美國電影傳染影評
去時光網或者豆瓣看看啊 全是各種影評
❷ 美國電影傳染病毒開始自殘
行屍走肉就是典列
❸ 一個美國電影，講的是病毒傳播。
傳染病 Contagion (2011)
又名: 世紀戰疫(港) / 全境擴散(台) / 傳染
❹ 對美國電影《紅字》的影評
海絲特·白蘭因犯了通姦罪受到加爾文教派權力機構的懲罰， 胸前佩戴著標志通姦的紅色「A」字站在古老的枷刑台上示眾。她的手中抱著這個罪孽的證據：一個出生僅數月的嬰兒。在人們無情的注視下，她拒絕了年輕牧師阿瑟·丁梅斯代爾提出的懺悔並供出同犯的要求。受過懲罰後，海絲特在城外遠離人群的一間小茅屋裡住了下來。她以作針線活維生，並細心地照料著她的女兒——珠兒。這時，海斯特的丈夫來到了美國。他滿懷仇恨地改名為羅傑·奇林沃思，以醫生的身份暗中察訪與海絲特通姦的同犯。很快七年過去了。珠兒已成長為一個美麗可愛的小姑娘。而海絲特因為不斷熱心接濟和幫助別人，最終贏得了人們的尊敬，使胸前那本來代表恥辱的紅字變成了美好善良德行的象徵。 而經過多年的窺探， 羅傑也認定了「道德偉大」的丁梅斯代爾牧師就是那個隱藏的同犯。於是他千方百計地接近牧師， 旁敲側擊，冷嘲熱諷，不停地在精神上對牧師進行折磨。海絲特為了使丁梅斯代爾逃離丈夫的陰影，決心帶著女兒和他一起逃走，但卻被羅傑發現，計劃失敗了。而對羅傑的恐懼和自己隱瞞罪責的煎熬使丁梅斯代爾的健康每況愈下。終於在離開塵世前夕，他在全體教眾的面前，他挽著海絲特和他們的女兒珠兒登上了枷刑台，用以生命為代價的深切懺悔換取了道德上的新生。
《紅字》，世界文學名著，美國作家霍桑極富爭議的作品，曾被屢次搬上銀幕，本文所介紹的版本，是1995年羅蘭·約菲導演的《紅字》。影片本名《The Scarlet Letter》，又譯《真愛一生》或《紅色禁戀》，故事講述了一個凄美動人的婚外情故事。丈夫的失蹤，造成一個女人與牧師的相愛。肚子的隆起，暴露了女人的姦情，她為自己的「罪孽」遭受囚禁，然而她拒絕說出情夫的名字。嬰兒的降生，成了她罪惡的「鐵證」，她的胸前被戴上象徵不貞潔和恥辱的紅色標志「A」。然而，女人獨自帶著孩子的種種善舉，改變著人們對她的認識，也改變著紅色標志「A」的本意。丈夫的歸來，卻打破了這種局面，他查出了妻子的姦夫，開始瘋狂報復。故事結果，紛爭平息，牧師最終站出，攜女人和他們的孩子，離開了居住地。《紅字》，一個令人回味無窮的、名片演繹名著的經典故事。
❺ 找一部電影的影評。
卡桑德拉大橋
英語譯名：Cassandra Crossing
德語譯名：Treffpunkt Todesbrücke
中文譯名：卡桑德拉大橋 別名《飛越奪命橋》
類型： 驚悚 / 劇情
上映日期： 1976
國家地區： 意英德三國合拍
兩名國際恐怖分子闖進了日內瓦的國際衛生組織總部，欲實施恐怖襲擊，受到了保安人員的迎頭阻擊，其中一名罪犯被擊斃，追捕過程中，警員不小心將實驗品病毒給打碎濺到另一名罪犯身上。兩名歹徒感染病菌。一名被當場被擒。不久腐爛而死。另一名恐怖分子竄到一列開往斯特哥爾摩的火車上，車上快樂的旅客們還不知道自己隨時都可以被細菌所染。
這種病毒染得非常快，很快整個火車上許多人都給傳染上了這種病毒，國際警局為這種病毒不傳染給其他人，對火車進行控制，並要將其開到卡桑德拉大橋給毀掉……
此列車不許在任何車站停留。引起人們騷動。車上的科學家通過自己實驗方法使許多人解除了病毒，可是上級卻不相信他，最後科學家只有用自己的方法進行解決，列車上的人們與細菌研究人員發生沖突，人們紛紛拿起武器。年青的女作家與其丈夫被捲入戰火中。研究組織為接下火車上被染者。必須要通過不能承受該火車重量的「卡桑德拉大橋」。災難出現了，火車脫軌，大橋爆炸，細菌通過空氣在擴散.....
