar of molasses lodged into his skull. If he could, in fact, predict the tragedies, perhaps he could be in the right location to prevent them. If so, he』d then prove to be a more powerful force than the creator of the universe, rending the series of numbers irrelevant, reaffirming the randomness of life, all the while revealing Knowing simply to be a another pointless exercise among many in Nic Cage』s career.

Unfortunately, Knowing careens off the rails and plummets into an abyss of zany preposterousness so deep that you could reach your hand into Australia. There is one thing worse than a pointless cinematic experience, and that』s a completely nonsensical one. Such is the fate of Knowing when the sci-fi Boogeyman rears its head. The Boogeyman here are Whisper People, creatures that look as though they』ve crawled out of Diesel Jean ads and spent a couple of days mainlining embalming fluid. Only John』s son Caleb, and the granddaughter of the stark-raving school girl (Lara Robinson, in both roles) can hear their whispers. What are they telling them? Essentially, how they can save themselves from the last series of numbers, an end-of-the-world prediction. How can they possibly save themselves without running afoul of Judeo-Christian belief? Let』s just say that bunny rabbits and the forbidden tree are involved. Indeed, a less ludicrous ending to Knowing might have involved the entire world buying a coke and jumping just as the metaphorical elevator crashed bottom.

It』s a difficult movie to square with director Alex Proyas』 earlier career (The Crow, Dark City), and it』d be more comforting to blame it on the script, except that Proyas wrote it, or on studio pressures, though I can』t imagine even the liquid-brained suits at Summit Entertainment would wish that ending upon any movie. But then again, they』re the same ones who fired the director of the most successful vampire flick of all time after the first entry into the franchise. I can only guess that Proyas conjured up an interesting premise, and could find nowhere to take it but a Biblical LaLa land where golden wheat dances in a meadow. The only way it could』ve been more idiotic is if Nic Cage had stabbed his eyes out when he took the Oedipal, overacting fall to his knees as the final events unfolded. At least then, he』d have been saved from the vision the rest of us had to suffer through.

⑻ 英語原版電影觀後感

英文電影:阿甘正傳觀後感：

阿甘有自己的堅持，他不斷地跑步，JUST RUNS. 他跑步不為任何理由。他說:"人要往前看，千萬不要被過去拖累。我想我跑步就是這個意義」和過去告別，不停留在原處。也許這世界上太多人隨撥逐流，很少人會堅持做一件事，阿甘堅持自己的堅持，於是他成了「神」。

影片中還有一位主要人物是上校丹。他在越南戰爭中失去了雙腿。他說他的命運就是戰死。然而阿甘卻救他，讓他活了下來。失去雙腿後他開始憎恨生活，生活得很頹廢，責怪阿甘當初救了他。然而當他調整心態，去和阿甘一起捕魚生活，有了收獲後，開始感覺到生活的美好。感謝阿甘當初就了他。

影片試圖通過這個角色告訴觀者生活總是美好的。烏雲後有彩虹，絕境後有重生。關鍵是看我們給不給自己一個好心態，一個機會去改變不好的現狀。影片試圖向觀者傳達這樣一個信息：或許做好我們該做的每一件事，生活就會給我們一個好的回饋。只要有一種堅持就會出現一個奇跡。

(8)電影home英文觀後感擴展閱讀：

觀後感教學示例：

看了《虎門銷煙》後，學生認為無法聯系實際，我就這樣啟發學生：你看後印象最深的是哪個鏡頭?有的說林則徐帶領官兵虎門銷煙的鏡頭，大展中國人的志氣；有的說，當時的清朝政府的腐敗無能給我教育最深；

有的說我印象最深的是那些受鴉片毒害，痿糜不振的、瘦骨嶙峋的人們。然後我再要求學生用比較法，針對現今社會，看是否有類似於林則徐這樣有民族氣節或與此相反的人。

什麼東西給現今人們帶來精神和身體摧殘?我們應該如何對待?這樣，學生馬上想到了電視上披露有的海關把關不嚴，讓一些走私物品進入中國，有的想到了社會上的吸毒現象和不健康的游樂場所，同學們暢所欲語，彷彿一下子有話可寫了；

一個同學在《觀林則徐有感》一文中這樣寫到：「……在18世紀，鴉片使我們國敗家亡，但可悲的是在二十世紀的今天，吸毒的現象又有抬頭，有的因吸毒走向犯罪，家破人亡.我們青少年一定要認識它的危害，如發現吸毒、販毒現象要立即向公安機關報告，同時希望我們的海關把住家門，不讓毒品再次蔓延……」

