金剛電影英文影評

⑥ 求一篇用英語對金剛電影的評論

King Kong BY ROGER EBERT / December 13, 2005 It was beauty killed the beast Wee Naomi Watts intervenes to protect her Big Daddy Kong from an ill-socialized dinosaur in "King Kong." There are astonishments to behold in Peter Jackson's new "King Kong," but one sequence, relatively subed, holds the key to the movie's success. Kong has captured Ann Darrow and carried her to his perch high on the mountain. He puts her down, not roughly, and then begins to roar, bare his teeth and pound his chest. Ann, an unemployed vaudeville acrobat, somehow instinctively knows that the gorilla is not threatening her but trying to impress her by behaving as an alpha male -- the King of the Jungle. She doesn't know how Queen Kong would respond, but she does what she can: She goes into her stage routine, doing backflips, dancing like Chaplin, juggling three stones. Her instincts and empathy serve her well. Kong's eyes widen in curiosity, wonder and finally what may pass for delight. From then on, he thinks of himself as the girl's possessor and protector. She is like a tiny beautiful toy that he has been given for his very own, and before long, they are regarding the sunset together, both of them silenced by its majesty. The scene is crucial because it removes the element of creepiness in the gorilla/girl relationship in the two earlier "Kongs" (1933 and 1976), creating a wordless bond that allows her to trust him. When Jack Driscoll climbs the mountain to rescue her, he finds her comfortably nestled in Kong's big palm. Ann and Kong in this movie will be threatened by dinosaurs, man-eating worms, giant bats, loathsome insects, spiders, machineguns and the Army Air Corps, and could fall to their death into chasms on Skull Island or from the Empire State Building. But Ann will be as safe as Kong can make her, and he will protect her even from her own species. The movie more or less faithfully follows the outlines of the original film, but this fundamental adjustment in the relationship between the beauty and the beast gives it heart, a quality the earlier film was lacking. Yes, Kong in 1933 cares for his captive, but she doesn't care so much for him. Kong was always misunderstood, but in the 2005 film, there is someone who knows it. As Kong ascends the skyscraper, Ann screams not because of the gorilla but because of the attacks on the gorilla by a society that assumes he must be destroyed. The movie makes the same kind of shift involving a giant gorilla that Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977) did when he replaced 1950s attacks on alien visitors with a very 1970s attempt to communicate with them (by 2005, Spielberg was back to attacking them, in "War of the Worlds"). "King Kong" is a magnificent entertainment. It is like the flowering of all the possibilities in the original classic film. Computers are used not merely to create special effects, but also to create style and beauty, to find a look for the film that fits its story. And the characters are not cardboard heroes or villains seen in stark outline, but quirky indivials with personalities. Consider the difference between Robert Armstrong (1933) and Jack Black (2005) as Carl Denham, the movie director who lands an unsuspecting crew on Skull Island. A Hollywood stereotype based on C.B. de Mille has been replaced by one who reminds us more of Orson Welles. And in the starring role of Ann Darrow, Naomi Watts expresses a range of emotion that Fay Wray, bless her heart, was never allowed in 1933. Never have damsels been in more distress, but Fay Wray mostly had to scream, while Watts looks into the gorilla's eyes and sees something beautiful there. There was a stir when Jackson informed the home office that his movie would run 187 minutes. The executives had something around 140 minutes in mind, so they could turn over the audience more quickly (despite the greedy 20 minutes of paid commercials audiences now have inflicted upon them). After they saw the movie, their objections were stilled. Yes, the movie is a tad too long, and we could do without a few of the monsters and overturned elevated trains. But it is so well done that we are complaining, really, only about too much of a good thing. This is one of the great modern epics. Jackson, fresh from his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, wisely doesn't show the gorilla or the other creatures until more than an hour into the movie. In this he follows Spielberg, who fought off procers who wanted the shark in "Jaws" to appear virtually in the opening titles. There is an hour of anticipation, of low ominous music, of subtle rumblings, of uneasy squints into the fog and mutinous grumblings from the crew, before the tramp steamer arrives at Skull Island -- or, more accurately, is thrown against its jagged rocks in the first of many scary action sequences. During that time, we see Depression-era breadlines and soup kitchens, and meet the unemployed heroes of the film: Ann Darrow (Watts), whose vaudeville theater has closed, and who is faced with debasing herself in burlesque; Carl Denham (Black), whose footage for a new movie is so unconvincing that the movie's backers want to sell it off as background footage; Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), a playwright whose dreams lie Off-Broadway and who thrusts 15 pages of a first draft screenplay at Denham and tries to disappear. They all find themselves aboard the tramp steamer of Capt. Englehorn (Thomas Kretschmann), who is persuaded to cast off just as Denham's creditors arrive on the docks in police cars. They set course for the South Seas, where Denham believes an uncharted island may hold the secret of a box office blockbuster. On board, Ann and Jack grow close, but not too close, because the movie's real love story is between the girl and the gorilla. Once on Skull Island, the second act of the movie is mostly a series of hair-curling special effects, as overgrown prehistoric creatures endlessly pursue the humans, occasionally killing or eating a supporting character. The bridges and logs over chasms, so important in 1933, are even better used here, especially when an assortment of humans and creatures fall in stages from a great height, resuming their deadly struggle whenever they can grab a convenient vine, rock or tree. Two story lines are intercut: Ann and the ape, and everybody else and the other creatures. The third act returns to Manhattan, which looks uncannily evocative and atmospheric. It isn't precisely realistic, but more of a dreamed city in which key elements swim in and out of view. There's a poetic scene where Kong and the girl find a frozen pond in Central Park, and the gorilla is lost in delight as it slides on the ice. It's in scenes like this that Andy Serkis is most useful as the actor who doesn't so much play Kong as embody him for the f/x team. He adds the body language. Some of the Manhattan effects are not completely convincing (and earlier, on Skull Island, it's strange how the fleeing humans seem to run beneath the pounding feet of the T. rexes without quite occupying the same space). But special effects do not need to be convincing if they are effective, and Jackson trades a little realism for a lot of impact and momentum. The final ascent of the Empire State Building is magnificent, and for once, the gorilla seems the same size in every shot. Although Naomi Watts makes a splendid heroine, there have been complaints that Jack Black and Adrien Brody are not precisely hero material. Nor should they be, in my opinion. They are a director and a writer. They do not require big muscles and square jaws. What they require are strong personalities that can be transformed under stress. Denham the director clings desperately to his camera, no matter what happens to him, and Driscoll the writer beats a strategic retreat before essentially rewriting his personal role in his own mind. Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler) is an actor who plays the movie's hero, and now has to decide if he can play his role for real. And Preston (Colin Hanks) is a proction assistant who, as is often the case, would be a hero if anybody would give him a chance. The result is a surprisingly involving and rather beautiful movie -- one that will appeal strongly to the primary action audience, and also cross over to people who have no plans to see "King Kong" but will change their minds the more they hear. I think the film even has a message, and it isn't that beauty killed the beast. It's that we feel threatened by beauty, especially when it overwhelms us, and we pay a terrible price when we try to deny its essential nature and turn it into a proct, or a target. This is one of the year's best films.

