鸟人电影观后感

B. 《鸟人》观后感1000字

书中讲述了鸟博士的离奇故事：心高气傲的鸟博士不满导师的守旧的学术视野和困于家中生活，乘火车南下投奔好友小七。没有想到路途中与老鹰冲集团老大相遇，因其过人学识，又想不到被老大赏识聘为特别助理，专门从事老鹰冲重组调研。在出乎意料之外又在情里之中的他由此接触并调查了社会灰色地带的所有势力，并与瘦狗村相联系，得出了市场经济与集体主义关系的回答。这个报告被农贸部长所赏识，鸟博士因此成了部长特别助理，被任命为特管会主任，由此一步步进入上流社会，并用魔幻现实主义笔法记录下一路见闻，千奇百怪的人情世态。可是我读着那些故事并不感到离奇。其实那些故事就在我们几乎每个人的身边发生着，或者自己正在亲身经历。作者的高超写法，让我一会如临其境，一会变成书里面的主人公。纷乱复杂的世事，多重的性格，变幻的场景，象征着我们的现实，暗示着我们自己的真实生活。
魔幻主义、现实主义等各中写作方法的运用，已经熟练掌握，化作己用。从书中可以看到文学大师的身影，刘心武老师的灵魂。
从冒牌导师到飞鹰走狗论；从囡囡以及影子同事到商业街上空的动漫混战；从编制与工资的困惑到车痴；从自投罗网到再见老七。世间百态万象，世间光怪陆离，世间千奇百怪，世间经典时尚在书中都有一流的描写，一流的暗喻，一流的刻画，一流的象征。
鸟博士的经历遭遇何尝不是许多不甘寂寞的年轻人的缩影？何尝不是当今社会的浓缩版？

C. 求《鸟人》读后感，谢谢！

从卓越网购买到《鸟人》后，我几乎是一天读完了。
我开始庆幸，庆幸中国的文学界终于从低谷慢慢爬向高山，冲向峰顶！
《鸟人》以其高超的叙事手法；对世界的观察方法，独特的写作风格，令我叹服，令我感叹：中国的文学有希望了！
书中讲述了鸟博士的离奇故事：心高气傲的鸟博士不满导师的守旧的学术视野和困于家中生活，乘火车南下投奔好友小七。没有想到路途中与老鹰冲集团老大相遇，因其过人学识，又想不到被老大赏识聘为特别助理，专门从事老鹰冲重组调研。在出乎意料之外又在情里之中的他由此接触并调查了社会灰色地带的所有势力，并与瘦狗村相联系，得出了市场经济与集体主义关系的回答。这个报告被农贸部长所赏识，鸟博士因此成了部长特别助理，被任命为特管会主任，由此一步步进入上流社会，并用魔幻现实主义笔法记录下一路见闻，千奇百怪的人情世态。可是我读着那些故事并不感到离奇。其实那些故事就在我们几乎每个人的身边发生着，或者自己正在亲身经历。作者的高超写法，让我一会如临其境，一会变成书里面的主人公。纷乱复杂的世事，多重的性格，变幻的场景，象征着我们的现实，暗示着我们自己的真实生活。
魔幻主义、现实主义等各中写作方法的运用，已经熟练掌握，化作己用。从书中可以看到文学大师的身影，刘心武老师的灵魂。
从冒牌导师到飞鹰走狗论；从囡囡以及影子同事到商业街上空的动漫混战；从编制与工资的困惑到车痴；从自投罗网到再见老七。世间百态万象，世间光怪陆离，世间千奇百怪，世间经典时尚在书中都有一流的描写，一流的暗喻，一流的刻画，一流的象征。
鸟博士的经历遭遇何尝不是许多不甘寂寞的年轻人的缩影？何尝不是当今社会的浓缩版？
诺贝尔奖在中国有了希望！
《鸟人》值得我一读再读，值得大家一读再读！
《鸟人》，好书！