⑼ 電影《亂世佳人》的英文版觀後感

So wonderful is「Gone with the wind」that it』s still my favorite film though there are many great movies in the world.
As far as I'm concerned,Captain Rett is such a gentleman that he protect and take care of his wife,Scarlet, in real earnest. His love is deep as the ocean,however,the girl he loves doesn't love him.
Opposite to everyone else,I don』t like Scarlet very much,because of not only her cool,but aiso I really think she is so silly that she is guilty,to Rett. Although she is good at attracting guys,she doesn』t know who』s her true love，and never value Rett's love.That』s why she can't get Rett's trust in the end.
In short,love is gift that should be cherished and never forgotten,love can't lose after regret.
之前寫過這個作文。
純手打，望採納。

⑽ 外國電影的英文觀後感

羅馬假日英文觀後感 The story is about a young princess (公主) (Hepburn) named Ann, making a goodwill (善意的) tour of Europe's capitals. She is tired of the responsibility (職責) and demands of the role she has been born in to and longs to experience the every day pleasures of an ordinary person. In Rome she finally rebels. Waiting until after everyone in the embassy (大使館) where her party is staying has gone to sleep, she slips out a window and finds herself alone on the streets of Rome. She is found by Joe Bradley (Peck), a hardened (堅毅的) and somewhat cynical (憤世 嫉俗的) reporter, on his way home from a late night card game. Not knowing who she is but seeing that she has no place to stay he takes pity on her and invites her to his apartment for the night. In a comical (滑稽的) scene, he offers her a pair of his pajamas (睡衣) and points to the couch where she can sleep. Innocent (天真的) aristocrat (貴族) that she is, she asks for a nightgown and help undressing. Bradley helps her take off her tie and then leaves the room. When he returns a few minutes later he discovers her sound asleep on the bed, leaving him the couch (沙發). Leaving her sleeping the next morning, Bradley shows up late for work and tries to cover himself by saying that he had an interview (采訪) with the princess. But his editor shows him a newspaper with her picture and headline stating that she was taken ill the night before and canceled all appointments (安排) for the day. Bradley immediately realizes who he has in his apartment and gets the editor to agree to pay $5,000 if he can get a real interview with the princess. On the way out Bradley contacts a photographer (攝影師) friend, Irving Radovich (Albert) and arranges for him to met him later with his camera for a big scoop. Returning to his apartment, Bradley picks up the princess for their planned tour of the city. Bradley's real aim is to get the pictures and story he promised (答應) his editor. But the innocent charm of the princess softens him and the two start to fall in love. They end up having a good time and some comical adventures (冒險). Bradley conceals the fact that he is a reporter who knows who she really is and she doesn't tell him that that she is a royal princess. But in the end the truth comes out and the princess realizes that her ty to her country and family come first and she reluctantly (不情願地) returns to her official role. The two meet briefly at the end ring her press conference with other reporters. She addresses Bradley as Mr. Bradley just like the others. As he is leaving, Bradley, quietly slips her the photos that his friend Irving had taken and lets her know that his story and pictures of their time together will never be published (公布). The charming Audrey Hepburn plays a modern princess who takes a day on Rome. She meets up with reporter Peck and wise-cracking photographer Albert. Peck and Hepburn fall in love, though Peck plans to sell an "exclusive story with the princess." Roman Holiday is a fun romantic comedy, but stays realistic (現實) with its commentary on society and royalty. Roman Holiday Thanks to some recommendations from my friends , I have recently enjoyed lots of nice films. And last week, the film 『Roman Holiday』 has impressed me a lot. As a remarkable work in the film history, this film is really worth watching. It can be summarized in such a delightful story (This may be a spoilerJ): Princess Anne, who was performed by Audrey Hepburn, was getting bored with her restricted schele when she was on a publicized tour to Rome. One night, she sneaked out of her luxurious residence and fell asleep on a public bench in central Rome. However, she was found by Joe Bradley, an American newspaper reporter, who was performed by Gregory Peck. Joe took her home without knowing who she truly was. Anyway, he was subject to make a big fortune by secretly interview the princess when the truth turned out. But instead of that, after showing Ann around the city and having a good time with her, he forced himself to say farewell to her, for he knew the romance between them oughtn』t to be happened because of their great difference in standing, even though they had fallen in love with each other. The end of the romantic film is really disappointing to most of the audience, though it ought to be imagined at first. However, Audrey Hepburn had successfully performed Ann as a naughty, naive and sweet angel, who ordered a glass of expensive champagne without thinking, who curiously had her first cigarette, who fell in love with a poor but kind man, and who finally firmly returned to the place she hated, only because of her responsibility. She was really charming and graceful, not only from her innocent eyes and expressions, but also from her particular character.