鳥人的觀後感

1. 捕鳥人知斑鳩讀後感

我今天讀了一本書名字叫《捕鳥人和斑鳩》，這個故事講得是：有個客人很晚來到捕鳥人家，捕鳥人便想殺那隻馴養的斑鳩來招待客人。斑鳩痛斥他忘恩負義，說自己曾幫他招引來了許多斑鳩，而如今卻要被殺掉。捕鳥人說道：「這樣就更應該殺了你，因為你連同類也出賣！」

這個故事告訴我們：做人一定要忠誠，那些出賣親人朋友的人不僅會受到被害人的憎恨，而且還會受到他們所投靠人們的厭惡。

2. 求《鳥人》讀後感，謝謝！

從卓越網購買到《鳥人》後，我幾乎是一天讀完了。
我開始慶幸，慶幸中國的文學界終於從低谷慢慢爬向高山，沖向峰頂！
《鳥人》以其高超的敘事手法；對世界的觀察方法，獨特的寫作風格，令我嘆服，令我感嘆：中國的文學有希望了！
書中講述了鳥博士的離奇故事：心高氣傲的鳥博士不滿導師的守舊的學術視野和困於家中生活，乘火車南下投奔好友小七。沒有想到路途中與老鷹沖集團老大相遇，因其過人學識，又想不到被老大賞識聘為特別助理，專門從事老鷹沖重組調研。在出乎意料之外又在情里之中的他由此接觸並調查了社會灰色地帶的所有勢力，並與瘦狗村相聯系，得出了市場經濟與集體主義關系的回答。這個報告被農貿部長所賞識，鳥博士因此成了部長特別助理，被任命為特管會主任，由此一步步進入上流社會，並用魔幻現實主義筆法記錄下一路見聞，千奇百怪的人情世態。可是我讀著那些故事並不感到離奇。其實那些故事就在我們幾乎每個人的身邊發生著，或者自己正在親身經歷。作者的高超寫法，讓我一會如臨其境，一會變成書裡面的主人公。紛亂復雜的世事，多重的性格，變幻的場景，象徵著我們的現實，暗示著我們自己的真實生活。
魔幻主義、現實主義等各中寫作方法的運用，已經熟練掌握，化作己用。從書中可以看到文學大師的身影，劉心武老師的靈魂。
從冒牌導師到飛鷹走狗論；從囡囡以及影子同事到商業街上空的動漫混戰；從編制與工資的困惑到車痴；從自投羅網到再見老七。世間百態萬象，世間光怪陸離，世間千奇百怪，世間經典時尚在書中都有一流的描寫，一流的暗喻，一流的刻畫，一流的象徵。
鳥博士的經歷遭遇何嘗不是許多不甘寂寞的年輕人的縮影？何嘗不是當今社會的濃縮版？
諾貝爾獎在中國有了希望！
《鳥人》值得我一讀再讀，值得大家一讀再讀！
《鳥人》，好書！

3. 鳥與人 讀後感- -!

本文主要講述了一隻老鳥自投羅網，掉到了人類的網中。它向人類提出了個要求：我告訴你三句名言，你就會變得有錢，到時你就放了我。結果，那人因為貪婪所以放了老鳥。
讀完這篇文章，我不禁嘆息：文中的那位捕鳥者真是太愚蠢了，到嘴邊的食物都放走了。細想一下，導致這樣的後果不就是因為他自身的的貪婪嗎？當他聽到老鳥說這兩句名言會讓他發財，捕鳥人就受不住誘惑 。這時，內心的誘惑給捕鳥者帶來了「貪婪」這個惡魔，他答應了老鳥。結果，貪婪使使他陷進了老鳥安排的考驗中。在考驗中，老鳥對於自己對人類的耍弄胸有成竹。有趣的是，他說的每一句名言，恰恰是對他的提醒，被貪婪蒙蔽雙眼的人卻始終沒有意識到。
其實，在生活中，我們常常被貪婪蒙住了眼睛。就為了得到一樣東西而失去了另一樣東西，有時還會竹籃打水——一場空。在生活中，這種例子我們見得不少，也經歷過不少。有時，現實生活中的誘惑實在太多了，是這些誘惑讓我們迷失了方向。只要我們懂得一個詞，這些貪婪和誘惑便像貓見到老鼠一樣——逃了！而這個詞是：滿足。也就是對於某些事物要有知足。俗話說：知足常樂嘛！
我們現在生活在爸爸媽媽的呵護下，在一個溫暖而又吃好穿好的地方成長；相比起山區里貧窮的孩子和失去父母的孩子對比起來，我們不是比他們還要幸福一千甚至一萬倍嗎？難道我們不應該知足嗎？我們經常都會埋怨父母的嘮叨，說父母對我們不好。別的孩子每天都有零花錢，而自己卻沒有。這不就是一種貪婪嗎？父母含辛茹苦的養育我們，我們應該感謝而不是埋怨。
知足者貧賤亦樂,不知足者富貴亦憂。因此，我們都應該抱有滿足這心態去看世界，這樣，貪婪便不會讓我們迷失了方向。

