电影home英文观后感

⑴ 电影≤弱点≥英文观后感

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 英文影片观后感

给你篇 《小鬼当家》的观后感，很简单的，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 英文电影观后感

Ice Age 冰河世纪 英语影评

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》观后感:

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 电影《fly away home》 英文影评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 求一篇英文电影的英文读后感

功夫熊猫 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!

功夫熊猫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.

音乐之声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.

音乐之声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 求一部英文电影的英文观后感

《勇敢的心》
一个勇敢的男人，一个向往自由，渴望爱情的心。用党内的话来讲，他真可以算作为了民族的事业，为了不灭的爱情，抛头颅撒热血了。佛罗伊德说过人的三大欲望，生的欲望，爱的欲望，被尊重的欲望，这个男人被负着沉重的负担，挺起宽阔的胸膛，去证实自己的存在。抛弃个人英雄主意不谈，欲望是原动力，爱情是导火索，最终向往自由的口号把整个行为推向了新的高度，华莱士仅仅是个符号，自由在引导人民。
华莱士两次深深受到伤害时的举动犹如电击般触动我的心。一幕是在心爱的女人惨遭毒手后，自己已经无力回天，他那有如闪电一样的目光，义愤填膺，气势有如滔滔江水，一发而不可收拾。另一幕出现在盟友背叛他的那一刻，孤独，无助，失望而没有绝望，他抛掉幻想，重新拿起武器，进行着一个人的战斗，向世界讨回自己的公道。

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 神秘代码电影介绍（英文）观后感（英文）、

《神秘代码》是好莱坞巨星尼古拉斯·凯奇的一部科幻新作，讲述了尼古拉斯·凯奇饰演的大学教授约翰在妻子过世后扮演着单亲爸爸的角色。对儿子的严格管束，使得父子二人之间始终存在隔阂，然而就在儿子的校庆典礼上，一封来自“过去”的神秘信件，将彻底打破父子二人的平静生活，将他们卷入一系列的恐怖事件和一场未知的命运当中。

神秘代码 剧情简介
1959年，在庆祝威廉·道斯小学的建成仪式上，孩子们将自己作的画放在了时间囊里，并将其埋在地基下，其中一个看起来颇为神秘的小女孩露辛达在她的画上写下了一行行看起来毫无规律的数字。
转眼间50年过去了，在威廉·道斯小学的50年校庆上，校方开启了时间囊并将50年前学生的杰作分发给现在的学生。露辛达的绘纸到了一个叫凯利布·柯斯勒(钱德勒·坎特布瑞饰)的孩子手里，这张绘纸引起了卡利布的父亲——麻省理工大学天文学教授柯斯勒(尼古拉斯·凯奇饰)的注意。柯斯勒教授发现，这张绘纸上的数字精确地记载了过去50年间所发生的重大灾难的日期及死亡人数；令他更为惊讶的是：上面还记载了将要发生的三起灾难事件，其中最后一件更是涉及全球的重大灾难，而他与他的儿子也将卷入其中。 柯斯勒教授试图通过当局来化解即将到来的危机，但是其他人认为他是杞人忧天，他只能选择孤军奋战。在戴安娜·韦兰(罗丝·巴瑞恩饰)与其女儿阿比·韦兰(劳拉·罗宾逊饰)的帮助下，柯斯勒教授不断的努力，与时间赛跑，直到不得不面对终极灾难与牺牲……

[{豆瓣 里 最好的 影评}]
影片的开始，女老师将小朋友们画作放进一个叫"time capsule"的容器中。虽然女老师轻松自然的说出"time capsule"，但就在那时，一种诡异的感觉袭遍全身，一股凉气从地底下钻出来，连鸡皮疙瘩都不放过我。于是，我心中假定：这是一个“悬疑剧”。
当黑衣人频繁出现，飞机空难81人罹难，地铁灾难和那张能预示灾难的纸被指指点点的时候，一种对“灾难片”惯有的烦感涌上心头。因为那好像只表示人类自身的“无辜”和没有改变自己命运的能力的的那种无助与不安。灾难片除了让人觉得自己无用之外，还能带来什么？或许是票房而已。
后来发现看这部影片，有一种“山重水复疑无路，柳暗花明又一村”的畅快。因为John在Lucinda故居急急找寻灾难证据时，他发现了一幅画，这幅现的下面写了一个单词"Ezekiel"。这个单词就是圣经中“以西结书”，一卷先知书预示了以色列民族，以至所有民族的结局，世界的结局。因着信仰的永恒性，顿悟这是一部“宗教性”影片。但值得关注的并不是它的宗教性，也不是它的虚构性，而是它烘托出的信仰真缔。

