鸟人的观后感

1. 捕鸟人知斑鸠读后感

我今天读了一本书名字叫《捕鸟人和斑鸠》，这个故事讲得是：有个客人很晚来到捕鸟人家，捕鸟人便想杀那只驯养的斑鸠来招待客人。斑鸠痛斥他忘恩负义，说自己曾帮他招引来了许多斑鸠，而如今却要被杀掉。捕鸟人说道：“这样就更应该杀了你，因为你连同类也出卖！”

这个故事告诉我们：做人一定要忠诚，那些出卖亲人朋友的人不仅会受到被害人的憎恨，而且还会受到他们所投靠人们的厌恶。

2. 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！

3. 鸟与人 读后感- -!

本文主要讲述了一只老鸟自投罗网，掉到了人类的网中。它向人类提出了个要求：我告诉你三句名言，你就会变得有钱，到时你就放了我。结果，那人因为贪婪所以放了老鸟。
读完这篇文章，我不禁叹息：文中的那位捕鸟者真是太愚蠢了，到嘴边的食物都放走了。细想一下，导致这样的后果不就是因为他自身的的贪婪吗？当他听到老鸟说这两句名言会让他发财，捕鸟人就受不住诱惑 。这时，内心的诱惑给捕鸟者带来了“贪婪”这个恶魔，他答应了老鸟。结果，贪婪使使他陷进了老鸟安排的考验中。在考验中，老鸟对于自己对人类的耍弄胸有成竹。有趣的是，他说的每一句名言，恰恰是对他的提醒，被贪婪蒙蔽双眼的人却始终没有意识到。
其实，在生活中，我们常常被贪婪蒙住了眼睛。就为了得到一样东西而失去了另一样东西，有时还会竹篮打水——一场空。在生活中，这种例子我们见得不少，也经历过不少。有时，现实生活中的诱惑实在太多了，是这些诱惑让我们迷失了方向。只要我们懂得一个词，这些贪婪和诱惑便像猫见到老鼠一样——逃了！而这个词是：满足。也就是对于某些事物要有知足。俗话说：知足常乐嘛！
我们现在生活在爸爸妈妈的呵护下，在一个温暖而又吃好穿好的地方成长；相比起山区里贫穷的孩子和失去父母的孩子对比起来，我们不是比他们还要幸福一千甚至一万倍吗？难道我们不应该知足吗？我们经常都会埋怨父母的唠叨，说父母对我们不好。别的孩子每天都有零花钱，而自己却没有。这不就是一种贪婪吗？父母含辛茹苦的养育我们，我们应该感谢而不是埋怨。
知足者贫贱亦乐,不知足者富贵亦忧。因此，我们都应该抱有满足这心态去看世界，这样，贪婪便不会让我们迷失了方向。

4. 电影《鸟人》讲述了一个什么样的故事

电影《鸟人》是根据威廉·霍顿1978年发表的一部招人非议的不寻常小说改编而成，在1985年戛纳国际电影节上被评委们认为是当年该电影节“最优秀的一部影片。不仅获得1985年戛纳电影节评委会大奖以及金棕榈提名，而且还获得1987年华沙国际电影节观众奖。该片故事以越南战场为背景，片中摄影、配乐核剪接都具有高度的实验性，也使得这部交织于过往记忆和现世惨痛的作品，始终维持著极强的戏剧张力，深具震撼效果。《鸟人》-剧情简介 艾尔是一个参加越战的美国军人，因伤回国后他找到了好友伯第，但他们相遇的地方竟然是一个冷清荒凉的精神病房里，因为伯第得了精神病被关了进来。在医生的建议下，艾尔常常来到精神病房跟伯第诉说童年的往事： 艾尔原本是一个无业青年，在一次打架事件中认识了”鸟人”伯第，因为伯第整天都幻想自己化身成飞鸟，所以别人都是这样叫他，艾尔和伯第一见如故，成为了情同手足的好友。从此，两人进行了各种与飞行有关的疯狂行为。但慢慢地，伯第开始从疯狂走向了极端。整天都沉浸在自我的世界里，甚至和鸟睡在一起，极端行为最终令艾尔再也无法忍受，于是独自一人跑去参加了越战。 在艾尔走后伯第也参加了越战，在那残酷的越战前线，柏第目睹战火摧毁一大量的人和鸟，终于因身心不堪负荷成了精神病患者。在病房里伯第整天卷曲着四支和身体，有时坐到洗手盘下、有时蹲在床边呆呆地望向那扇仅有的天窗。没有人知道他在想什么，而他，始终相信自己是一只自由翱翔的飞鸟……在精神病辽逗留的日子里，艾尔眼看自己的好友变成这样，伤心之余精神亦陷入了低潮。他开始感受到了柏第苦痛的，身体也开始像鸟一样卷缩起来，在精神崩溃之际，伯第终于醒了过来。在抱头痛哭之后艾尔打伤了两个管理员，扶着被精神折磨得不成人形的伯第离开了这个可怕的”鸟笼”。