由英國、義大利和德國聯合攝制的災難片《卡桑德拉大橋》，製作於1976
年的《卡桑德拉大橋》早在上世紀80年代初便在我國公映，其後也偶爾在電視台播放，所以觀眾對它的故事並不陌生。這部20多年前的老片幾乎沒有今天好萊塢大片慣用的電腦高科技，卻照樣把劇情拍得扣人心弦，而從中傳遞出的那種面對病毒的大無畏和對病人的愛心及人道主義精神更給人以震撼，該片的結構幾乎成了災難片的經典模式，還影響了後來的許多影片。
當年《卡》片公映時觀眾可能只熟悉女主角「詹妮弗」的扮演者索菲亞·羅蘭，現在回過頭去翻翻主創名單，發現影片陣容是毫不誇張的「豪華大卡斯」：除了索菲亞·羅蘭這個義大利「國寶」，導演喬治·潘·考斯馬托斯也來自義大利，他的《逃亡雅典娜》、《第一滴血》等作品也是影迷們津津樂道的：男主角「張伯倫大夫」則由英國老牌演員理查·哈里斯擔綱，他最新的銀幕形象是《哈利·波特》前兩集中白鬍子的「鄧不利多校長」，可惜老爺子去年底去世，所以不妨讓我們再從《卡》片中重溫他當年的風采；扮演「麥肯奇少校」的波特·蘭卡斯特同樣不可小覷，他是1960年奧斯卡和金球獎的雙料影帝，其他演員如艾娃·嘉德娜、馬丁·西恩等也都是歐美影壇的重量級演員；此外別忘了那個演「海利神父」的黑人明星，他就是大名鼎鼎的前美國橄欖球巨星O.J.辛普森。
這些大牌演員的高超演技自然無可挑剔，而該片的配音隊伍同樣是如假包換的「全明星陣容」，影片完全體現了上海電影譯制廠黃金時期的水準：畢克的「張伯倫」，丁建華的「詹妮弗」，富潤生的「麥肯奇」，就連配角也都由尚華、趙慎之、施融等擔綱，他們的傳神演繹為影片如虎添翼，比如「張伯倫」和「詹妮弗」這對歡喜冤家在包廂里的幾場鬥嘴的戲，那些妙趣橫生的台詞和尖刻的譏誚簡直令人要為兩位幕後英雄叫好。所以《卡桑德拉大橋》的拷貝盡管已經陳舊、畫面有些磨損，但即使只是閉上眼睛欣賞，你都能體驗到一次完美的「電影之旅」。
❻ 美國電影《病毒入侵》觀後感
可以說是一部難得的喪屍片。雖然是小成本電影製作，但卻達到了很好的驚悚效果回。採用的第一人稱視角給人答以最真實的視覺感受。四人營救小隊更像是求生之路的感覺。只不過他們的目標卻是女主的女兒。
雖說期間還是會有無腦行為但是整個氛圍還是讓人腎上腺素一直很高亢的。
片中的打鬥場面血腥而真實，幾次爆頭鏡頭更像是刻意展現給觀眾以表達畫面的真實性！實在是過癮至極！
不過從狹隘角度看女主實在是太自私，從廣義上看卻是母愛偉大！但是電影的結尾卻有點深沉，壓抑，無奈，充滿著絕望！
❼ 急求一篇美國電影的影評，不要寫的太好，500字的，自己寫的，謝謝
現在好象比較時興將人分為體制內和體制外的人,體制外的人通常有某種優越感,似乎自己的人格才是獨立的.可實際上,真正願意做體制外的人還是很少的,而且是很痛苦的.余傑北大碩士畢業後差一點進了他想進的國家圖書館作一個體制內的人,可由於他寫了一些比較反體制的文章,最後還是被迫做了一個體制外的人,一個自由作家,所以他牢騷不斷.
