給你
See "when happiness to knock at the door" feeling
The two day according to see dramatization of the movie "when happiness to knock at the door," at first think this film with other inspirational film no different, no more than is to speak the hero how to overcome difficulties last success story. But when I seen them all later, I found film show far more than here. I was facing difficulties and the fate of the character of the face a life difficult and face life of the attitude, a calm, poised, and persistent deeply shocked.
In fact the hero from the initial runs for the life to the last get work, this is not accidental. Observe carefully the protagonist's facial expressions, it is not difficult to find that no matter what circumstances, he hadn't been the pains of life away, he ?
翻譯：
看《當幸福來敲門》有感
這兩天看了根據真人真事改編的電影《當幸福來敲門》，起初認為這部電影跟其他勵志電影沒什麼區別，無非就是講主人公如何克服困難最後取得成功的故事。可當我全部看完以後，我發現影片中所展現的遠遠不止與此。我被主人公面對命運的坎坷、面對生存的艱難以及面對生活的那份態度，那份淡定、從容、執著所深深震撼。
其實主人公由最初的為生活而奔波到最後得到工作，這並不是偶然的。仔細觀察主人公的面部表情，不難發現無論在何種境況下，他都沒有被生活的磨難擊垮，他都始終保持著他獨特的笑容。在父子倆淪落到必須在地鐵站過夜的地步時，這個硬漢在聽到門外強硬的敲門聲時，將兒子抱緊，再抱緊，忍不住流下了辛酸的淚水。但在這個時候，他依然沒有失去對生活的希望。等到兩人住到救濟站時，他還不忘給兒子講笑話、哄他、安慰他。兒子克里斯托弗給了他最大的安慰和希望。從最初看到爸爸媽媽吵架的茫然失措，到媽媽離開以後的逐漸成長，再到跟到爸爸後面像爸爸一樣拚命跑，到最後的兩人手牽手一起步向幸福明天，這一切的一切都那樣真實，讓人不由得不被他們之間的那種深深的父子情所感染。片中還有一個鏡頭：當爸爸拽著克里斯托弗拚命奔向公共汽車時，他不小心將小機器人——他的玩伴丟在了馬路上，爸爸後來上了車才發現，但已是時間不等人。小克里斯托弗那流淚的臉久久地留在了我的腦海里。
片中出現最多的鏡頭是奔跑，在那樣一個經濟大蕭條的時代，每個人都是那樣神色匆忙。克里斯也是從頭到尾都在玩命地跟時間賽跑。哪怕就這樣，最初的幾次，他也沒有能夠追上時間的腳步。他感到疲憊，一種浸透了全身的疲憊。如果僅靠奔跑，看來是不能解決多少問題的。因為在那個時候，每個人的時間感覺似乎都不夠用，這個時候就要講求方法和效率了。其實他的成功，奔跑還不是起最關鍵的作用。關鍵是他對人對事的態度，幹事的認真的那份勁頭以及講求誠信的良好品質都給曾接觸過他的人留下了良好的印象。每一個細節他都認真去做好，一次不行兩次，兩次不行三次，直至最後達到自己的標准。當兒子在救濟站睡下後，他還接著走廊的燈光埋頭苦讀營銷的書籍。到最後考試時他第一個交了試卷，心中也是自信的。其實他的成功真是一波三折。本來第一次面試應該可以通過的，可是陰差陽錯，由於被警察拘留了一宿，第二天一早穿著滿是塗料的T恤去面試，後果可想而知。不過，由於面試官之一的戈登先生在跟克里斯打過幾次交道以後發現他真的是一個很不錯的幹事業的人。最終幫助他得到了第二次機會。
Ⅱ 需要金凱瑞yesman的英文影評
1
This alleged comedy revolves around a man who agrees to say yes to everything, with life-changing consequences. The star is Jim Carrey who, judging by his recent efforts, suffers from the same affliction, only with less remarkable results.
Based on Danny Wallace's book, the man formally known as Ace Ventura is professional sadsack Carl Allen, a bank clerk who's been stuck in a rut since his girlfriend upped and left him. Now a professional sofa surfer with no interests other than feeling sorry for himself, things take a turn for the weird when a pal bullies Carl into attending a seminar whose lead speaker (Terence Stamp) urges him to take affirmative action to change his fortunes. And pretty soon Carl has a new girl (Zooey Deschanel) and a new outlook.
Yes Man isn't a bad comedy, it's just not very funny. Carrey gurns and flashes his trademark zany grin like someone who's forgotten to take their lithium, while Deschanel is kooky as the geeky girlfriend.
There may be worse ways to spend Boxing Day but not many.