5. 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.

6. 《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？

7. 求 电影《鸟人》影评 字数八百

谁疯了：《Birdy》

烦一个人是有原因的。我一直烦尼古拉斯•凯奇。不管他演什么，我都看不下去。所以这部《Birdy》，迟迟才看。

在《Birdy》里，尼古拉斯•凯奇出演Birdy唯一的朋友艾尔。艾尔在电影里有两个基本造型：一个是在越战前，他是一个快乐荒唐的小青年；第二是在越战中，他的脸被炸碎了，出境时始终包着大半边脸。这结果有二：一我看完了片子，二我终于发现他的讨厌之处了：一是他的脸，二是忧伤的眼神，他那闻名于世的忧伤眼神只堪“如丧考妣”四个字来形容，看一眼，就他妈想上去跺几脚才过瘾——敢跟我家艾尔•帕西诺比电眼，靠，也配。

好在他即不忧伤，也不常露脸，所以我认为《Birdy》是尼古拉斯•凯奇演的最好的电影。演Birdy的演员身材很好，身体语言也很丰富，好看。导演也很好，特别是那几个飞鸟视角的镜头，特别漂亮。当然，最好的是剧本。

剧本的好，好在改编自同名小说。改编自小说的电影剧本，很少会出大问题。说到底，电影是艺术，需要文学基础。所以张艺谋的电影，只要好好的改编小说，问题都不很大，一旦没了好剧本，他就等同于一个MTV导演了。当然，《生命中不能承受之轻》改编坏了，但《布拉格之恋》的坏和《十面埋伏》的坏，还不在一个档次上。

剧本的好，好的很玄乎，最后一个镜头才呈现出来的。影片结束前5秒，Birdy从屋顶飞身而下，我以为就这样结束了，心想这他妈的算什么破电影？！但结果是还有一个镜头：Birdy安稳的站在下一阶屋顶，抬头问赶来的艾尔：what？让我评选电影十佳结尾，《Birdy》绝对算一个。试想这样一个结局：Birdy飞身而下，艾尔大叫一声奔过去往楼下看，发现Birdy血肉模糊的摔烂在地面上——这他妈算是一个什么电影呢？

就是这个结尾的好。它指出Birdy没疯，也没偏执狂，他始终很清醒。人人都以为他疯了，艾尔也差不多认为，连我都差不多认为他疯了。但导演在最后一个镜头交待清楚，他很正常。但如果他很清醒，那他一直神叨叨的做鸟状，算是怎么回事呢？再明显不过了，就是一个本能的反抗。

艾尔和Birdy曾是一对快乐年轻人。艾尔乐天，荒唐，冒失，而Birdy更温和，腼腆，内向。Birdy爱鸟，很正常，他只是个大孩子而已。他最爱的鸟，并非老鹰夜枭之类的，而是一只柔软的小黄鸟。这是人物性格的外化，体现他的温柔，敏感，内向的性格，和这小鸟一样。

