泰坦尼克号观后感英文
《泰坦尼克号》观后感【一】
“你相信爱情吗?”当一个陌生人变为熟人，我有时候会这样问他。如果他回答：不相信。我会不由地戒备。一个人，连爱情都不相信，他的心一定不会柔软，不会光明，他一定只相信了金钱、权利、也不大会相信友情。他可能受过失恋的打击才这么想，那么他一定非常悲观：看见一片落叶，就怀疑整个森林枯萎了。可能他觉得谈论是否相信爱情的问题有点可笑，那么他这辈子一定没有爱过。
“你相信一见钟情吗?”当一个熟人变为朋友，我说不定这样问他。如果他回答：不相信。我会有点失望。一个人，连一见钟情都不相信，他的心一定不会浪漫，连做梦的能力都没有了。最悲哀的事情是什么?不是抵达不到梦想，而是——已经没有梦了!甚至还嘲笑这个梦，如麻雀讥讽大雁：“你要飞到哪里去?没有温暖的南方啊”。
“你相信有人为一见钟情的爱情献出生命吗?”当一个朋友成为好朋友，我忍不住会这样问他。如果他回答：不相信。我觉得真遗憾：如何和他谈论《泰坦尼克号》呢?他看《泰坦尼克号》不会被感动的。象一块坚硬的石头，不会理睬雨水的温柔。
十年前，看《泰坦尼克号》，为此情感动。十年后，再看《泰坦尼克号》，仍为此情感动。即使，只是坐在房间，故事只是发生在小小的屏幕里，还是一样的沉船，一样的爱情。
看《泰坦尼克号》许多次了。怀疑人性的时候，会看看《泰坦尼克号》。没有什么好电影可以看的时候，再温习一遍《泰坦尼克号》。很早就想写写《泰坦尼克号》的观后感，只是这样的感觉难以用语言表达。语言最精致，也比不上电影的震撼。现在阅读文字，很少被感动，而欣赏电影，常常泪盈眼眶。可能只有电影才能完美演绎动人的爱情，其他的都无法。
我总想：一艘最豪华的邮船的沉没，只是为了谱就一曲永恒的爱情悲歌。而一段凄美爱情的诞生，却让泰坦尼克号和它一起永垂不朽，流传在需要爱情的人群之间，温暖每一颗相信爱情的心灵。
看《泰坦尼克号》，总想起两个爱情故事，一个是莎士比亚的悲剧《罗密欧与朱丽叶》，一个是中国的民间传说《梁山伯和祝英台》。都是为爱人而徇情的传说，都是因为家族压力而破灭的凄美爱情!只要世界上还有文学，《罗密欧与朱丽叶》一定不会消失。只要还有一个中国人活着，《梁山伯和祝英台》一定会继续流传。只要世界上还有电影，《泰坦尼克号》肯定在众多影迷的影碟上，翻来覆去地播放。甚至，世界上没有了电影，《泰坦尼克号》也会通过另种媒介，继续着。
《泰坦尼克号》的爱情，相比以上的两个爱情，更加纯粹、干净、有力、直接植入灵魂最柔软的深处。因为杰克和罗丝的爱情不是由于世俗而幻灭，而是灾难。如此动人的爱情，在悲怆的灾难面前，努力抵御其带来的毁灭，最后让灾难成为它的注脚。犹如一朵盛开的昙花，非常想开的更长久些，更长久些，最后不得不让凋谢注释它曾经的灿烂。
杰克和罗丝的爱情是完美，但是冰山嫉妒这个完美，沉船嫉妒这个完美，海水嫉妒这个完美，所以它们一起打碎了这个完美。如水晶哗的一声，摔在岩石上，粉碎了。看到如此完美的爱情被毁灭，我们禁不住地流泪，好像为他们在哭，其实都为自己而哭。哭自己曾经那么刻骨铭心的`爱情，在生命中妖娆地丰满过，经不住各种小小的灾难，哗的一声，消瘦了，枯干了。于是生命里的最美丽的渡船，沉没了。原来以为可以借这叶小小的扁舟，就能划过人生的苦海。谁知道，它就这样沉了，沉了，慢慢地沉没于心海，淹了，淹了，被时间的流沙悄悄地淹没了。
泰坦尼克号观后感【二】
《泰坦尼克》号讲述了一艘撞上冰山的豪华巨轮上的故事，当我看了这部影片之后，被露丝、杰克两位主人公的感情所震撼。
这部影片讲述了主人公杰克和露丝在豪华巨轮上相遇，他们两个人深深爱上了对方，豪华巨轮在海上航行，不料却撞上了一座海面上的冰山，巨轮进水，船长让老弱妇孺上救生艇，其余的人统统等待死亡，当露丝上船时，她又回到船上寻找杰克，两人决定等到船快沉时才逃生，到了水里，他们趴到一块木板上，但轻轻的木板只能坐上去一个人，杰克把露丝推了上去，自己在冰冷的水里冻死……
生死只在一霎之间时，杰克选择了露丝，他伟大的爱救下了露丝的性命，他将自己冻死在水里，他是神圣的，而在生死之间，却有许多无耻之徒，有人用钱收买船长，用钱玷污了纯洁的生命，有个人居然未保自己不沉水底，按住露丝的头，人性的好坏，在这里就能展现，生与死之间，人类显而易见恐惧死亡，但是，有些东西比生命重要，选择别人生的人是高尚的，伟大的爱情打败了恐惧，杰克让露丝好好的活下去，他让自己人生中挚爱的生命逃离了死亡，走向了生。
相比之下，那些为了自己的利益去伤害别人的人，如李甲，他为了钱财将杜十娘卖给别人，他跟杰克相比，他是多么无耻、渺小、不屑呀!