浅释一下我眼中的Knowing:
1. Knowing中文翻为“先知”
我思来想去，这是最适合的一个片名。因为只有这个片名，才能体现出人类现在的光景。在圣经中，先知是能够听到神话语并且将所听到的命令和预言传递给众人的人，但是他也无力改变神对某个人或某个民族的兴旺或衰微的计划。而这一点，正是本影片的主线--神对人类的末世有一个不可逆转的计划，大部分人完全无法探知和了解这个计划而盲目的生活着；而极少部分知道了这个计划的人，也无法通过自己的能力去改变一切（计划或者他人的思想），他们可以做的是接受事实，"if it's the time, it's the time."，这不是消极的接受，而是积极的面对。
2. 黑衣人是天使
我不得不承认，黑衣人的造型的确非常雷人，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。整合剧情后，发现他们天使的位分一点都不为过。
前半段电影中他们的演出更像是恶魔，偷偷的出现，偷偷的递给Caleb黑色小石头，似乎掩饰着什么不可告人的玄机。这样的行为让我想到未信主之前的一些趣事。我刚搬来洛杉矶，教会姊妹常来家里做客，问还缺什么，还需要些什么，十分热情。可是我的心里，一百个不愿意，因为以前受到的教育是“滴水之恩，涌泉相报”，就不愿意欠这个人情，怕是还不起。她们就会“偷偷的”送来这个，送来那个，而且夸张的说一切都不用还。我的心里七上八下，就觉得有什么不对劲儿的地方。果真在几个星期后，“偷偷的”送我一本圣经。这下子彻底证实了她们接近是“不安好心”。昨天看到电影中那段情节，忽然使我打开心中的匣子，原来当时的她们真的是天使，可当时的我看她们越看越像恶魔。只是，当时的我，看不清楚罢了。
后半段电影中，他们告诉小孩子们，如果愿意，就跟他们走；当John追上天使时，他用蓝光使他不看见，没有伤害他；当John找到儿子Caleb的时候，发现儿子抱着小兔子，完全不会受到伤害。他们在外形上和行为上与普通人不同，只是因为他们是天使。而他们一再的出现，只是要让人们知道世界末日近了，即圣经上所谓的“天国近了”。
3. Everyone Else
Lucinda女士死前在她的床板下写了许多Everyone Else就是她小时候写的那张纸中最后两个字母EE。本来后边的四字数字是事情发生的经纬度，而最后这一次，是全球人类的灭亡，没有经纬度了。意思就是：人人都要死！让我忽然想起圣经上的一句话“人人都有一死，死后且有审判。”
4. Ezakiel那张图
这个在前边的段落中叙序过了。
5. 小孩子能听到天使的声音，但他的父亲听不到。
这个大概就是对应圣经上说的：“人若不回转成为小孩子的样式，断不得进天国。”事实上，圣经上的意思是说一个人的心思意念要回到小孩子的样式，并不只是身体上像小孩子的样子。如果是那样，岂不是所有的小孩子和侏儒才能进天国？这句话的反面意思是说，成年人若心思意念清洁，也一样进天国。
6. 两个小孩子跟天使被接上天
是末世论中的“被提”。这是说一部分人没有经历死亡，就回去天堂了。
7. John和他的家人相拥一起经历末日灾难
这一点是大家看了都比较容易受感动的地方，因为亲情的凝聚力是世界中最强大的凝聚力。为什么他们有这样的笃定呢？因为这里--本片最经典的地方，烘托出了信仰的真谛，就像我前面所讲的。信仰的真谛就是这种精神，是经历了苦难，经历了灾难，还依然相信神掌管一切，也掌管着他们的生命，不只是有形的生命，更是无形的生命。又重复一遍这句经典台词："if it's the time, it's the time. We won't go anywhere."
8. 黑色小石头
我理解为耶稣，因为信仰角度上他是世界的磐石。
9. 那些蓝色飞行物从不同地方离开地球上升
带两个小孩子离开地球的飞行物上升到空中以后，镜头中出现了许多相似的蓝色飞行物从地球的不同地方离开地球上升。其实，飞行物是什么不重要，它的样子只是一种表现形式。虽然算不上科幻，但只是世界末日末到来前，导演的一种忆想。重要的是许多这种东西在不同的地方上升。它主要表现了导演的宗教观：地球上所有的人，不论什么民族的人，不论什么肤色的人，都可以选择敬畏神，都有机会“被提”（这是我在前面讲过的一个观念）。
10. 剧终的那棵树
那棵树是生命树，世界的终结是生命树，永远的生命。不是创世之初的那棵善恶树。两个小孩子奔向那生命树，意味着从此人类拥有了不朽的生命。拥有永恒生命的人类，不需要轮回。没有世界的轮回。
11. 为什么这些知道要来之事的人不把这些事情告诉更多的人呢？
有些人会问以上的问题，可是，我的问题是：“即使这些人把他们所知的这些未来之事告诉人，又有多少人信呢？”影片中也出现过类似的场景，比如大家都认为Lucinda是一个“神秘的疯”孩子。

