电影鸟人观后感

『肆』 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.

『伍』 在线等啊！电影鸟人的英文观后感60到80个词之间，不要附件手机看不到啊！

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.

『陆』 求 电影《鸟人》影评 字数八百

你开场花了那么多篇幅去点评一个在当时算是年轻的演员和一个跟电影根本无关的导演，我就看不下去你的影评了，你只能是道貌岸然的表演文章而已.

『柒』 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！

『捌』 写一篇视频观后感 800字左右

看过这样一段视频一共 有四个人参加招聘广告设计总监第一个人 文凭较低 交际能力比较强 有丰富的经验 作品比较适合大众化第二个人 文凭较高 作品比较有深度 很难令人看懂第三个人 文凭较高 交际能强 作品艺术性太强第四个人 文凭较高 交际能力较弱 作品比较适合大众化最后第一个人获胜了看了这样一段视频让我感触颇深其实成长、学习是为了让我们更确定自己的目标，有自己的思考能力，让我们能发现成功的契机。成功人士所作的第一件事，通常就是把自己的奋斗目标明确找出来，然后尽全力向前迈进。设定目标，无视别人的冷嘲热讽，正是成功的要素。科莱特在1973年考进哈佛大学，经常坐在他身边的同学，是一个18岁的美国青年。大二那年，这位小伙子邀科莱特一起退学，他决定去开发已一项财务软件，想找科莱特一起合作。
不过科莱特拒绝了，因为他好不容易来到这里求学，怎么可以轻易退学？更何况那项系统的研发才刚起步，墨尔斯博士也只教点皮毛而已。所以，他认为要开发Bit财务软件，必须读完大学的全部课程才行。十年后，科莱特终于成为哈佛大学Bit领域的高手，而那位退学的小伙子，也在这一年挤进了美国亿万富翁的行列。
科莱特拿到博士学位之时，那位曾经同窗的青年则已经晋升到了美国第二大富豪。在1995，科莱特终于认为自己具备足够学识，可以研发并开发Bit财务软件是，那位小伙子已经绕过Bit系统，开发出Eip财务软件，而且在两周之内，这个软件更占领了全球市场。这一年，他成为世界首富，他的名字叫做比尔.盖茨。
在只为升学而升学的年代，有多少人知道自己的方向在哪里？学历高并不能代表专业，一些因为兴趣而进入专业领域的门外汉，对准目标，孜孜不倦地学习研究，反而比任何具有专业知识的人，更懂得知识与实务的运用。比尔.盖茨在尚未毕业前，不理会别人的刻薄批评，对了目标，抢得创业先机，成为引领世界的龙头，正是最好的代表。
知识的获取不是读过了就好，如果一知半解，即使能勉强毕业，有一张漂亮文凭，往往也只能纸上谈兵，无法融会贯通地运用。故事中，世界首富要告诉我们的是，书是活的，学习的过程不是为读书而读书，更不是为拿到文凭而留在教室里。成长、学习是为了让我们更确定自己的目标，有自己的思考能力，让我们能发现成功的契机。