D. 在线等！电影鸟人的英文观后感！60到80个词之间吧！我已经没有财富值了π_π

60到80个词的观后感？你开玩笑吧？

给你一篇，你自己挑80个词吧，希望你能凑得出80个词的观后感。

Birdman flies very, very high. Intense emotional currents and the jagged feelings of volatile actors are turned loose to raucous dramatic and darkly comedic effect in one of the most sustained examples of visually fluid tour de force cinema anyone's ever seen, all in the service of a story that examines the changing nature of celebrity and the popular regard for fame over creative achievement. An exemplary cast, led by Michael Keaton in the highly self-referential title role of a former superhero-film star in desperate need of a legitimizing comeback, fully meets the considerable demands placed upon it by director Alejandro G. Inarritu, as he now signs his name.

The film's exhilarating originality, black comedy and tone that is at once empathetic and acidic will surely strike a strong chord with audiences looking for something fresh that will take them somewhere they haven't been before.

Dating back to his international breakthrough with Amores Perros 14 years ago, Inarritu's films have always coursed with energy and challenges embraced. Here, he and his indispensable cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki have gone the extra mile to make a film that, like a far more complicated and sophisticated version of what Alfred Hitchcock did in Rope in 1948, tries to create the illusion of having been filmed all in one take.

Birdman, which bears the rather enigmatic subtitle “Or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance,” is not only centered on the world of the theater but takes place almost entirely within or very near the venerable St. James Theater on West 44th Street. This is where faded big-screen luminary Riggan Thomson (Keaton) is about to begin previews for what he hopes will bring him renewed acclaim and respectability, ego boosters that have eluded him in the two decades since he decamped from the Hollywood mountaintop upon saying no to Birdman 4.

Of course, Riggan knows he's fated to always be Birdman; he still keeps a poster from the franchise on his dressing room wall and the character's voice sometimes squawks at him like a challenging alter ego. But he's now put everything on the line, including his own money, to mount a stage adaptation of Raymond Carver's What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, which he's written, is directing and is co-starring in with Lesley (Naomi Watts), another film star making her Broadway debut, and Laura (Andrea Riseborough), a sometime lover who's more keen on him than vice versa.
When the other male actor in the piece startlingly becomes incapacitated, Lesley's boyfriend, Mike Shiner (Edward Norton), a major film name, immediately volunteers to step into the breach. This is a godsend for the box office but a wild card in terms of the quartet's dynamics, as the quicksilver Mike is a fiendish manipulator (quite the jerk, actually). After unsettling Riggan at his first rehearsal by having already memorized his part and then demanding rewrites, Mike detonates the initial public preview by drinking real gin (this is Carver country, after all) instead of water onstage.
More raw nerves are supplied by Riggan's straight-from-rehab daughter Sam (Emma Stone), whom Dad has perhaps misguidedly engaged as his personal assistant. Riggan has to listen to Sam's tirades about how his resistance to Twitter and blogging make him even more of a has-been than he was already, this on top of Laura's news that she's pregnant and his concerns over what outrage Mike might provoke at the second preview.

There are enough awkward predicaments, secret liaisons, theatrical pranks, opened and closed doors and offenses given and taken in Birdman to fill a Feydeau farce. But while Inarritu, who wrote the script with his Biutiful co-screenwriter Nicolas Giacobone, playwright Alexander Dinelaris andThe Last Elvis director and co-writer Armando Bo, certainly triggers any number of dark and even catch-in-your-throat laughs, he's out for bigger game here on several fronts.

Riggan's struggle to regain self-respect and a sense of accomplishment is an ambition attacked as sheerest vanity by Sam and Mike, who enjoy provoking him further by pursuing a little dalliance. Beyond this central subject, the film takes vivid X-rays of such matters as creative egos and insecurities, spontaneity versus careful planning, what one does or does not do with power and influence, the positives and negatives of fame and the contrast between the public impact of a controlled event like a theater performance and an impromptu happening such as Riggan’s sprint through a jammed Times Square wearing nothing but his underpants (don't ask).

