著名英文电影影评.docx

目录泰坦尼克号英文影评2三大傻大闹宝莱坞（3 idiots）的英文影评4后天The Day After Tomorrow英文影评(2004)42012英文影评(2009)6第一滴血4英文影评Rambo (2008)7终结者3:Rise of the Machines英文影评(2003)9终结者2：Judgment Day英文影评(1991)11变形金刚2英文影评Transformers(2009)12当幸福来敲门英文影评(2006)13拯救大兵瑞恩Saving Private Ryan英文影评15罗马假日Roman Holiday英文影评(1953)17阿甘正传英文影评18泰坦尼克号英文影评Short of climbing aboard a time capsule and peeling back eight and one-half decades, James Camerons magnificent Titanic is the closest any of us will get to walking the decks of the doomed ocean liner. Meticulous in detail, yet vast in scope and intent, Titanic is the kind of epic motion picture event that has become a rarity. You dont just watch Titanic, you experience it - from the launch to the sinking, then on a journey two and one-half miles below the surface, into the cold, watery grave where Cameron has shot never-before seen documentary footage specifically for this movie. In each of his previous outings, Cameron has pushed the special effects envelope. In Aliens, he cloned H.R. Gigers creation dozens of times, fashioning an army of nightmarish monsters. In The Abyss, he took us deep under the sea to greet a band of benevolent space travelers. In T2, he introduced the morphing terminator (perfecting an effects process that was pioneered in The Abyss). And in True Lies, he used digital technology to choreograph an in-air battle. Now, in Titanic, Camerons flawless re-creation of the legendary ship has blurred the line between reality and illusion to such a degree that we cant be sure whats real and what isnt. To make this movie, its as if Cameron built an all-new Titanic, let it sail, then sunk it. Of course, special effects alone dont make for a successful film, and Titanic would have been nothing more than an expensive piece of eye candy without a gripping story featuring interesting characters. In his previous outings, Cameron has always placed people above the technological marvels that surround them. Unlike film makers such as Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin, Cameron has used visual effects to serve his plot, not the other way around. That hasnt changed with Titanic. The pictures spectacle is the ships sinking, but its core is the affair between a pair of mismatched, star-crossed lovers. Titanic is a romance, an adventure, and a thriller all rolled into one. It contains moments of exuberance, humor, pathos, and tragedy. In their own way, the characters are all larger-than- life, but theyre human enough (with all of the attendant frailties) to capture our sympathy. Perhaps the most amazing thing about Titanic is that, even though Cameron carefully recreates the death of the ship in all of its terrible grandeur, the event never eclipses the protagonists. To the end, we never cease caring about Rose (Kate Winslet) and Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio). Titanic sank during the early morning hours of April 15, 1912 in the North Atlantic, killing 1500 of the 2200 on board. The movie does not begin in 1912, however - instead, it opens in modern times, with a salvage expedition intent on recovering some of the ships long-buried treasure. The expedition is led by Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton), a fortune hunter who is searching for the mythical Heart of the Ocean, a majestic 56 karat diamond which reputedly went down with the ship. After seeing a TV report about the salvage mission, a 101-year old woman (Gloria Stuart) contacts Brock with information regarding the jewel. She identifies herself as Rose DeWitt Bukater, a survivor of the tragedy. Brock has her flown out to his ship. Once there, she tells him her version of the story of Titanics ill-fated voyage. The bulk of the film - well over 80% of its running time - is spent in flashbacks. We pick up the story on the day that Titanic leaves Southampton, with jubilant crowds cheering as it glides away from land. On board are the movies three main characters: Rose, a young American debutante trapped in a loveless engagement because her mother is facing financial ruin; Cal Hockley (Billy Zane), her rich-but-cold-hearted fianc? and Jack Dawson, a penniless artist who won his third-class ticket in a poker game. When Jack first sees Rose, its from afar, but circumstances offer him the opportunity to become much closer to her. As the voyage continues, Jack and Rose grow more intimate, and she tries to summon up the courage to defy her mother (Frances Fisher) and break off her engagement. But, even with the aid of an outspoken rich women named Molly Brown (Kathy Bates), the barrier of class looms as a seemingly-insurmountable obstacle. Then, when circumstances in the Rose/Cal/Jack triangle are coming to a head, Titanic strikes an iceberg and the unsinkable ship (that term is a testament to mans hubris) begins to go down. By keeping the focus firmly on Rose and Jack, Cameron avoids one frequent failing of epic disaster movies: too many characters in too many stories. When a film tries to chronicle the lives and struggles of a dozen or more individuals, it reduces them all to cardboard cut-outs. In Titanic, Rose and Jack are at the fore from beginning to end, and the supporting characters are just that - supporting. The two protagonists (as well as Cal) are accorded enough screen time for Cameron to develop multifaceted personalities. As important as the characters are, however, its impossible to deny the power of the visual effects. Especially during the final hour, as Titanic undergoes its death throes, the film functions not only as a rousing adventure with harrowing escapes, but as a testimony to the power of computers to simulate reality in the modern motion picture. The scenes of Titanic going under are some of the most awe-inspiring in any recent film. This is the kind of movie that its necessary to see more than once just to appreciate the level of detail. One of the most unique aspects of Titanic