2
There are about three different comedies shuttling around uncomfortably inside the loose frame of Yes Man, and all of them probably would have been more successful on their own. It starts as a high-concept, "what if...?" comedy straight from the Liar, Liar playbook, morphs for a while into an overly twee "opposites attract" kind of romance, and ends with a mess of self-help platitudes and clincher scenes that seem airlifted in from other movies. The narrative meandering is matched by an inconsistent, overly vulgar comedic tone, so while scene by scene it can be funny, it all starts to feel pointless long before Yes Man reaches the end.
Surprisingly, Jim Carrey isn't at the root of the problem. For a comedian whose most successful role of the decade was sullen Joel in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Carrey's rubber face and manic energy are welcome here, picking up the slack in scenes where the writing is lacking. He even starts off a little like Joel, playing bank loan agent Carl, who's so depressed over his divorce three years that he still stays home and watches 300 rather than getting out in the world. It doesn't help that his only social options are his over-enthusiastic, geeky boss Norman (Rhys Darby), smugly engaged Peter (Bradley Cooper) and Lucy (Sasha Alexander), and the entirely personality-free Danny Masterson.
But somehow an old friend talks Carl into joining him at a "Yes Man" self-help conference, where nutty New Age guru Terrence (Terrence Stamp, hilarious) admonishes him to start saying "yes" to every single question. Immediately after Carl says yes to a homeless man's request to drive him into a park, which kicks off a chain of events that leads Carl to Allison (Zooey Deschanel), a standard-issue free spirit who rides a scooter and sings in a concept art band called Munchausen by Proxy. As Carl keeps saying yes to everything else, from throwing Lucy a bridal shower to taking Korean lessons, life leads him repeatedly back to Allison, and they start up a strange, age-inappropriate romance.
The pickles that Carl gets himself into as a "yes man" range from truly funny, like Norman's Harry Potter party, to downright icky, like his tryst with his elderly neighbor (You know those randy old lady jokes! They never get old!) Even some of the scenes that are more inspired, like a bar fight or Carl's unexpected friendship with a Korean store clerk, go on so long that they drain the humor out of the setup. It's a problem that applies to the movie as a whole: great concept, but no one has any idea what to do with it once they've gotten there.
Screenwriters Nicholas Stoller (having done such a better job on Forgetting Sarah Marshall), Jarrad Paul and Andrew Mogel must have known going in that the concept of Yes Man provides a serious narrative problem. If saying yes to everything automatically makes Carl's life better, where's the conflict? For about an hour and a half the movie progresses as if none of this crossed their minds, with Carl and Allison frolicking in their romance and all of Carl's customers leaving his desk with their loans happily in hand. Because this was made before "subprime mortgage" became a bad word, the money issues are left alone as conflict, and instead Homeland Security-- no kidding-- comes along to play bad guy and break up the happy couple. The issues at hand are genuine, with Allison asking Carl, if he says "yes" to everything, how can she know what he really wants or needs? But it's all handled in such a rushed way that it never fits into the overall story, and the movie can only answer its own questions in a fit of aphorisms and self-help talk near the end.
Yes Man wins points for not being excessively crude or mean, even though several swear words and "naughty" scenes seem mostly inserted to get the PG-13 rating that teenage boys will want to see. A few tweaks could have made this a gentler, PG, family-targeted movie, and I think it would have been better for it. As it is Yes Man is reaching to be both raunchy boy humor and broad-appeal Jim Carrey movie, both making fun of self-help gurus and accepting their teachings as fact, and generally throwing every kind of joke at the wall to see what sticks. Some of it does, more of it doesn't, and the whole jumbled proction suffers from the lack of coherent vision.
3
Yes Man is based on Danny Wallace's book chronicling his life after vowing to say yes to everything for a year. As a result all kinds of extraordinary things happened to the freelance radio procer including winning $45,000, meeting a hypnotic dog, earning a nursing degree and attending a meeting by a group that believed aliens built the pyramids in Egypt. Unfortunately in Yes Man, no such interesting things befall Carl Allen (Jim Carrey). Instead we get yet another dose of amped up Carrey delivering his usual face-pulling, pratfalling shtick.
Adopting a philosophy of saying yes to every proposition or invitation would inevitably lead to some unlikely scenarios, but Yes Man's three screenwriters and director Peyton Reed have used it as a license to exploit the ridiculous. As a consequence of the film's overarching tone of stupidity, it's impossible to buy into those rare moments when it endeavors to take an even slightly more tender tack.