《肖申克的救贖》裡面,那個圖書管理員老布在被囚禁了大半生以後終於獲得了自由,然而他在自由的世界中卻不知所措,無時無刻不想回到那個剝奪他自由卻讓他習慣了的肖申克監獄,最後他終於上吊自殺了.於是,摩根•弗里曼演的阿瑞就發表了他對institutionalization(體制化)這個詞的見解,他將監獄說成一個體制化的場所,他說:一開始你恨它,它剝奪了你的自由;接著你會慢慢的習慣它,熟悉它;最後你會離不開它,離開它你將象老布一樣不知所措.
相信我們中間的許多人,尤其是體制內的已經工作過許多年的人都很有感觸.我們所在的那個叫做"單位"的地方又何嘗不是一個體制化的地方?何嘗不是一個監獄?
大部分的人就象老布,最終在這個體制化中沉淪了下去; 有些人就象阿瑞,差一點沉淪了下去,可是命運對他不薄,他結識了安迪這樣的朋友,最後終於獲得了自由,肉體的以及內心的自由; 只有極少數的人才象安迪那樣，他有著堅強的意志和對自由的不死的嚮往，憑著自己的毅力和智慧，不僅在監獄中做了許多別人不可能做成的事情，為獄友們掙啤酒，為獄吏們們報稅，建設監獄圖書館；最終他逃出了監獄，並將那個窮凶極惡的典獄長告翻，過上了自由的生活…….
其實，人生的過程就是一個擺脫體制化的過程，這個體制化不僅僅是我們身處的那個「單位」，更是我們內心裏面無數的「監獄」。
❽ 不知道是不是美國電影，講一個旅行團掉進一個窟洞里，細菌傳染
恐怖廢墟來
艾米和斯黛西是從小源一起長大的好朋友，兩人計劃在假期的時候來一場墨西哥之旅，於是她們帶上了各自的男朋友，4個人結伴而行，也方便互相照顧。途中，艾米等人遇到了來自於德國的馬蒂亞斯以及他的朋友迪米特里，他們這次來的目的與遊玩無關，而是為了尋找馬蒂亞斯失蹤的弟弟。
禁不住馬蒂亞斯的苦苦哀求，艾米、斯黛西等人決定與他一起尋找，於是他們遠離了人來人往的高速公路，一頭扎進了墨西哥一處頗為偏遠、荒涼的叢林地帶，並在這里發現了一處巨大的廢墟。然而就在眾人嘖嘖稱奇的時候，當地的瑪雅部落發現了他們並且發出了警告，一行人沒有理解警告不得已進入了廢墟中，他們沒有意識到一種圍繞著廢墟生存的食人爬藤正在蠢蠢欲動。在上面他們發現了馬蒂亞斯失蹤的弟弟的屍體，並且從廢墟深處傳來了令人不安的手機鈴響，四個人為了拿到手機不得不冒險下去，不知道這些因為看到可口的食物而興奮異常的植物慢慢形成了包圍圈，伺機發起進攻，爭取一招斃命……
❾ 求經典美國電影影評，最好是英文版的，中文也行，一個電影最好有多個影評 發776900490，非常感謝了
網上資源很多的，列舉兩個~
《肖申克的救贖》的英文影評 版本二郵件發給你
Though adapted from a Stephen King novella, "The Shawshank Redemption" has more to do with a man's internal demons than the kind that routinely rise up from overgrown graveyards. Like "Stand by Me," it's not a typical story from the horror King. Instead, it's a devoutly old-fashioned, spiritually uplifting prison drama about two lifers who must break their emotional shackles before they can finally become free men.
Set in a spooky old penitentiary with turrets and towers, the movie manages to be true to its Big House origins while incorporating such horrific mainstays as the clanking of chains and the creaking of the walls. There's even a raven that roosts in the prison library, where he is cared for by a darling old trusty (James Whitmore). For the most part, however, the movie expands upon cliches that date back to James Cagney's prison portraits梩he twisted warden (Bob Gunton) and the sadistic guard (Clancy Brown).