is its use of genuine documentary images to set the stage for the flashback story. Not satisfied with the reels of currently-existing footage of the sunken ship, Cameron took a crew to the site of the wreck to do his own filming. As a result, some of the underwater shots in the framing sequences are of the actual liner lying on the ocean floor. Their importance and impact should not be underestimated, since they further heighten the productions sense of verisimilitude. For the leading romantic roles of Jack and Rose, Cameron has chosen two of todays finest young actors. Leonardo DiCaprio (Romeo + Juliet), who has rarely done better work, has shed his cocky image. Instead, hes likable and energetic in this part - two characteristics vital to establishing Jack as a hero. Meanwhile, Kate Winslet, whose impressive resume includes Sense and Sensibility, Hamlet, and Jude, dons a flawless American accent along with her 1912 garb, and essays an appealing, vulnerable Rose. Billy Zane comes across as the perfect villain - callous, arrogant, yet displaying true affection for his prized fianc? The supporting cast, which includes Kathy Bates, Bill Paxton, Frances Fisher, Bernard Hill (as Titanics captain), and David Warner (as Cals no-nonsense manservant), is flawless. While Titanic is easily the most subdued and dramatic of Camerons films, fans of more frantic pictures like Aliens and The Abyss will not be disappointed. Titanic has all of the thrills and intensity that movie-goers have come to expect from the director. A dazzling mix of style and substance, of the sublime and the spectacular, Titanic represents Camerons most accomplished work to date. Its important not to let the running time hold you back - these three-plus hour pass very quickly. Although this telling of the Titanic story is far from the first, it is the most memorable, and is deserving of Oscar nominations not only in the technical categories, but in the more substantive ones of Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Actress. 三大傻大闹宝莱坞（3 idiots）的英文影评3 idiots is basically adaption of Chetan Bhagats bestseller debut novel 5point Someone, thought he is credited in Titles producer says it is an Original story, which for seems impossible because more than 80% of movie is based on book.The film is Entertaining in parts and Enjoyable , but the moment it deviates from book, it goes overboard,looses its track.Acting wise Aamir is okay, at age of 45 he is playing a character of 18 year old,he does not bring anything new, producers could have gone for actors around age of 20-25.Madhavan and Sharman are also okay.Kareena Kapoor is barely there fro 5 scenes and A song.Boman Irani hams it all the way.The songs by Shantanu Moitra is not ear-pleasing, but goes on well with Story.The Cinematography is Excellent. The first half of the movie passes by soon, the second half drags and drags with an outrageous climax which included delivering Baby with help of Vaccum Cleaner.后天The Day After Tomorrow英文影评(2004)It is such a relief to hear the music swell up at the end of a Roland Emmerich movie, its restorative power giving us new hope. Billions of people may have died, but at least the major characters have survived. Los Angeles was wiped out by flying saucers in Emmerichs Independence Day, New York was assaulted in his Godzilla, and now, in The Day After Tomorrow, Emmerich outdoes himself: Los Angeles is leveled by multiple tornados, New York is buried under ice and snow, the United Kingdom is flash-frozen, and lots of the Northern Hemisphere is wiped out for good measure. Thank god that Jack, Sam, Laura, Jason and Dr. Lucy Hall survive, along with Dr. Halls little cancer patient.So, yes, the movie is profoundly silly. What surprised me is that its also very scary. The special effects are on such an awesome scale that the movie works despite its cornball plotting. When tornados rip apart Los Angeles (not sparing the Hollywood sign), when a wall of water roars into New York, when a Russian tanker floats down a Manhattan street, when snow buries skyscrapers, when the crew of a space station can see nothing but violent storm systems - well, you pay attention.No doubt some readers are already angry with me for revealing that Jack, Sam, Laura, Jason, Dr. Lucy Hall and the little cancer patient survive. Have I given away the plot? This plot gives itself away. When cataclysmic events shred uncounted lives but the movie zeroes in on only a few people, of course they survive, although some supporting characters may have to be sacrificed. Whats amusing in movies like The Day After Tomorrow is the way the screenplay veers from the annihilation of subcontinents to whether Sam should tell Laura he loves her.The movie stars Dennis Quaid as the paleoclimatologist Jack Hall, whose computer models predict that global warming will lead to a new ice age. He issues a warning at a New Delhi conference, but is sarcastically dismissed by the American vice president (Kenneth Welsh), who the movie doesnt even try to pretend doesnt look just like Dick Cheney. Our economy is every bit as fragile as the environment, the vice president says, dismissing Jacks sensational claims.Before long, however, it is snowing in India, and hailstones the side of softballs are ripping into Tokyo. Birds, which are always wise in matters of global disaster, fly south double-time. Turbulence tears airplanes from the sky. The president (Perry King) learns the FAA wants to ground all flights and asks the vice president, What do you think we should do?Meanwhile, young Sam Hall (Jake Gyllenhaal) goes to New York with an academic decathlon team, which includes Laura (Emmy Rossum of Mystic River) and Brian (Arjay Smith). Theyre stranded there. Ominous portents abound and Jack finally gets his message through to the administration (This time, says a friend within the White House, it will be different. Youve got to brief the president