Propelled by outbursts of virtuoso jazz drumming by Antonio Sanchez, the story's action spans several days but plays out in a visual continuum of time unbroken — until the very end — by any evident cuts; it's as if the already legendary opening 13-minute take in Gravity had persisted through the entire movie. It's no coincidence that the same cinematographer, the incomparable Lubezki, shot both films, although the effect here is very different; as lucid and controlled as the camerawork may be, it's also bold, propulsive, even raw at times and invariably in the right place at the right time to catch the actors as they dart in and out, get in each others' faces or ponder the effect of what they've just said or done to someone else. The scene transitions are handled with breathtaking seamlessness and, once you realize what's going on and stop watching for signs of cuts as the camera goes through a door or enters a dark space, you get into the groove of a film whose rhythms are entirely controlled by the movement of the performers in relation to that of the camera — without the subtle visual disruption that even the most graceful cut must make.

If there is a problem from a dramaturgical point of view, it's that the roles of the play's other actors, to some extent Mike but more so Laura and Lesley, recede instead of deepen as opening night approaches. And one scene, which feels more like score settling than anything real, simply doesn't ring true: In a theater district bar, Riggan runs into the formidable Tabitha (a withering Lindsay Duncan), the all-powerful drama critic for the town's (once) all-powerful leading newspaper. When he quietly offers her a drink, she tells the man to his face that he's an unwelcome Hollywood interloper on her turf and promises that, even though she hasn't seen it yet, “I'm going to kill your play.” Vendettas of this sort might have been pursued on occasion in the old days, but for a critic to announce her intentions like this directly to the artist seems all but impossible, even ridiculous, today; the victim would likely call the paper's arts editor at once.

An actor who himself has waited a very long time, and perhaps with diminishing hope, to make a comeback, Keaton soars perhaps higher than ever as a thespian with something to prove when not wearing a funny suit. Casting any sense of vanity out the window — every vestige of aging skin and thinning hair is revealed by the camera — the actor catches Riggan's ambition and discouragement and everything in between; he's criticized and beaten down, even, and perhaps especially, by those closest to him, although he does receive some reassurance and understanding from an unexpected source, his ex-wife Sylvia (Amy Ryan). Keaton skillfully conveys how this old bird can let even the most alarming setbacks just slide off his once-feathered back to get on with the show, one his whole future rides upon — unless, of course, it doesn't.

Norton is crackerjack as the bad boy actor whose gigantic ego does constant battle with equally large insecurities, while Stone stands out among the women, particularly in two nocturnal theater rooftop scenes she shares with Norton (in one, they play a nifty little session of Truth or Dare). Zach Galifianakis plays it straight as Riggan's exasperated procer and attorney.

Shot in 30 days almost entirely at the St. James, this is a film that will excite discerning viewers but will likely electrify professionals in the popular arts, primarily because it's a work that seeks to go beyond the normal destinations for mainstream films — and manages to make it to quite an exciting place.