Director Frank Darabont, who apprenticed on B-scripts ("The Fly II") and TV movies ("Buried Alive"), manages to fashion an improbable new pattern from the same old material in his remarkable debut. While he deals with the grimmest aspects of prison life (sadistic guards, gang rapes and befouled food), Darabont is chiefly interested in the 20-year friendship that sustains Andy (Tim Robbins) and Red (Morgan Freeman) .
The movie opens in 1947 as Andy, a prominent New England banker, is on trial for murdering his wife and her lover. Not only did he have a motive, but he had the opportunity梙is footprints were found at the scene of the crime梐nd he had a weapon of the caliber used in the shootings. He insists that he is innocent, but the jury finds him guilty. Sentenced to life twice over, Andy is shipped to the maximum-security state prison at Shawshank, Maine. An introverted loner with an interest in reading, chess and rock carving, Andy doesn't make himself many friends until Red, a 30-year-veteran of the system, decides to take him under his wing.
Things begin to change for the better when Andy finds a way to use his skills and ecation to benefit his fellow felons. When he overhears the guard captain complaining about losing most of an inheritance to taxes, he offers to trade his advice for three beers for each of the men who are working with him that day tarring the roof.
His reputation as a financial adviser spreads, and soon he is doing the taxes for all the guards and running the warden's outside scams. This leads to a position in the tiny prison library, which Andy graally expands into the best ecational facility of its kind in the area. It takes him six years to do it, but Andy never gives up hope.
It is hope that allows the self-proclaimed innocent man to survive what may or may not be an unjust imprisonment. And hope is his gift to his friend Red, who no longer even tries to impress the parole board at his hearings. He's become "institutionalized," he explains to Andy, and would be a "nobody" on the outside.
Red's gift to Andy is absolution when he finally confesses his true sins. Whether or not he pulled the trigger, Andy blames himself for causing his wife's death; his redemption comes as he learns to give of himself over the course of this marvelously acted and directed film.
Robbins gives a performance that evolves with beautiful clarity from starchy banker to warm and loving friend. Freeman is sure to gain his third Oscar nomination for his portrayal of Red. He also reads the film's lovely narration, much of it drawn verbatim from King's 1982 novella.
A detailed portrait of the routine of cellblock life, "The Shawshank Redemption" might change a few minds about the usefulness of incarceration in terms of rehabilitation. Mostly, though, it reminds us of that we all hold the keys to our own prisons.
《楚門的世界》英文影評The Truman Show'' is founded on an enormous secret that all of the studio's advertising has been determined to reveal. I didn't know the secret when I saw the film, and was able to enjoy the little doubts and wonderings that the filmmakers so carefully planted. If by some good chance you do not know the secret, read no further.
Those fortunate audience members (I trust they have all left the room?) will be able to appreciate the meticulous way director Peter Weir and writer Andrew Niccol have constructed a jigsaw plot around their central character, who doesn't suspect that he's living his entire life on live television. Yes, he lives in an improbably ideal world, but I fell for that: I assumed the movie was taking a sitcom view of life, in which neighbors greet each other over white picket fences, and Ozzie and Harriet are real people.
Actually, it's Seaside, a planned community on the Gulf Coast near Tampa. Called Seahaven in the movie, it looks like a nice place to live. Certainly Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) doesn't know anything else. You accept the world you're given, the filmmakers suggest; more thoughtful viewers will get the buried message, which is that we accept almost everything in our lives without examining it very closely. When was the last time you reflected on how really odd a tree looks? Truman works as a sales executive at an insurance company, is happily married to Meryl (Laura Linney), and doesn't find it suspicious that she describes household procts in the language of TV commercials. He is happy, in a way, but an uneasiness gnaws away at him. Something is missing, and he thinks perhaps he might find it in Fiji, where Lauren (Natascha McElhone), the only woman he really loved, allegedly has moved with her family.
Why did she leave so quickly? Perhaps because she was not a safe bet for Truman's world: The actress who played her (named Sylvia) developed real feeling and pity for Truman, and felt he should know the truth about his existence. Meryl, on the other hand, is a reliable pro (which raises the question, unanswered, of their sex life).