Without knowing Wallace, the assumption is that he possesses an outgoing, adventurous nature, which makes his undertaking somewhat in keeping with his character. The difference is that in the film when we first meet Allen he is an unlikable, anti-social bore whose default response to any invitation is to say no. A junior loan officer at a bank, his career is going nowhere. His personal life is no better. Still struggling with his divorce from Stephanie (Molly Sims), he spends his nights alone watching videos and ignoring phone calls from his best friend Peter (Bradley Cooper). Indeed, considering how he treats Peter, it's a wonder he even has any friends.
But after being dragged reluctantly to a seminar by the motivational speaker (Terrence Stamp) for a movement whose slogan is "Yes is the New No," Allen adopts their policy of saying Yes to everything. Allen's transformation is immediate and drastic. Overnight he becomes carefree, fun-loving and gregarious. It's not as though his redemption is inspired by the series of absurd events that follow. That would have perhaps required a degree of subtlety and depth on the part of the screenwriters and Carrey who instead are more interested in mining for mb humour, of which there is plenty.
Inevitably there is a romantic thread. It involves Allen and the eccentric Allison (Zooey Deschanel), a singer in an art rock band at night and by day the leader of a group that combines jogging and photography. Stealing the movie is Rhys Darby as Norman, Allen's boss at the bank. Darby brings echoes of his hilarious role as the band's manager in Flight of the Conchords. But even his efforts can't save Yes Man from being dismissed as further proof that Carrey's once shining star has lost its luster.
4
I have gone on record many times with my love for Jim Carrey and that Dumb & Dumber is and will always be one of my all-time favorite comedies, and it』s with those two loves that I chose to sit down ring the holiday season to check out Carrey』s return to what he does best: make people laugh.
Let』s be clear about this: I love funny Jim Carrey, the Carrey from Ace Ventura, Liar Liar, Bruce Almighty and even The Cable Guy and I do love serious Jim Carrey, the Carrey from Man on the Moon, The Truman Show, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and even the dark Lemony Snicket』s A Series of Unfortunate Events, and while I don』t think Yes Man is on par with any of his other hilarious hits, it』s still a nice return for him to comedy.
The story is quite simple in that Carrey stars as 「Carl Allen,」 a mostly-negative loan officer who, after attending a self-help conference that preaches to say 「Yes」 to all opportunities and propositions, makes a covenant with the conference guru (played pretty well by Terrence Stamp) to say 「yes」 to everything that comes his way. Naturally, mild hilarity and silly situations ensue as he says 「yes」 to everything including giving a homeless guy all of his money (which leads him to the love interest, 「Allison」 played awkwardly, though that』s her usual character so it』s quite charming, by Zooey Deschanel), dressing up and attending a Harry Potter party, agreeing to be sexually pleased by his very old neighbor (which was a scene that totally should have been eliminated and was only left in to attract the PG-13 boys), which are all situations that eventually lead to good and positive changes in his life.
And that』s where, to me, the film loses its stamina. It』s almost like the writers didn』t know how to create the conflict, when everything goes his way by saying 「yes」 to everything, how do you introce an antagonist if you』re trying to get the message across to be open to possibilities in your life? Well, unfortunately, you only have a couple of hours to accomplish character, story, conflict, resolution, and a climax, and the writers of Yes Man chose the last 25 minutes to introce the conflict, resolve it, and lead you to the climax of the story. The ending all felt rushed and fake and I didn』t buy the tension that was created when Carl』s (Carrey) automatic agreeing to everything lead to questions of his authenticity in relationships and if he really was being honest or not. They should have started a natural progression of semi-negative consequences from his total 「yes-ness」 to everything instead of causing the movie to come to sudden halt and present us with a contrived conflict.
One of the things I liked seeing in this movie was Carrey』s age lines. He』s 46 years old and for the first time that I』ve seen in his movies, the man with the rubber face is actually showing signs of aging. I say it』s about time, it was to me a very realistic sign that he can』t do what he does forever. The days of beating the crap out of himself for a laugh are now going to be limited and the toll it takes will be visible. I think you see the beginnings of it in Yes Man. The comedy here is safe, it』s nothing that Carrey is not used to doing, but it』s also not comedy that will blow you away or affect the way you view Carrey. I think this is a safe return to physical and laugh-out-loud comedy for him and maybe it』ll help people forget when he tried VERY HARD to be hardcore and be taken for a twisted-horror-movie-actor with The Number 23. Jim Carrey flat out wants to make people laugh and I think it shows in every comedy he does. His energy is there and he is pretty much always funny (even in the crappy films), I think. I don』t think he needs to ONLY do comedies (Eternal Sunshine and Man on the Moon are 2 of my all-time Carrey favorites) and I don』t think he』s lost it at all.