E. 莫扎特的《魔笛》听后感

歌剧《魔笛》是莫扎特最后一部也是最伟大的一部歌剧，它的结构统一，主题发展广阔、性格的刻画及人物的相互关系处理也非常出色。可以说它是一部民族音乐剧，也是一部与维也纳歌剧传统紧密联系的伟大的神话歌剧，在这部歌剧中，无论是曲调语言还是和声语言，无论是人物刻画还是戏剧表现，都十分突出地体现了民族色彩。
《魔笛》描述一位王子受夜后委托，带着一支魔笛和一位捕鸟人去神庙解救夜后的女儿。祭司帮助王子认识了夜后的险恶面目，并让王子和少女通过了几道考验后获得了爱情。
《魔笛》中有几段非常著名的咏叹调，一首是《我是快乐的捕鸟人》，歌词诙谐风趣，音乐活泼欢快，结构精美紧凑，具有浓郁的德国民间歌谣风格，活灵灵地展现了帕帕盖诺无忧无虑的开朗性格。另一首是夜后的咏叹调《年轻人别害怕》，这是一首极有名的曲调，表现了夜后仇恨光明的阴暗怪异的变态心理，同时也流露出母亲对儿女的疼爱之情。这首歌曲是典型的意大利式的歌剧咏叹调，作品后半段的华彩乐段和长期停留在高音区的乐句，使之成为最难演唱的曲目，即使是对最优秀的女高音歌唱家来讲，也有利考验和挑战。另外，帕米娜的《啊，我知道了》和夜后的《心中燃烧着怒火》也同样具有高难度的技巧和独特的艺术魅力。《魔笛》可以称作是莫扎特第一部真正的德国歌剧，这部用德文演唱的歌剧，这部用德文演唱的歌剧，把德意志民族的优良品质，淳朴感情和清醇美丽的音乐有机地结合在一起。实现了莫扎特振兴德国歌剧的夙愿，开创了德国歌剧以后的发展道路，对新世纪的德国歌剧作曲家具有极其重大的影响。

F. 写一篇视频观后感 800字左右

看过这样一段视频一共 有四个人参加招聘广告设计总监第一个人 文凭较低 交际能力比较强 有丰富的经验 作品比较适合大众化第二个人 文凭较高 作品比较有深度 很难令人看懂第三个人 文凭较高 交际能强 作品艺术性太强第四个人 文凭较高 交际能力较弱 作品比较适合大众化最后第一个人获胜了看了这样一段视频让我感触颇深其实成长、学习是为了让我们更确定自己的目标，有自己的思考能力，让我们能发现成功的契机。成功人士所作的第一件事，通常就是把自己的奋斗目标明确找出来，然后尽全力向前迈进。设定目标，无视别人的冷嘲热讽，正是成功的要素。科莱特在1973年考进哈佛大学，经常坐在他身边的同学，是一个18岁的美国青年。大二那年，这位小伙子邀科莱特一起退学，他决定去开发已一项财务软件，想找科莱特一起合作。
不过科莱特拒绝了，因为他好不容易来到这里求学，怎么可以轻易退学？更何况那项系统的研发才刚起步，墨尔斯博士也只教点皮毛而已。所以，他认为要开发Bit财务软件，必须读完大学的全部课程才行。十年后，科莱特终于成为哈佛大学Bit领域的高手，而那位退学的小伙子，也在这一年挤进了美国亿万富翁的行列。
科莱特拿到博士学位之时，那位曾经同窗的青年则已经晋升到了美国第二大富豪。在1995，科莱特终于认为自己具备足够学识，可以研发并开发Bit财务软件是，那位小伙子已经绕过Bit系统，开发出Eip财务软件，而且在两周之内，这个软件更占领了全球市场。这一年，他成为世界首富，他的名字叫做比尔.盖茨。
在只为升学而升学的年代，有多少人知道自己的方向在哪里？学历高并不能代表专业，一些因为兴趣而进入专业领域的门外汉，对准目标，孜孜不倦地学习研究，反而比任何具有专业知识的人，更懂得知识与实务的运用。比尔.盖茨在尚未毕业前，不理会别人的刻薄批评，对了目标，抢得创业先机，成为引领世界的龙头，正是最好的代表。
知识的获取不是读过了就好，如果一知半解，即使能勉强毕业，有一张漂亮文凭，往往也只能纸上谈兵，无法融会贯通地运用。故事中，世界首富要告诉我们的是，书是活的，学习的过程不是为读书而读书，更不是为拿到文凭而留在教室里。成长、学习是为了让我们更确定自己的目标，有自己的思考能力，让我们能发现成功的契机。

G. 求 电影《鸟人》影评 字数八百

你开场花了那么多篇幅去点评一个在当时算是年轻的演员和一个跟电影根本无关的导演，我就看不下去你的影评了，你只能是道貌岸然的表演文章而已.