很喜欢电影中的这些隐喻，甚至更多，作为一名基督徒，看的是酣畅淋离，评的是如醉如痴。可转念一想，大多数人呢？太多的隐喻对于没有信仰经历的人来说是多么难理解的事情啊。这样的话，美国人应该看成了一部Fiction film，中国人应该成了一部无厘头的雷人影片。总之，这个世界末日只是忆想、假设罢了，因为真正的世界末日是无人知晓的。“那日子，那时辰，没人知道，连子都不知道，唯独父知道。”这样，连耶稣都不知道，谁还能知道呢？这部电影也提醒我们说，我们不过是人。

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 英语原版电影观后感

英文电影:阿甘正传观后感：

阿甘有自己的坚持，他不断地跑步，JUST RUNS. 他跑步不为任何理由。他说:"人要往前看，千万不要被过去拖累。我想我跑步就是这个意义”和过去告别，不停留在原处。也许这世界上太多人随拨逐流，很少人会坚持做一件事，阿甘坚持自己的坚持，于是他成了“神”。

影片中还有一位主要人物是上校丹。他在越南战争中失去了双腿。他说他的命运就是战死。然而阿甘却救他，让他活了下来。失去双腿后他开始憎恨生活，生活得很颓废，责怪阿甘当初救了他。然而当他调整心态，去和阿甘一起捕鱼生活，有了收获后，开始感觉到生活的美好。感谢阿甘当初就了他。

影片试图通过这个角色告诉观者生活总是美好的。乌云后有彩虹，绝境后有重生。关键是看我们给不给自己一个好心态，一个机会去改变不好的现状。影片试图向观者传达这样一个信息：或许做好我们该做的每一件事，生活就会给我们一个好的回馈。只要有一种坚持就会出现一个奇迹。

(8)电影home英文观后感扩展阅读：

观后感教学示例：

看了《虎门销烟》后，学生认为无法联系实际，我就这样启发学生：你看后印象最深的是哪个镜头?有的说林则徐带领官兵虎门销烟的镜头，大展中国人的志气；有的说，当时的清朝政府的腐败无能给我教育最深；

有的说我印象最深的是那些受鸦片毒害，痿糜不振的、瘦骨嶙峋的人们。然后我再要求学生用比较法，针对现今社会，看是否有类似于林则徐这样有民族气节或与此相反的人。

什么东西给现今人们带来精神和身体摧残?我们应该如何对待?这样，学生马上想到了电视上披露有的海关把关不严，让一些走私物品进入中国，有的想到了社会上的吸毒现象和不健康的游乐场所，同学们畅所欲语，仿佛一下子有话可写了；

一个同学在《观林则徐有感》一文中这样写到：“……在18世纪，鸦片使我们国败家亡，但可悲的是在二十世纪的今天，吸毒的现象又有抬头，有的因吸毒走向犯罪，家破人亡.我们青少年一定要认识它的危害，如发现吸毒、贩毒现象要立即向公安机关报告，同时希望我们的海关把住家门，不让毒品再次蔓延……”

⑼ 电影《乱世佳人》的英文版观后感

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.
之前写过这个作文。
纯手打，望采纳。

⑽ 外国电影的英文观后感

罗马假日英文观后感 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 (职责) 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 (大使馆) 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 (坚毅的) and somewhat cynical (愤世 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 (贵族) 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 (沙发). Leaving her sleeping the next morning, Bradley shows up late for work and tries to cover himself by saying that he had an interview (采访) 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 (摄影师) 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 (答应) 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 (冒险). 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 (不情愿地) 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 (现实) 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.