5
Now for years, since I was a young boy (well I guess I still am) I have been a fan of Jim Carey. I don't think there is one movie of his that I do not like, even the non-comedies. Now is that because I am such a fan I have to like them or are they that good, I'd like to think they are that good.
Yes Man! is no exception to that list. If you haven't seen the commercial for this movie, its about a guy that always said no and never did anything with his life. He of course started a program that got him to always say yes. Before I get into it, even that premise sound awesome.
At first I thought this movie was just going to be a comedy. And it was one hell of a comedy at that, but it was more then that. I have been watching many shows and movies these days and I haven't laughed out load in a long time, this movie made me do it multiple times. Jim Carey is at his best. I don't need to go over certain parts to explain how well it was shot and done, it would destroy the film for you if I did.
The amazing part about this well done comedy is that it was not just a comedy, the life lesson learned in the movie, and the thought out acts in the movie are truely heart felt. It really got me thinking about doing more things and saying yes. I could really relate to the character in the movie.
6
I』m glad he』s following some of my recommendations by using his extraordinary talents in amusing movies like Yes Man.
Happily, Carrey romps through this movie with his usual kinetic energy and enthusiasm. He plays Carl Allen, a formerly closed-off man who discovers that saying 「Yes」 to every opportunity brings him multiple benefits. This 「carpe diem」 theme serves as a showcase for Carrey』s comedy skills. When his character breaks out of his shell, he plays the guitar, sings, speaks Korean, speeds on a motorcycle, overdoses on 「Red Bull,」 attends off-the-wall concerts, plans a wedding shower, and dresses like Harry Potter for a costume party put on by his silly fanboy boss (Rhys Darby).
Accepting the affirmative also results in our hero meeting Allison (Zooey Deschanel), a lovely young woman with strange interests, such as taking pictures of others while she』s running. Of course, romance blossoms between these two — and it』s great fun watching them get to know each other. Carrey and Deschanel (Elf ) project a delightful screen chemistry here, and I』d like to see them in more films together. (I felt the same way about Carrey and Tea Leoni in Fun with Dick and Jane, but sorry to say, they haven』t paired up again.)
Despite Mae West』s belief that 「too much of a good thing can be wonderful,」 sometimes it can lead to serious problems. In Yes Man, that』s exactly what happens. Will Carl learn how to be more reasonable about the opportunities he accepts? If so, how will that impact his relationship with Allison? Those two questions may make the movie sound like a downer, but don』t worry. It』s designed strictly for laughs — and there are plenty of them in this new Carrey comedy.
While not a perfect film (for example, Fionnula Flanagan, so great in The Others, appears in a couple of crude and insulting scenes), Yes Man is highly entertaining. Besides Carrey and Deschanel, actors who add to the movie』s appeal include: Terrence Stamp (Wanted), almost scary as a self-help guru; Bradley Cooper (Wedding Crashers), suitably worried as Carl』s best friend; and the always funny John Michael Higgins (The Break-Up) as the man who introces Carl to the 「Yes Man」 philosophy.
Director Peyton Reed (Down with Love) moves Yes Man along with a lively pace, and the screenplay by Nicholas Stoller (Fun with Dick and Jane), Jarrad Paul (TV』s Living with Fran), and Andrew Mogel — from Danny Wallace』s book — boasts witty dialogue, especially the banter between the characters played by Carrey and Deschanel.
Ⅲ 最新英語電影觀後感！要有：電影名字，主角，感受，主要內容。希望帶中文，不帶也可以。一共要2篇而已！
《功夫熊貓》(《Kung Fu Panda》)的:
<1>
Funny！
I see this movie lastweek,
So terrfic,this film make me loving Kung Fu!
My liitle sister love the panda very much ,She ask me which kind annimal of Panda？
I told her its one of the cutiest animal in the world ,it only lives in China.
In this movie, Panda learns how to improve his level of Kung fu，many scence show that this cartoon is so funny,
You can see how things goes on with laugh,
I recommend this film to you.!
<2>
The film stars a panda named Po (voice of Jack Black), who is so fat he can barely get out of bed. He works for his father, Mr. Ping (James Hong) in a noodle shop, which features Ping's legendary Secret Ingredient. How Ping, apparently a stork or other billed member of the avian family, fathered a panda is a mystery, not least to Po, but then the movie is filled with a wide variety of creatures who don't much seem to notice their differences.