H. 鸟人1984影评最后2人都是疯了吗

并不是，birdy没有疯，在别人无法理解的世界里他选择闭嘴，艾尔也没有

I. 优秀戏剧观后感400字

“黄梅戏”，大家一定很熟悉。现在，黄梅戏以有了二百多年的历史。今天，我算是初次看黄梅戏。首先是一个小品展现在我的面前。随后，今天的戏曲开始了。
故事是这样的：薛老爷的大夫人不会生小孩，薛老爷又娶了二夫人，二夫人很快便怀上了孩子，大夫人很是嫉妒。正好，薛老爷上京赶考，大夫人就想乘机虐待二夫人。老爷走后，大夫人将二夫人锁在磨房之中，天天叫她磨面粉。时不时还用鞭子抽打，有一次，大夫人打骂完后，又狠心地用力踢了一脚二夫人的肚子，疼得直叫唤。大夫人的贴身丫环红莲是个好人，很可怜二夫人。送走大夫人后，便急匆匆地赶去看二夫人。刚到门口，便听到婴儿的啼哭声，一个小生命在磨房里诞生了。二夫人生了个男孩儿！为了防止大夫人祸害小公子，二夫人狠了狠心，让红莲把小公子送走。13年后，小公子继保长大了。薛老爷也当了官，准备接全家到京城。大夫人在三更天时放火烧了磨房，好在红莲事先把二夫人放走了。不久，出来寻母的继保与二夫人相认，大夫人被薛家赶了出去。5年过去了，继保高中状元。养父养母想与他相认，没想到，这继保只顾面子，不认人，把双亲害死，自己也遭到报应。
刚开始，大家都以为继保可能不会认养父养母，果然，被大家猜中了。忘恩负义的继保只顾自己的面子，什么别人回笑话，什么认了在朝庭上没有立足之地。还不都是借口，认了，百姓肯定说他是个好官，不认，反而会遭到别人的斥责，说他是个不孝之子。养父养母含辛茹苦地把他带大，怕他饿着，夜里冻着。顿顿给他吃好的，生怕他吃不饱，觉得不好吃......
总之，大家不要做向薛继保这样忘恩负义的小人，别人待你好，你也要待别人好。

一、《鸟人》观后感

听说《鸟人》复排就很想去看这部话剧。很早就知道这部戏的时候我还很小，只是依稀知道，就怎样的剧情，我很是模糊。抱着回忆和期待的心情在上周观看了此剧。

大幕来开，舞台上背景及那充满京韵的吆喝声，车声，鸟声，调嗓声。。。。一下子把我拉到了童年的记忆中去了。一个从海外归来的心理医生，硬说遛鸟的人有病，一定要办一个“鸟人康复中心”，免费为“鸟人”治疗。“鸟人”果真有病吗？人与人之间的冲突，人自己本身的冲突。鸟类学家与贩鸟人、心理医生与”鸟人”们、”鸟人”们之间都存在着矛盾冲突，”鸟人”们的眼中只有自己养的鸟，他们只关心自己笼中的鸟，却不关心人，不关心周围的事物，他们养鸟的同时也将自己关在”笼中”，尤其是”百灵张”的鸟殉将这种”笼子”表现到极至。而作为心理医生的丁保罗同样也只关心自己的治疗成效，为自己的分析成果沾沾自喜，他也成了”笼中鸟”，剧中最后一幕将他与众”鸟人”的位置倒置，原来他也不过是另一种”鸟人”而已。鸟类学家虽千辛万苦的寻找那只珍贵的”鸟”，但他真正关心的并不是鸟，是自己的研究，他将寻找到的鸟不是加以保护，使之存活下去，而是将之制成标本，为自己扬名立万。作为艺术家的三爷，他十分珍爱自己从事的艺术，甚至人间找不到好的继承人，就转而训练鸟，从训鸟中填补了自己无法教导后一代戏剧学生的心灵的空虚，他隐于了训鸟，从而忽略了身边的一切人和事，他看着处在鸟笼里的鸟，实则同时他自己就是处在这样一种状态下笼子里的“鸟”，当他找到一棵好苗子时，不管人家是否愿意，他不由分说，热情高涨的开始教了起来，甚至使用威吓与哄骗的方式。他们都沉浸在自己的世界里无法自拔，不是去真心关心他人，只是为自己从事的事业得到成功，他们被自己的追求拌住了脚步，被所谓的”养鸟事业”迷住了眼睛，为自我所羁绊。归根结底，他们败在自己手里，最终只是成为了更大一个笼子里的“鸟”。

