電影鳥人觀後感

『肆』 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.

『伍』 在線等啊！電影鳥人的英文觀後感60到80個詞之間，不要附件手機看不到啊！

Birdman is completely different from any other movieI've seen before. The movie has been shot in one long take. There is notransition from one scene to the next. The entire movie takes placecontinuously.

It has elements of comedy, drama and in one brilliantset piece. The cast is flawless. Michael Keaton is outstanding as Riggan.Keaton effortlessly showcases a variety of emotions as the troubled Riggan.

Birdman is an instant classic and an achievement inmodern movie making.

『陸』 求 電影《鳥人》影評 字數八百

你開場花了那麼多篇幅去點評一個在當時算是年輕的演員和一個跟電影根本無關的導演，我就看不下去你的影評了，你只能是道貌岸然的表演文章而已.

『柒』 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！

『捌』 寫一篇視頻觀後感 800字左右

看過這樣一段視頻一共 有四個人參加招聘廣告設計總監第一個人 文憑較低 交際能力比較強 有豐富的經驗 作品比較適合大眾化第二個人 文憑較高 作品比較有深度 很難令人看懂第三個人 文憑較高 交際能強 作品藝術性太強第四個人 文憑較高 交際能力較弱 作品比較適合大眾化最後第一個人獲勝了看了這樣一段視頻讓我感觸頗深其實成長、學習是為了讓我們更確定自己的目標，有自己的思考能力，讓我們能發現成功的契機。成功人士所作的第一件事，通常就是把自己的奮斗目標明確找出來，然後盡全力向前邁進。設定目標，無視別人的冷嘲熱諷，正是成功的要素。科萊特在1973年考進哈佛大學，經常坐在他身邊的同學，是一個18歲的美國青年。大二那年，這位小夥子邀科萊特一起退學，他決定去開發已一項財務軟體，想找科萊特一起合作。
不過科萊特拒絕了，因為他好不容易來到這里求學，怎麼可以輕易退學？更何況那項系統的研發才剛起步，墨爾斯博士也只教點皮毛而已。所以，他認為要開發Bit財務軟體，必須讀完大學的全部課程才行。十年後，科萊特終於成為哈佛大學Bit領域的高手，而那位退學的小夥子，也在這一年擠進了美國億萬富翁的行列。
科萊特拿到博士學位之時，那位曾經同窗的青年則已經晉升到了美國第二大富豪。在1995，科萊特終於認為自己具備足夠學識，可以研發並開發Bit財務軟體是，那位小夥子已經繞過Bit系統，開發出Eip財務軟體，而且在兩周之內，這個軟體更佔領了全球市場。這一年，他成為世界首富，他的名字叫做比爾.蓋茨。
在只為升學而升學的年代，有多少人知道自己的方向在哪裡？學歷高並不能代表專業，一些因為興趣而進入專業領域的門外漢，對准目標，孜孜不倦地學習研究，反而比任何具有專業知識的人，更懂得知識與實務的運用。比爾.蓋茨在尚未畢業前，不理會別人的刻薄批評，對了目標，搶得創業先機，成為引領世界的龍頭，正是最好的代表。
知識的獲取不是讀過了就好，如果一知半解，即使能勉強畢業，有一張漂亮文憑，往往也只能紙上談兵，無法融會貫通地運用。故事中，世界首富要告訴我們的是，書是活的，學習的過程不是為讀書而讀書，更不是為拿到文憑而留在教室里。成長、學習是為了讓我們更確定自己的目標，有自己的思考能力，讓我們能發現成功的契機。