They live in the beautiful Valley of Peace with an ancient temple towering overhead, up zillions of steps, which the pudgy Po can barely climb. But climb them he does, dragging a noodle wagon, because all the people of the valley have gathered up there to witness the choosing of the Dragon Warrior, who will engage the dreaded Tai Lung (Ian McShane) in kung-fu combat. Five contenders have been selected, the "Furious Five": Monkey (Jackie Chan), Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu) and Crane (David Cross). Tigress looks like she might be able to do some serious damage, but the others are less than impressive. Mantis in particular seems to weigh about an ounce, tops. All five have been trained (for nearly forever, I gather) by the wise Shifu, who with Dustin Hoffman's voice is one of the more dimensional characters in a story that doesn't give the others a lot of depth. Anyway, it's up to the temple master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), an ancient turtle, to make the final selection, and he chooses -- yes, he chooses the hapless and pudgy Po.
The story then becomes essentially a series of action sequences, somewhat undermined by the fact that the combatants seem unable to be hurt, even if they fall from dizzying heights and crack stones open with their heads. There's an extended combat with Tai Lung on a disintegrating suspension bridge (haven't we seen that before?), hand-to-hand-to-tail combat with Po and Tai Lung, and upstaging everything, an energetic competition over a single mpling.
"Kung Fu Panda" is not one of the great recent animated films. The story is way too predictable, and truth to tell, Po himself didn't overwhelm me with his charisma. But it's elegantly drawn, the action sequences are packed with energy, and it's short enough that older viewers will be forgiving. For the kids, of course, all this stuff is much of a muchness, and here they go again.
電影《盧安達飯店》
Hotel Rwanda ---- a story of an African Schinderler
Hotel Rwanda is a film about a man. It was based on a real story of a man who saved 1268 people』s lives in a madness genocidal, which happened in Rwanda, 1994. The film was directed by Terry George, 2004. The main actor Don Cheadle is not handsome but just an ordinary man. You probably will even not recognize him when you happen to meet him on the street. He acted a hero based on a true story, a man who was as simple as he is, Paul Rusesabagina. Paul is a hero, a real man, while a hero and a real man doesn』t always need to be handsome or attractive in the appearance. There are two nations in Rwanda, hutu and tutsi. Paul is a hutu manager working for a 4 stars hotel on town. The hutu army planed a genocidal to clear out all the tutsi people in ruwanda. The tutsi people were suffering a madness blood bath. Over 800,000 people had been killed within 100 days. Paul has a tutsi wife, in order to protect his wife, children and other tutsis; he took them to hide in the hotel Rwanda. There are many white people from all over the world lived in this hotel so the hotel is the safest place in Rwanda to hide. There are 80 UN soldiers in Rwanda but only 4 guarded in the hotel and all of them are not allowed to shot. If we say that Paul just wanted to save his wife at the beginning, after recognized that there is no one would come to help the tutsis, Paul throw himself into the breach. He bribed the hutu general by wine and gold, used out every coin of his to purchase the refugees』 lives, ten, a hundred, 2 hundreds, 3 hundreds… more and more tutsi refugees flee to the hotel wishing to survive. To them, Paul is an angel who keeps a hope for those hopeless people in the calamity. His goodness his mercy is the key to be alive.
The hotel Rwanda is a dramatically and war film, ingeniously, there was almost no lens for slaughtering; however, the threatener of death was full filling with the whole movie. One of the tutsi asked Paul,
「Why they are so truculence?」
「 Hatred? Insanity? … I don』t know.」
The event is a humanitarianism disaster and Paul needs no reason to save the lives. When the world closed its eyes, he opened his arms. Facing a madness calamity and crazy crowds, the indivial』s power is far from enough. However, Paul saved more than 1000 people』s lives. Paul Rusesabagina is a hero, a real man, an African Schinderler.
Ⅳ 007量子危機英文電影觀後感
I'll admit that I went into Quantum of Solace more or less dreading a repeat of the Licence To Kill debacle. All the danger signs were there - a rushed script because of a writers' strike, threats of Bond going rogue again plus the problem that great Bond films are usually followed by naff ones. The short running time wasn't encouraging, nor the bigger budget and promise of more action.
Well, this isn't one of the great Bond films, and Casino Royale set the bar far too high for it to compete. But it's certainly not a disappointment if you go in aware of that, and more gratifyingly, the similarities to LTK are superficial. Where Casino Royale was like making love all night long, this is more of a gratifyingly frenzied *beep* of a film. The running time isn't a problem because, like From Russia With Love, this is a pared down machine with no fat to trim away, throwing out all the overused touchstones to get down to business. From a plot point of view there's maybe a little too much one corpse leading to the next plot point in the first third, but the film wisely ditches that approach early.