看似荒唐并有些和现实脱离的剧情，这荒唐是那么的真实，给每一个看过此剧后的人们留下了太多思考。人本身就是自私的，谁都可以为了自己那专属自己的无发实现的梦，用这样那样的方法去自我所羁绊，甚至牺牲利用周围的一切人和物。这发生的一切均缘一个“痴”字。。。。我们固有的思维逻辑是多么的固执和主观；我们狭隘的人生观、价值观是多么的荒谬和可笑！真是直指人心！

这是一部值得观赏的好作品，不仅剧情有深度有思想将人性剖析的很真实。在表演上更是可圈可点的。每一个演员表演上都很到位，抓住了每个角色的灵魂，值得一提是何冰的那两段京剧更是景上添花。

二、《茶馆》观后感

不知道是不是自己真的年龄大了，看话剧《茶馆》也哭一场。随着场景的替换，人物粉墨登场，心在其中，忘了人在戏外。难怪很小时候听的那句歌词我仍然记得很清楚“演戏的人是疯子，看戏的人是傻子，有的时候悲，有的时候喜，人生就是一场戏”。

话剧一共分三幕，第一幕是发生在清朝戊戌变法那年，谭嗣同维新失败而被砍了头，清朝政府腐败，得势的仗着权势欺压百姓；第二幕到了民国时期，军阀们为夺权势，连年混战，老百姓民不聊生；第三幕抗日战争之后的国民党政府和美国霸权，政治空前黑暗。而穿插三幕的主线就是老裕泰茶馆和王掌柜。茶馆风云变幻，影射了动荡社会下人民对和平的渴望和对黑暗统治的百般无奈，日子就像践踏在政权的铁蹄下，四分五裂却又不得不继续。刘麻子宋恩子吴祥子二德子和他们的子孙之流，凭着坑蒙拐骗、见风使舵、仗势欺人的看家本领，横行霸道。正义倔强的常四爷、誓要建实业保国家的秦二爷、老实本分的王掌柜却最终走的走，死的死，终究敌不过那般乌合和权力的蹂躏。

康老太太和王掌柜的离别，那句“您要硬朗朗的”，听得我哭了：多年如同家人般的关照，看似简单的话别，却饱含多少复杂的心理，这一别将是永别。小花母女的叩别同样的凄凉；待到常四爷和秦二爷最后和王掌柜的聚首，当他们提前为自己唱诵挽歌和纷纷抛洒纸钱时，我的眼泪即如雨下。或许是心思太过细腻，又或许是太多愁善感？看《孔子》一样随着剧情就那样入戏了。小时候看动画片《雪孩子》，因看见雪孩子融化在太阳下，歌声一响起就哭，就算是现在看同样无法控制，哭得稀里哗啦。

演出结束我们一直等到演员出来谢幕，掌声雷鸣般久久不能停息，梁冠华、濮存昕、杨立新率全体演职人员再三谢幕，剧场不得已将帷幕放下，大家才依依不舍的离开。