4. 電影《鳥人》講述了一個什麼樣的故事

電影《鳥人》是根據威廉·霍頓1978年發表的一部招人非議的不尋常小說改編而成，在1985年戛納國際電影節上被評委們認為是當年該電影節「最優秀的一部影片。不僅獲得1985年戛納電影節評委會大獎以及金棕櫚提名，而且還獲得1987年華沙國際電影節觀眾獎。該片故事以越南戰場為背景，片中攝影、配樂核剪接都具有高度的實驗性，也使得這部交織於過往記憶和現世慘痛的作品，始終維持著極強的戲劇張力，深具震撼效果。《鳥人》-劇情簡介 艾爾是一個參加越戰的美國軍人，因傷回國後他找到了好友伯第，但他們相遇的地方竟然是一個冷清荒涼的精神病房裡，因為伯第得了精神病被關了進來。在醫生的建議下，艾爾常常來到精神病房跟伯第訴說童年的往事： 艾爾原本是一個無業青年，在一次打架事件中認識了」鳥人」伯第，因為伯第整天都幻想自己化身成飛鳥，所以別人都是這樣叫他，艾爾和伯第一見如故，成為了情同手足的好友。從此，兩人進行了各種與飛行有關的瘋狂行為。但慢慢地，伯第開始從瘋狂走向了極端。整天都沉浸在自我的世界裡，甚至和鳥睡在一起，極端行為最終令艾爾再也無法忍受，於是獨自一人跑去參加了越戰。 在艾爾走後伯第也參加了越戰，在那殘酷的越戰前線，柏第目睹戰火摧毀一大量的人和鳥，終於因身心不堪負荷成了精神病患者。在病房裡伯第整天捲曲著四支和身體，有時坐到洗手盤下、有時蹲在床邊獃獃地望向那扇僅有的天窗。沒有人知道他在想什麼，而他，始終相信自己是一隻自由翱翔的飛鳥……在精神病遼逗留的日子裡，艾爾眼看自己的好友變成這樣，傷心之餘精神亦陷入了低潮。他開始感受到了柏第苦痛的，身體也開始像鳥一樣卷縮起來，在精神崩潰之際，伯第終於醒了過來。在抱頭痛哭之後艾爾打傷了兩個管理員，扶著被精神折磨得不成人形的伯第離開了這個可怕的」鳥籠」。

5. 在線等！電影鳥人的英文觀後感！60到80個詞之間吧！我已經沒有財富值了π_π

60到80個詞的觀後感？你開玩笑吧？

給你一篇，你自己挑80個詞吧，希望你能湊得出80個詞的觀後感。

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.