Dan Bradley's action scenes are thankfully not as ineptly over-edited and incoherent as in Paul Greengrass' films, but aren't as impressive as Gary Powell's work on CR. There are moments of familiarity – a motorbike sequence borrows from the unimpressively shot harbour scene in Jackie Chan's The Protector, but without the lethargic pacing, while an aerial dogfight owes a lot to a famously rejected stunt originally intended for the opening of GoldenEye – and the opening car chase through heavy traffic could have benefited from not trying quite so hard. But within them there are moments of stylisation that few other Bonds have attempted and failed at but which are far more successful here, most notably an impressive opera sequence that could have done with a few more shots to clarify the odd mechanical detail (something other parts of the film could benefit from). It's also surprisingly vicious - for perhaps the first time in a Bond film, innocent bystanders are deliberately killed. That said, the rationale for the explosions at the end is more than a little bious.
The film isn't as humorless as some have complained: there's a lot of dry humor where appropriate and a delightfully playful game of cat-and-mouse with Bond and M in a hotel, but none of the outright slapstick comedy that dragged the series down before. Nor is Forster's direction or the editing as awkward as some found it: there's a pleasingly epic scale to the film allied with a non-nonsense straight-down-to-business attitude that works well for this particular story.
The most curious complaint is that it's just action with no character development, when nothing could be further from the truth. While there is more action, the characterisation is integrated into both plot and action. Bond is once again on an emotional journey - forgiveness, believe it or not, is ultimately the quantum of solace of the title - though this time the heart and soul of the film is Giancarlo Giannini's Rene Mathis, the kind of man Bond might be capable of becoming and one he learns something about himself from. One of their scenes, alternately surprisingly tender and genuinely shockingly callous, is easily one of the very finest moments in the entire history of the series.
Craig still owns the role impressively and Jeffrey Wright starts to come in to his own as Felix Leiter this time round. Mathieu Amalric is one of the better villains of the past twenty years. He won't be among the greats, but he convinces and the scheme is genuinely ingenious in its simplicity. Olga Kurylenko manages to shake off the ineptness of her former performances to be a more than adequate but not especially memorable female lead, though Gemma Arterton lets the side down badly in a part that has unwelcome elements of Serena Gordon in GoldenEye and Rowan Atkinson in Never Say Never Again. Thankfully it's a small role so her weak and stilted straight-out-of-stage-school acting can't do too much damage.
Intriguingly, the film exists in a more convincing world of global politics than we've seen before in a Bond film: SPECTRE would have loved to be around in an era when governments eagerly step into bed with crime syndicates if it suits their ends and where corporations are able to play governments and intelligence agencies against each other. Here Bond works for a British government that tortures suspects on foreign soil in its desperation to snatch the scraps from the superpowers' tables. Initially, Bond is just as ruthless and morally flawed as his masters, the bullish arrogance graally being smoothed away by emotional experience as he learns the importance of forgiveness to find the quantum of solace of the title that he needs to go on.
Yes, there are weaknesses - M's office is overdesigned, a few scenes could have played better, the Goldfinger reference just seems lazy, the song is crap and the gunbarrel sequence is a big and unnecessary mistake - but it's not the crushing disappointment some are claiming. It may not be a great Bond movie, but it most definitely is a Bond movie, and a damn good night out at the pictures. And one that left me seriously thinking that even if the series never recaptures the high of Casino Royale,we may just be entering a genuine second golden age of Bond movies.