⑦ 誰能給我《金剛》的英文介紹和影評，急需啊！

不好意思 我沒有

⑧ 急需一份簡單的《變形金剛》的英文影評

影評1
And drive he does as Michael Bay translates the Transformers world of animation and toys to the big screen.
But before I get ahead of myself I have to admit I never watched even a single episode growing up. I had just hit high school and I wasn't interested. So there wasn't any real baggage involved either side of the coin.
Yet there I sat in the first public screening anywhere on the planet (June 12th in Sydney, Australia, with Michael Bay introcing it) and it just overwhelmed me and everyone else! There was never a ll moment, the script flowed easily, the acting was first-rate and the seamlessness of the CGI and live action was taken to another level.
It's going to be the hit of the summer and was better than any of the big third installment trilogies I have just also seen. And I love each of those franchises.
Congratulations on a movie that not only met expectations but exceeded them.

影評2
Michael Bay doesn't disappointed us. I've seen Transformers in a press screening today, and I'm under the film's impression right now. The robots are cool as much as they can be. Bay's vision about the cult-comic and animation of the eighties has become one of the greatest effect-movie of all time. However I must disapprove that the Decepticons lost their personality, they're just mainly destroying and killing machines, Megatron and Starscream are more complex characters like they're featured in the movie. But I don't want to tease. Spielberg and Bay has created a gigantic, spectacular and funny summer blockbuster movie, that the sequel manufacturer studios can consider as an example. So, Transformers is more than meets the eye! And by the way OPTIMUS RULES!!!!

影評3
I honestly don't know where to start with this movie. I will say however, that - like many other people - this is the film I've been waiting 20 years to see.
I suppose it's sensible to start with what should be the foundation stone of any cinematic experience - the script. It's cheesy, cliché-ridden, and poorly-structured. Characterisation (especially of the Autobots/Decepticons) is non-existent. Optimus Prime uttering the words "My bad" must go down in history as one of the worst moments in movie history. Actually scratch that - the "lubricating" scene is definitely worse. The writing of human characters is lazy at best, sticking with stereotypes such as the beautiful code-breaker, fat computer whizz, bumbling government agent etc etc. The performances (Shia aside) are instantly forgettable, but a great deal of that comes down to the script and direction. Megan Fox may be a great actress for all I know, but she may as well be a stripper for the purposes of this movie.
The effects are incredible (although not helped by Bay's erratic editing style), but when you've no reason to care about them it results in an empty experience. Effects DON'T MAKE A MOVIE.
With Spielberg as part of this project I allowed myself a little optimism, but it's patently clear that Bay and Co. had no understanding or respect for the Transformers franchise. GIANT "FLIPPING" ROBOTS BLOWING "STUFF" UP this may be, but it is most certainly not Transformers.