6. 《鳥人》觀後感1000字

書中講述了鳥博士的離奇故事：心高氣傲的鳥博士不滿導師的守舊的學術視野和困於家中生活，乘火車南下投奔好友小七。沒有想到路途中與老鷹沖集團老大相遇，因其過人學識，又想不到被老大賞識聘為特別助理，專門從事老鷹沖重組調研。在出乎意料之外又在情里之中的他由此接觸並調查了社會灰色地帶的所有勢力，並與瘦狗村相聯系，得出了市場經濟與集體主義關系的回答。這個報告被農貿部長所賞識，鳥博士因此成了部長特別助理，被任命為特管會主任，由此一步步進入上流社會，並用魔幻現實主義筆法記錄下一路見聞，千奇百怪的人情世態。可是我讀著那些故事並不感到離奇。其實那些故事就在我們幾乎每個人的身邊發生著，或者自己正在親身經歷。作者的高超寫法，讓我一會如臨其境，一會變成書裡面的主人公。紛亂復雜的世事，多重的性格，變幻的場景，象徵著我們的現實，暗示著我們自己的真實生活。
魔幻主義、現實主義等各中寫作方法的運用，已經熟練掌握，化作己用。從書中可以看到文學大師的身影，劉心武老師的靈魂。
從冒牌導師到飛鷹走狗論；從囡囡以及影子同事到商業街上空的動漫混戰；從編制與工資的困惑到車痴；從自投羅網到再見老七。世間百態萬象，世間光怪陸離，世間千奇百怪，世間經典時尚在書中都有一流的描寫，一流的暗喻，一流的刻畫，一流的象徵。
鳥博士的經歷遭遇何嘗不是許多不甘寂寞的年輕人的縮影？何嘗不是當今社會的濃縮版？

7. 求 電影《鳥人》影評 字數八百

誰瘋了：《Birdy》

煩一個人是有原因的。我一直煩尼古拉斯•凱奇。不管他演什麼，我都看不下去。所以這部《Birdy》，遲遲才看。

在《Birdy》里，尼古拉斯•凱奇出演Birdy唯一的朋友艾爾。艾爾在電影里有兩個基本造型：一個是在越戰前，他是一個快樂荒唐的小青年；第二是在越戰中，他的臉被炸碎了，出境時始終包著大半邊臉。這結果有二：一我看完了片子，二我終於發現他的討厭之處了：一是他的臉，二是憂傷的眼神，他那聞名於世的憂傷眼神只堪「如喪考妣」四個字來形容，看一眼，就他媽想上去跺幾腳才過癮——敢跟我家艾爾•帕西諾比電眼，靠，也配。

好在他即不憂傷，也不常露臉，所以我認為《Birdy》是尼古拉斯•凱奇演的最好的電影。演Birdy的演員身材很好，身體語言也很豐富，好看。導演也很好，特別是那幾個飛鳥視角的鏡頭，特別漂亮。當然，最好的是劇本。

劇本的好，好在改編自同名小說。改編自小說的電影劇本，很少會出大問題。說到底，電影是藝術，需要文學基礎。所以張藝謀的電影，只要好好的改編小說，問題都不很大，一旦沒了好劇本，他就等同於一個MTV導演了。當然，《生命中不能承受之輕》改編壞了，但《布拉格之戀》的壞和《十面埋伏》的壞，還不在一個檔次上。

劇本的好，好的很玄乎，最後一個鏡頭才呈現出來的。影片結束前5秒，Birdy從屋頂飛身而下，我以為就這樣結束了，心想這他媽的算什麼破電影？！但結果是還有一個鏡頭：Birdy安穩的站在下一階屋頂，抬頭問趕來的艾爾：what？讓我評選電影十佳結尾，《Birdy》絕對算一個。試想這樣一個結局：Birdy飛身而下，艾爾大叫一聲奔過去往樓下看，發現Birdy血肉模糊的摔爛在地面上——這他媽算是一個什麼電影呢？

就是這個結尾的好。它指出Birdy沒瘋，也沒偏執狂，他始終很清醒。人人都以為他瘋了，艾爾也差不多認為，連我都差不多認為他瘋了。但導演在最後一個鏡頭交待清楚，他很正常。但如果他很清醒，那他一直神叨叨的做鳥狀，算是怎麼回事呢？再明顯不過了，就是一個本能的反抗。

艾爾和Birdy曾是一對快樂年輕人。艾爾樂天，荒唐，冒失，而Birdy更溫和，靦腆，內向。Birdy愛鳥，很正常，他只是個大孩子而已。他最愛的鳥，並非老鷹夜梟之類的，而是一隻柔軟的小黃鳥。這是人物性格的外化，體現他的溫柔，敏感，內向的性格，和這小鳥一樣。

接下來有兩場戲，至關重要，一場是他們在街頭追狗，一場是小黃鳥差點被貓吃了。

追狗這一場，是艾爾和Birdy為了弄點錢，幫著一個混混追街上的狗，街上晃悠著的狗們被圍捕後，全都被送到一個屠場電死，血淋淋的剝下皮，然後被砍碎賣掉。鏡頭很血腥。兩個孩子又怕又驚又怒。初看之下覺得很怪，幹嘛寫這么一場十三不靠的戲，跟鳥也沒關系，跟什麼都沒關系。緊接著這一個場，就是一隻貓溜進屋子，差點把小鳥咬死了。