接下来有两场戏，至关重要，一场是他们在街头追狗，一场是小黄鸟差点被猫吃了。

追狗这一场，是艾尔和Birdy为了弄点钱，帮着一个混混追街上的狗，街上晃悠着的狗们被围捕后，全都被送到一个屠场电死，血淋淋的剥下皮，然后被砍碎卖掉。镜头很血腥。两个孩子又怕又惊又怒。初看之下觉得很怪，干嘛写这么一场十三不靠的戏，跟鸟也没关系，跟什么都没关系。紧接着这一个场，就是一只猫溜进屋子，差点把小鸟咬死了。

等看完了翻过头再看，就看出来了这两场的用途了。当时整个社会气氛，就像个一个大屠场，街上的孩子们像狗一样被围猎、被追逐、最后被送去一批批的死掉，Birdy最早本能的感受到这隐约的恐怖，因为他最柔弱，也最敏感。整个影片里，Birdy在越南战场只有一场戏，是以一个鸟的视角来的，先是低空飞行，越过尸体和战火，最后高高的飞起来，把极端恐惧的Birdy扔在满是战火和尸体的人间地狱里。回忆到这里，Birdy哭了。

而艾尔，在战争中毁了脸，他愤怒，打架，怒骂，他知道自己被毁了，但不确信是被谁或者被什么。他不断的和Birdy谈话，Birdy始终不开口。直到艾尔说出以下这些话：“birdy，我俩都完了。我们从未掌握过我们自己的生命……我觉得我们像没人要的狗，记得吗？……当炮弹打倒我脸上，我能闻到肉烧焦的味道，我不能触摸伤口，什么不知道自己的长相了，这些绷带下还是不是我，或者变成军队屠夫的长相……Shit！他们的世界有什么好！我们就呆在这不走了，你是对的，我们就藏在这不跟任何人说话，常常发疯，爬上墙！吐口水！拿屎丢他们！”

这番话后，Birdy突然开口说话了。艾尔之前说了那么多，Birdy都不理他，因为他觉得艾尔说的都是废话，自己没话跟他说。这段话一出，说出了核心，所以Birdy说话了。Birdy在大多数时候，没有台词，只靠肢体语言表达内心。他内心深处的创伤和他真实的想法，是由艾尔的口一步步说出来。

Birdy在医院里的种种行为，并不是发疯，而是无声的抗议，是谴责：人的世界太他妈荒谬了，老子没话跟你们说，不但不说话，人我也不当了。所以他日夜看着那扇窗，日日夜夜想飞离这荒唐的人世。

Birdy想当一只鸟，这希望越是无望，也就越是反衬出这个世界的癫狂。两个孩子的少年时光，全都在血光里、在死亡里、在战争里被毁掉了。所以当艾尔出发去越南时，Birdy的小黄鸟一头撞在玻璃上自杀了。孩子们的好时光死了，一去不复返了，希望破灭了，一切都被毁掉了。

所以，最后的结尾，当然必须是那样的，否则，Birdy就真成了疯子。但事实是，疯掉的是这个世界，而不是这两个孩子。

《Birdy》和其它反越战电影有很大不同，比如《生于7月4日》。要我说，更深刻。它不是依靠展现战争的残酷场面，或者战后归来的失落，来谴责越战的，在《Birdy》里战争场面就那么三四个镜头。它的立足点在战争对人精神层面的摧毁。它不是理智的、思辨的，而是强烈的、本能的。这就是《Birdy》的深刻之处。它摧毁的不是人的信仰，不是国家荣誉，不是民主，不是理智，不是这些行而上的东西，而是直指人的心灵，这心灵创伤一点愈合的可能性都没有。所以《Birdy》的主角birdy不是一个侃侃而谈的社会批判者，而只是一个敏感柔软如一只小鸟的大男孩。他没有说什么大道理，甚至很少讲话，但他的情感曾是完整的，饱满的。他爱风，爱大海，爱过山车，爱刚出壳的雏鸟，爱自由。但战争毁了一切。

比较《生于7月四日》，同样是讲一个青年的越战噩梦，《Birdy》这种抛离了理智的思考，直接入手展现心灵创伤的手法，明显更胜一筹。另外，看了太多战争里的人和事，我成了一个无条件反战者。战争的结果永远是负数，还没处补偿，是纯损失。

8. 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