影評4
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I loved the cartoon series as a kid and, after seeing the commercials, thought it would be freaking awesome. Instead, I wound up stuck in a movie with a ridiculous plot, too many irrelevant characters, and too much sex humor for a movie that is supposed to be about giant robots wailing on each other (I am in my twenties and male, so I can hardly be considered a prude. The fact that even I cringed at the mother making masturbation jokes means that there is such a thing as a limit for that sort of humor). Most of the Transformers do not even show up until the movie is halfway over. The subplot of the signal detection team (who did nothing except point out that some alien being had hacked the network-a no-brainer) could be cut without losing anything of note (except for the funny scene where Anthony Anderson's on-screen cousin gets tackled by the FBI agent into the pool). And what's with Bumblebee pissing on the FBI Agent, and Mikaela making him take his clothes off? The action scenes are stellar, but not enough to make up for all of the other mistakes in the movie. If you and pasted scenes from Independence Day, Matrix Revolutions, a bunch of US air force commercials and Bad Santa all together on your computer, you would wind up with basically the same mess.

已經盡量找比較短一點的影評，請樓主自行挑選修改。

⑨ 高分跪求英文翻譯 關於電影《金剛》的一段影評 急用！！！

補充問題！！！：（接上文）
劇中不可忽略的一個人物便是那個江郎才盡，名叫卡爾的導演，同樣的潦倒，被逼至絕境，做夢都想著拍一部賣座的電影。最後竟然瘋狂地將金剛麻醉並運回紐約，並一舉成名。他在街上一眼相中安。他對安說：「看看你，安，你是我遇見的最哀傷的女孩，你能吸引觀眾的目光，你可以讓他們心碎。」仔細觀察他的眼神，兇狠而堅定，充滿著狂熱的激情。傑克說：「他總是有能力摧毀自己所愛著的東西。」
沒有他，便沒有這次離奇凶險的旅行。沒有他，便沒有女子與金剛的相見。沒有他，金剛就不會來到紐約。沒有他，就不會有這部影片。沒有他……可能沒有他，這個世界將會死去。也可能，有了他，這個世界會徹底滅亡。
他的身上匯集了人類所有的慾望，勇氣，執著，貪婪，墮落與光榮！他是戲中最大的贏家。
讓我們回到帝國大廈樓頂，金剛右手掩胸，和女子一同遠眺朝陽冉冉升起。左手掩胸，意思是，太美了。他一邊看著朝陽一邊溫柔地將女子輕輕托在手中。太美了。他是指景，還是人，誰都不知道。
金剛燃盡整個生命只是為了和他所愛的人一起看一場美麗的日出，他得到的是那個女子的一個微笑、一個撫摸、一行淚水。僅此而已，這些常人看來不算太難的事情成了這個幾乎無堅不摧的生命的一點小小奢求。為此，他付出了自己的所有，摧毀面前的一切艱難險阻。直至死亡，直至萬劫不復地墜落…… 人們的心，和它一起墜落。
最終還是有一絲瑕疵，那個叫傑克的劇作家和安之間的愛情。太倉促，似乎這一段戀情陷入了傳統的美式愛情的陷阱。表面上的奮不顧身掩飾不住實質的蒼白膚淺。
但是，若要我選擇，可能我寧願做這個男子而不願做金剛。同樣是這個女子的愛，這個男人一開始便輕易擁有，他是那樣幸運。金剛為之付出了一切，可誰都知道，這個女子只將他當成的朋友，感動不已，痛哭流涕，卻始終不會有愛情。 誰都知道，誰都不願意。
It wasn't the plane，it was the beauty kill the beast...於是，淚水愈盛。

⑩ 電影<金剛>和<阿甘正傳>的英文影評(最好可以針對某一細節)

《金剛》影評： Starring Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, Thomas Kretschmann, Colin Hanks, Jamie Bell and Andy Serkis. Directed by Peter Jackson. Written by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson. Proced by Jan Blenkin, Carolynne Cunningham, Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson. A Universal release. Adventure. Rated PG-13 for frightening adventure violence and some disturbing messages. Running time: 187 min. Fulfilling a lifelong dream to remake the movie that inspired him to become a filmmaker, Peter Jackson ("The Lord of the Rings") has at once amped the spectacle and deepened the emotional resonance of the original 1933 "King Kong" while adhering closely to its spirit. The result is a three-hour epic on par with his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy both in scale and thematic relevance, securing Jackson's reputation as the next great event filmmaker and heir to Steven Spielberg. With clever winks to the earlier version and a wicked wit, the basic premise remains the same -- a 1930s film crew sails to an uncharted island, where they discover a giant ape and bring it back to New York City to entertain the masses. But there are some key character changes here that intensify the audience's emotional involvement: Carl Denham (Jack Black, whose mug is a rich palette of expression, both comedic and sinister) isn't a successful filmmaker on his latest adventure but an Orson Welles-esque entrepreneur, a rapscallion whose current endeavor will make or break his nascent career. Not just an anonymous waif, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts, with classic beauty and eyes that glow like Chinese lanterns) here is an out-of-work vaudeville actress -- a background that endears her to her primate captor -- with aspirations for the stage. And Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody, in action-hero mode) is no lon 查看原帖>>