等看完了翻過頭再看，就看出來了這兩場的用途了。當時整個社會氣氛，就像個一個大屠場，街上的孩子們像狗一樣被圍獵、被追逐、最後被送去一批批的死掉，Birdy最早本能的感受到這隱約的恐怖，因為他最柔弱，也最敏感。整個影片里，Birdy在越南戰場只有一場戲，是以一個鳥的視角來的，先是低空飛行，越過屍體和戰火，最後高高的飛起來，把極端恐懼的Birdy扔在滿是戰火和屍體的人間地獄里。回憶到這里，Birdy哭了。

而艾爾，在戰爭中毀了臉，他憤怒，打架，怒罵，他知道自己被毀了，但不確信是被誰或者被什麼。他不斷的和Birdy談話，Birdy始終不開口。直到艾爾說出以下這些話：「birdy，我倆都完了。我們從未掌握過我們自己的生命……我覺得我們像沒人要的狗，記得嗎？……當炮彈打倒我臉上，我能聞到肉燒焦的味道，我不能觸摸傷口，什麼不知道自己的長相了，這些綳帶下還是不是我，或者變成軍隊屠夫的長相……Shit！他們的世界有什麼好！我們就呆在這不走了，你是對的，我們就藏在這不跟任何人說話，常常發瘋，爬上牆！吐口水！拿屎丟他們！」

這番話後，Birdy突然開口說話了。艾爾之前說了那麼多，Birdy都不理他，因為他覺得艾爾說的都是廢話，自己沒話跟他說。這段話一出，說出了核心，所以Birdy說話了。Birdy在大多數時候，沒有台詞，只靠肢體語言表達內心。他內心深處的創傷和他真實的想法，是由艾爾的口一步步說出來。

Birdy在醫院里的種種行為，並不是發瘋，而是無聲的抗議，是譴責：人的世界太他媽荒謬了，老子沒話跟你們說，不但不說話，人我也不當了。所以他日夜看著那扇窗，日日夜夜想飛離這荒唐的人世。

Birdy想當一隻鳥，這希望越是無望，也就越是反襯出這個世界的癲狂。兩個孩子的少年時光，全都在血光里、在死亡里、在戰爭里被毀掉了。所以當艾爾出發去越南時，Birdy的小黃鳥一頭撞在玻璃上自殺了。孩子們的好時光死了，一去不復返了，希望破滅了，一切都被毀掉了。

所以，最後的結尾，當然必須是那樣的，否則，Birdy就真成了瘋子。但事實是，瘋掉的是這個世界，而不是這兩個孩子。

《Birdy》和其它反越戰電影有很大不同，比如《生於7月4日》。要我說，更深刻。它不是依靠展現戰爭的殘酷場面，或者戰後歸來的失落，來譴責越戰的，在《Birdy》里戰爭場面就那麼三四個鏡頭。它的立足點在戰爭對人精神層面的摧毀。它不是理智的、思辨的，而是強烈的、本能的。這就是《Birdy》的深刻之處。它摧毀的不是人的信仰，不是國家榮譽，不是民主，不是理智，不是這些行而上的東西，而是直指人的心靈，這心靈創傷一點癒合的可能性都沒有。所以《Birdy》的主角birdy不是一個侃侃而談的社會批判者，而只是一個敏感柔軟如一隻小鳥的大男孩。他沒有說什麼大道理，甚至很少講話，但他的情感曾是完整的，飽滿的。他愛風，愛大海，愛過山車，愛剛出殼的雛鳥，愛自由。但戰爭毀了一切。

比較《生於7月四日》，同樣是講一個青年的越戰噩夢，《Birdy》這種拋離了理智的思考，直接入手展現心靈創傷的手法，明顯更勝一籌。另外，看了太多戰爭里的人和事，我成了一個無條件反戰者。戰爭的結果永遠是負數，還沒處補償，是純損失。

8. 鳥人1984影評最後2人都是瘋了嗎

並不是，birdy沒有瘋，在別人無法理解的世界裡他選擇閉嘴，艾爾也沒有