Ⅳ 搞笑的「好好先生」——讀成語故事《好好先生》讀後感
[搞笑的「好好先生」——讀成語故事《好好先生》讀後感]
今天晚上，我在網上看了一個成語故事叫好好先生，看完之後，把我逗得哈哈大笑，搞笑的「好好先生」——讀成語故事《好好先生》讀後感。
東漢時候有個叫司馬徽的人，有一天他和他的妻子在街上買手鐲，他的妻子問他：這個手鐲好看嗎？司馬徽搖了搖頭，忽然他發現他的妻子臉色不對，趕緊補充說：好看！好看！他的妻子聽完立即眉開眼笑。哎！世界上有些人就是喜歡聽好話，所以司馬徽想乾脆他以後就投其所好吧，別人問他什麼他就說好，這么想著，他和他的妻子正好碰見了他們的一位朋友，朋友說：大哥，最近過的好嗎？好！我最近搬到這住了，好啊！只是我的兒子病死了！真是好！實在是太好了！……
不用我說，你們也一定知道，司馬徽把他們的這位朋友給氣跑了，過後司馬輝的妻子生氣地對他說：你怎麼這樣說話？人家兒子死了你還『好啊』？老婆你批評得好！實在是好！真是好極了！，這回真的把他的妻子氣得無語了……
03年4月綜合英語（一）全真試題大學有哪些選擇 target=_blank
>高考400分以下考生上大學有哪些選擇
哈哈，要是我們班上也出現一個這樣的好好同學，那我們不被他笑死才怪！假如老師上課問這個同學一個題目，可是問了半天，這個同學還是沒有任何反應，老師批評他說：你肯定上課沒認真聽講，給我站起來！這個同學回答老師說：老師您批評得太好了，簡直是至理名言啊！你們猜老師會不會被他給氣個半死呢？？這到底是讓老師消氣還是給老師火上澆油啊？
看來，好好先生不是那麼輕易做的，生活中我們不管做任何事情都不能生搬硬套，而要分清說話人的語氣和場合才對，否則就會鬧出像司馬徽一樣的笑話了！
南昌市南京路小學三年級：徐至億
[熱門]寫給爸爸的信
〔搞笑的「好好先生」——讀成語故事《好好先生》讀後感〕隨文贈言：【這世上的一切都借希望而完成，農夫不會剝下一粒玉米，如果他不曾希望它長成種粒；單身漢不會娶妻，如果他不曾希望有孩子；商人也不會去工作，如果他不曾希望因此而有收益。】
Ⅵ 好好先生觀後感
[好好先生觀後感]在家裡看完了金凱瑞的新喜劇電影《好好先生》，這個電影講述了一個離了婚的中年頹廢男子，終日無精打采，什麼事情都干不好，拒絕一切包括工作生活，好好先生觀後感。朋友們勸告也不聽，彷彿他脫離了這個運轉的世界。但是在某一天，一個兒時的朋友給了他一張廣告，一個「yes man」的廣告。在廣告的指引下他到了那個講座，並且被主講連哄帶嚇訂下了對所有事情說「yes」的契約。帶著這個奇怪的契約，男豬腳開始了一系列的搞笑歷程。但也就是這些搞笑歷程，改變了他的生活，使他重新開始了熱情的生活並且找到了真愛。但最後的結局是他領悟了「yes」的真正含義，生活的真正樂趣。（當然，結尾是超喜劇式結尾，金凱瑞的一貫作風）這個電影又一次證實了金凱瑞的喜劇表演天賦和他那張千變萬化的臉，他有些老了，但在喜劇電影舞台上永遠不老，他的表演深入人心，真正的引人發笑，觀後感《好好先生觀後感》。他的演技可以說是無可挑剔，堪稱完美。但就是因為喜劇電影的不入流，不夠深刻，不夠大氣磅礴，不夠格流傳上層，所以即便他早已經是片酬2000萬以上的大明星，仍然只被稱作無冕之王，奧斯卡始終不對他敞開大門。在《新搶錢夫妻》這部喜劇之後，金凱瑞為了小金人努力轉型，拍了《楚門的世界》 《暖洋洋日光》 《靈數23》等幾部演技派作品，但最後仍然得不到承認。而且觀眾也不買他的帳。在脫離了真人喜劇5年之後，他再次接拍了《好好先生》這部喜劇。這次的喜劇在一次大獲成功，他塑造的卡爾這個好好先生又再一次廣受好評。也是重回喜劇之路的第一炮~~在這個物慾橫流的世界，想純真的大笑一次，毫無壓力的快樂自己，就去看看這部《好好先生》。金凱瑞不會讓你失望的，也許你會有不一樣的感悟~
Ⅶ 美麗心靈 觀後感
讀後感1：<br>"A Beautiful Mind" is an exceptional story, but it is only and exceptional film because of its director. Ron Howard does an amazing job of engaging his audience, introcing a brilliant main character, and making the audience experience the reality of mental illness. This could have been an unbelievable story to which very people could relate; however, the directorial mastery Howard exhibits throughout allows the audience to accompany Nash on his journey and awareness of his illness. Anyone who has been close to the frailties of the human mind will appreciate how respectfully and honestly this film approaches the subject. Howard is able to portray all the complex reactions to mental illness while maintaining the humanity and dignity of the patient. Superbly directed, wonderfully acted by Crowe and cast, this film succeeds on every level. <br><br>讀後感2：<br>Director Ron Howard has experience in playing with his audience's heartstrings. Remember in Apollo 13, when the fate of the astronauts was uncertain? (Ok, so if you remember your recent history, you knew.... but still!) Or remember in Parenthood, when Steve Martin's kid was about to make the crucial catch? Ol Opie can still pluck those strings with the best of them. (And you know, he'll never stop being called Opie, even by those of us who never saw The Andy Griffith Show ring its initial run.) And plucking heartstrings is not a bad thing at all, not when you can do it in such a sincere, noncloying way as the masterful Beautiful Mind presents to its viewers.<br><br>John Nash is a mathematics prodigy who has a decided knack at solving previously unsolvable problems. He's socially dysfunctional, rarely looking anyone in the eye, but pours all of his energy - and soul - into procing one original idea, an idea that will distinguish him from all of the other mathemathical minds at Princeton University.<br><br>But John, like most who have had movies made about them, had his ups and downs. He meets and falls for a beautiful student of his named Alicia (Jennifer Connelly), and they proce a baby. But John also suffers from tremendous delusions and is diagnosed with a form of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia's a tough disease, folks - it's still not fully understood, and Nash was diagnosed with it in the middle of last century. He spends time in a sanitarium, as doctors struggle to find a cure.