Truman's world is controlled by a TV procer named Christof (Ed Harris), whose control room is high in the artificial dome that provides the sky and horizon of Seahaven. He discusses his programming on talk shows, and dismisses the protests of those (including Sylvia) who believe Truman is the victim of a cruel deception. Meanwhile, the whole world watches Truman's every move, and some viewers even leave the TV on all night, as he sleeps.
The trajectory of the screenplay is more or less inevitable: Truman must graally realize the truth of his environment, and try to escape from it. It's clever the way he's kept on his island by implanted traumas about travel and water. As the story unfolds, however, we're not simply expected to follow it: We're invited to think about the implications. About a world in which modern communications make celebrity possible, and inhuman.
Until fairly recently, the only way you could become really famous was to be royalty, or a writer, actor, preacher or politician--and even then, most people had knowledge of you only through words or printed pictures.
Television, with its insatiable hunger for material, has made celebrities into ``content,'' devouring their lives and secrets. If you think ``The Truman Show'' is an exaggeration, reflect that Princess Diana lived under similar conditions from the day she became engaged to Charles.
Carrey is a surprisingly good choice to play Truman. We catch glimpses of his manic comic persona, just to make us comfortable with his presence in the character, but this is a well-planned performance; Carrey is on the right note as a guy raised to be liked and likable, who decides his life requires more risk and hardship. Like the angels in ``City of Angels,'' he'd like to take his chances.
Ed Harris also finds the right notes as Christof, the TV svengali. He uses the technospeak by which we distance ourselves from the real meanings of our words. (If TV procers ever spoke frankly about what they were really doing, they'd come across like Bulworth.) For Harris, the demands of the show take precedence over any other values, and if you think that's an exaggeration, tell it to the TV news people who broadcast that Los Angeles suicide.
I enjoyed ``The Truman Show'' on its levels of comedy and drama; I liked Truman in the same way I liked Forrest Gump--because he was a good man, honest, and easy to sympathize with.