directly.)Jack draws a slash across a map of the United States, and writes off everybody north of it. He issues a warning that super-cooled air will kill anybody exposed to it, advises those in its path to stay inside, and then . well, then he sets off to walk from Washington to New York to get to his son. Two of his buddies, also veterans of Arctic treks, come along.We are wondering:(a) why walk to New York when his expertise is desperately needed to save millions? (b) wont his son be either dead or alive whether or not he makes the trek? And(c) how quickly can you walk from Washington to New York over ice sheets and through a howling blizzard? As nearly as I can calculate, this movie believes it can be done in two nights and most of three days. Oh, I forgot; they drive part of the way, on highways that are gridlocked and buried in snow, except for where theyre driving. How they get gas is not discussed in any detail.As for the answer to (a), anyone familiar with the formula will know it is because he Feels Guilty About Neglecting His Son by spending all that time being a paleoclimatologist. It took him a lot of that time just to spell it. So, OK, the human subplots are nonsense - all except for the quiet scenes anchored by Ian Holm, as a sad, wise Scottish meteorologist. Just like Peter OToole in Troy, Holm proves that a gifted British-trained actor can walk into almost any scene and make it seem like it means something.Quaid and Gyllenhaal and the small band of New York survivors do what can be done with impossible dialogue in an unlikely situation. And Dr. Lucy Hall (Sela Ward), Jacks wife and Sams mother, struggles nobly in her subplot, which involves the little cancer patient named Peter. She stays by his side after the hospital is evacuated, calling for an ambulance, which we think is a tad optimistic, since Manhattan has been flooded up to about the eighth floor, the water has frozen, and its snowing. But does the ambulance arrive? Heres another one for you: Remember those wolves that escaped from the zoo? Think well see them again?Of the science in this movie I have no opinion. I am sure global warming is real, and I regret that the Bush administration rejected the Kyoto Treaty, but I doubt that the cataclysm, if it comes, will come like this. It makes for a fun movie, though. Especially the parts where Americans become illegal immigrants in Mexico, and the vice president addresses the world via the Weather Channel. The Day After Tomorrow is ridiculous, yes, but sublimely ridiculous - and the special effects are stupendous.2012英文影评(2009)The world is ending in a matter of hours, yet justice and humanity dont penetrate through the brain-shells of politicians. In order to save their own lives, the government officials keep the secret from the rest of human kind and also lets the man whose knowledge saves their lives die. This is the premise of 2012.But if the viewer is a Tibetan or someone who is aware of the Tibetan culture and the sensitivities of Tibetan issue, one could feel that the justice and humanity are not occurred in the directors thought either.There is a scene long enough to mention that takes place in Tibet. In fact the last human beings die there and the new seed of the future human race starts at the neck of Mount Everest, “The Peoples Republic of China” the movie calls it. Perhaps what no movie reviewer noticed or saw the importance of mentioning is that the prophetic fictitious story of the movie not only makes a statement that Tibet is completely a part of China, but also it totally misrepresents the core culture of Tibetan people. A Tibetan woman killing animals in Tibet is taboo, it never happened except during the Cultural Revolution when some women were forced to do so. Women killing chickens in the Chinese market is an everyday event, but a Tibetan woman killing a CHICKEN reflects the directors cultural ignorance and it makes the movie even more ridiculous.And in real life ethically speaking, Mr. Emmerich failed to hire Tibetan actors who can speak their own language. All the actors who play Tibetan characters are Chinese very poorly pretending to be Tibetans. Their Tibetan is hundred times worse than Zhang Yis memorized English or Leonardo DiCaprios Swahili (well I can imagine!).第一滴血4英文影评Rambo (2008)Bringing his second most famous character creation out of retirement two decades since his last orgy of violence, Sylvester Stallone doesnt quite hit his target as accurately as he did with Rockys swan song in this fourth adventure of John Rambo.Admittedly its a little difficult considering that the first two sequels never really justified their existence. Despite its admitted age, the original First Blood remains a great little vigilante film dealing with Americas post-Vietnam disillusionment and one mans ultimately failed fight to reincorporate himself back into a society that treats him little better than a leper.The sequels however were formulaic hogwash, dumping the realism and turning the tortured soul of its hero into a soldier of fortune who, in spite his abhorrence of violence, is able to mow down Viet Cong and Soviet soldiers by the hundreds with ease. On a pure popcorn level though, even today its hard not to enjoy the ridiculous ra-ra patriotism (ironic in the case of Rambo III) and goofy over-the-top violence of the pair which are admirable only for the entertainment value, not their craft.Cue Rambo, a film which is hard to fit in the canon. On the one hand its closer to First Blood in its tone and emotion than the previous sequels - our heroes struggles seem less cartoonish and are played out with more urgency and weight. The Burmese countryside setting is portrayed as a grim, rough place filled with deadly mercenaries and soldiers whod rather shoot, mutilate or rape first than ask questions. Rambo himself spends more time hunting and in pursuit of people than actually killing or blowi