<br><br>Russell Crowe is absolutely powerful as the confused and confusing Nash. Although the marquee says "Russell Crowe", you'll immediately forget this is the hunky guy from Gladiator. I mean after all, he's playing some nerdy scientist de! But Crowe completely disappears in the role, and he's unforgettable. Actors kill for roles like this one, because it gives them a chance to show off their acting chops. For many actors, this is the kiss of death, because then they're exposed as poor thespians. But not for Crowe; if anything, this proves once and for all that he's a grand master of acting. I realize that sounds like overkill for him, but I think that when actors are labeled as a "hunk" - their skills as actors aren't seen as very substantial. Hey, looking darn good worked against Tom Selleck, and to a degree it has worked against Crowe as well.<br><br>And he ages well, too. The movie takes place over a fairly extended period of time, ending with Nash's acceptance of the Nobel Prize in 1994. The makeup on Nash is neither garish nor schmaltzy; he looks completely genuine. And that's the essence of Crowe's performance. It's sincere, never trying to win over the audience with a sly wink here or a toss of the hair there. Crowe shows remarkable poise, elegance, and is utterly astounding in the role.<br><br>His supporting cast is more than able. Jennifer Connelly is better than I thought she would be; in most roles, she's the eye candy. But this role had meat to it, and she held her own. It wasn't an easy role to play, and she pulled it off. And her scenes with Crowe do have that movie magic that each of us looks for when we go to movies, that one moment, that compatible chemistry that leaves audiences mesmerized.<br><br>And yes, this does have some very, very touching moments. The final scene, while predictable (even if you don't know the outcome in real life), will bring more than one tear to the eye. Yes, I'll admit it, it got me right here. But it's okay; I did that old 'guy-crying-in-movie-theater' trick. If you feel the brime falling from the lid, you make a motion toward your cheek and then you scratch vigorously; people might think you have a skin infection and move away slowly, but at least they won't think you're a girly man.<br><br>At any rate, it's certainly one of the best movies of the year. Everything's in place: the direction, the photography, and especially the acting. <br><br><br>希望兩篇對你有參考價值。看看這個是不是你需要的，我總在這個什麼找
Ⅷ 好好先生英文觀後感
b
Ⅸ 滿分跪求英語電影國王的演講觀後感
發過來了
????怎麼樣
Ⅹ 簡愛電影的英文影評。
A fast hour and a half
of psychological doom and gloom, and glimmers of happiness through true
love trounced by the realities of 1840 England. It's all pretty amazing
stuff, and you have to see it to believe it, those dark clouds and
sprawling stone buildings.
Yes, Orson Welles is the lead male here, Mr. Rochester, and he's a
physical presence, for sure, but a stiff one. As just one slightly
unfair comparison, watch how Lawrence Olivier handles being lead male
in a similar era (1939) Bronte film, Wuthering Heights. It's unfair
because this earlier movie, directed by William Wyler, is even better
than Jane Eyre. But here we have an actress who wowed the world in the
masterful Rebecca in 1940, and with Olivier himself, and if you see
this Hitchcock movie, based on a Daphne Maurier book, you'll see a
weirdly too similar echo of Charlotte Bronte's plot, complete with
mysterious master of the house and a big fire at the end.
This big mix and match is meant only to say that this kind of movie,
this kind of plot, reached a fever pitch in the early 1940s and
proced three masterpieces. You should see them all, and see the
influences back and front and sideways. Great stuff, with Jane Eyre the
third in line, made by the lesser known British director Robert
Stevenson (who had this one early success and then the other one, Mary
Poppins, of all things). But it was based on an Orson Welles radio
version of the story, which you can feel in the narrated lines with
Joan Fontaine's voice. You sense Welles had a hand in the whole feel of
the movie, the camera angles in the early scenes (looking up or down at
the child), and the overall Gothic excess and fog.
Great stuff to just feel and absorb.