But the underlying ideas made the movie more than just entertainment. Like ``Gattaca,'' the previous film written by Niccol, it brings into focus the new values that technology is forcing on humanity.
Because we can engineer genetics, because we can telecast real lives--of course we must, right? But are these good things to do? The irony is, the people who will finally answer that question will be the very ones proced by the process.
如果你找不到，還需要的話，歡迎繼續聯系
❿ 速求一份傳染病電影觀後感
最愛》這部電影最早進入我的視野還是在它的拍攝初期。那時，在媒體的報道中，它被描述為一部「講述一群艾滋病人的故事」、「敢於直面真實」的現實主義電影。它的題材讓我印象深刻：上世紀90年代，一個貧困村子的農民因集體賣血而導致半條村感染了艾滋病。在死亡和貧困面前，村民的人性逐漸展現，愚昧落後的意識讓村裡人在面對死亡時顯得丑態百出。那時候，電影的名字也不叫《最愛》，而叫《魔術外傳》。
剛看到那些報道時，我的腦海里立刻聯想起了一些西方電影里的麻風病人形象。他們由於身染惡疾，被迫居住在中世紀城市外的一些洞穴里，禁止與人接觸，飽受凄楚與流離之苦，過著生不如死的日子。看完報道後一個下意識的疑問是：在今天喧嘩而浮躁的中國電影中，容得下艾滋病人的形象么？有多少人願意去看這些呢，畢竟把它真實地表現出來，就如同撕裂了社會良知的一道血淋淋的傷疤啊？
這樣的疑問一時找不到答案，久而久之，便漸漸淡忘了。
直至《最愛》上映前夕，媒體的宣傳已經換了套策略，我一廂情願當成的「苦難」彷彿也找到了新的賣點——「一部傳奇絕戀的故事，講述身染惡疾的男女主角在絕境中從相憐、相依到相愛，直到用生命證明了愛情的尊嚴和偉大的悲傷故事。」
這種轉變往往暗示著導演需要在藝術和商業，自我表達和迎合觀眾之間作一種取捨和權衡。從結果看，在一取一舍之間，電影的主題早已四分五裂。
在我看來，《最愛》是莫名其妙的。它把背景放在了一個最富鄉土氣息的中國農村，村民們講著方言，有獨特的風俗，但就在這樣一個地方，卻有一個章子怡和一個郭富城，我說的不是商琴琴和趙得意，而就是那兩位演員本人。他們以出場，觀眾立馬感到一個是國際女星，一個是港台明星，他們渾身都是他們自己。這樣兩個人扎眼的存在把這個地方的地氣完全打亂了，那個村莊成了一個不倫不類的場所，一個商業演出的舞台。而原先這個舞台是打算留給悲劇和苦難的。
《最愛》究竟是想表現疾病（一群艾滋病人的故事）還是想表現愛情（一部傳奇絕戀）？對於這個問題，你或許可以給出一個簡單的答案：《最愛》講述的是兩個身患絕症的人的愛情故事，講述必然來臨的死亡和分別給愛情帶來的悲劇感，講述身患疾病的人同樣具有追求愛的勇氣和權利。如果導演的想法確實和這個答案相一致，倒也具有很大的可行性，至少可以找到不少先例：高端一點的如加西亞•馬爾克斯的小說《霍亂時期的愛情》，低端一點的如韓劇中無數段以相愛中的一方罹患白血病去世而告終的愛情。但是這兩種例子無不具有以下兩個特點：一是它的社會背景色彩相對淡化；二是它把全部重心集中在愛情本身之上。《最愛》從一開始的題材選擇，到導演篇幅的表現比重都顯示出它有著另外的企圖。片中的艾滋病村（盡管在最終上映的片子里只是模糊地把村民的病稱為「熱病」）並非一個上演空中樓閣般愛情的虛無縹緲所在，它是一個真實的村莊。在《孔雀》和《立春》中顧長衛那種專注於表現生活細節的特點也延續到了《最愛》中。但是，這些原本是優勢所在的地方卻加重了電影的重心失衡。很難搞懂，在一個真實的罹患艾滋病的村莊，苦難、貧困和死亡壓抑得人們喘不過氣來，在這樣一個現實被黑暗照亮的地方，一對男女的纏綿（盡管是死前的纏綿）有什麼重要，值得電影用壓倒性的時間進行表現。
彷彿是為了調和現實的苦難和愛情的歡愉之間的不相稱，顧長衛有意通過某種風格化手法去彌補。他以往的風格，有影評人稱之為「造作」，我的理解是將某種情境、表演或台詞極端化，使之完全不自然，以取得戲劇性效果。《最愛》仍舊是「造作」的，但已不完全是出於風格的考慮，商業的因素已變得很重要。拿章子怡出場時穿的那件大紅襖襖來說，確實「造作」無比，但我總覺得不如《鬥牛》中閆妮穿的那件暗紅、褪了色的棉襖來得朴實，盡管它們都是「萬黑叢中」的一點紅，在突出人物方面的目的是一樣的。如果閆妮的棉襖穿在章子怡身上，那影片的格局就會大不一樣，觀眾對片中愛情的接受方式也會很不一樣。同樣造作的還有電影中人物喜劇色彩濃厚的表演和對話方式。按照常規的理解，顧長衛使人物這樣對話和表演，是為了取得一種「笑中帶淚」的效果，或者嘗試一種喜劇中的悲劇。但鑒於片中關於疾病的痛苦和死亡的虛無的場面是那麼短暫，跟喜劇部分完全不相稱，整部電影幾乎就是一部「准」喜劇，我們幾乎可以推論出導演為了商業考慮，已經放棄了最初的表現原則。
《最愛》中最精彩的既不是它在道義方面對現實苦難的關注或者娛樂方面對死亡和愛情的調侃，不是它的故事也不是導演的風格，而是濮存昕和蔣雯麗這兩位配角演員的表演。他們再次證明了好演員從來不惜扮丑否定自己的形象，不惜犧牲自己以成全一個真實的角色。他們也再次證明了演員的價值與明星的身份之間並不是完全一致的。
剛從網上看到消息說，《最愛》並不就是《魔術外傳》，而只是為了配合上映而推出的一個剪輯版，之後還有有一個兩百分鍾的導演剪輯版。但願以後看到導演剪輯版後能解答本文中的疑問，推翻其中的一些結論。aware天 貓