死虽然令人害怕，但身边的人能够好好活下去却能让人感到开心，生命并不代表只是自己一个人，其他人或动物也是生命，自私自利将别人应有的权利夺去，你的人生也不会快乐，当看到别人快乐时，自己也会快乐。
在伟大的爱面前，一个人的生命很渺小，杰克会为自己的爱而放弃自己的性命。爱，可以让人欢笑，也可以让人痛苦，但救了别人，自己也会快乐。死神永远赢不过伟大的爱，爱可以让人不在死神面前恐惧，杰克和露西，是我心中永远值得学习、回忆的人!
凉爽的风散去了夏日的炎热，我又想起泰坦尼克号上，那一段感人的故事……
《泰坦尼克号》观后感【三】
I suppose there's something faintly ridiculous about a $200-million movie that argues on behalf of true love over wealth and even bandies about a precious diamond as a central narrative device--like Citizen Kane's Rosebud--to clinch its point. Yet for all the hokeyness, Titanickept me absorbed all 194 minutes both times I saw it. It's nervy as well as limited for writer-director-coproducer James Cameron to reduce a historical event of this weight to a single invented love story, however touching, and then to invest that love story with plot details that range from unlikely to downright stupid. But one clear advantage of
paring away the subplots that clog up disaster movies is that it allows one to achieve a certain elemental purity.
This movie tells you a great deal about first class on the ship, a little bit about third class, and nothing at all about second class.According to Walter Lord's 1955 nonfiction book about the sinking of the Titanic, A Night to Remember, which includes a full passenger list, 279 of the 2,223 passengers were in second class, and 112 of them survived.
But as far as Cameron's story is concerned--a love match between a footloose and penniless artist in third class, Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio), and a rebellious protofeminist woman in first class, Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet), who's engaged to marry an unscrupulous zillionaire (Billy Zane)-- the omission makes perfect sense, even though it establishes that there's no middle ground between the lovers. To speak about the artistry of Titanic rather than its economics is to assume that the audience's pleasure counts for more than the investors'bank accounts--hardly the assumption that rules the current discourse about the movie. The five-page spread in the December 8 issue of Time magazine includes over three pages devoted to hand-wringing in the lead article, which is headlined "Was all the misery worth it?" That's
followed by Richard Corliss's negative review, which occupies only two-thirds of one page and concludes, "Ultimately, Titanic will sail or sink not on its budget but on its merits as drama and spectacle. The regretful verdict here: Dead in the water." Then Cameron is allotted a final page to defend himself, though the obsession with the bottom line in the preceding onslaught forces him to devote nearly all of his rebuttal to production and business details rather than aesthetics. The package could easily have appeared in Forbes, Fortune, or Variety. Yet whose money and whose interests are actually inspiring all thisnervousness? Considering the amount of abuse that this movie dishes out to the privileged first-class passengers, isn't it possible that this is what really has Time so hot and bothered?
I saw Titanic twice at the same theater--first with an audience of "industry people," including other reviewers, then a couple of weeks later with a less professional crowd--and the difference in the audible responses was palpable. I enjoyed the movie both times, but the second screening, unlike the first, was punctuated by gasps, laughs, and applause in all the right places, suggesting that the second crowd,which had only its own interests at stake, was a lot more receptive.It's as if I'd sat the first time with the ship's owners and the second time with the passengers.
Morally and conceptually, this movie could almost have been made in 1912, the year the Titanic sank and the year that D.W. Griffith made Man's Genesis, The Musketeers of Pig Alley, and The NewYork Hat. I hasten to add that this was still three years before The Birth of a Nation, the picture that established features as the central attraction of moviegoing, and that there's nothing about Kate Winslet that suggests either Lillian Gish or Mary Pickford. (If her pulchritude and sass recall any silent actress of the teens, it might be Theda Bara.)
Moreover, when Cameron resorts to Griffith-like crosscutting to build momentum, he's hamstrung by his wide-screen format, which is less amenable to fast cutting than the screen ratio Griffith had to work with, and by the wealth of visual details (such as crowds and fixtures) he has to coordinate; even Cameron's 1989 The Abyss, which worked with a simpler game plan, has better suspense sequences than this movie.
But in terms of narrative streamlining and moral simplicity, Titanic is still a lot closer to Griffith and his era than it is to other 90s disaster films. The characterizations of heroes and villains, which appear to be drawn with the utmost sincerity, all seem cut from the same Victorian cloth as those in Griffith's melodramas--among others, there's the dreamy and selfless Irish-American artist-adventurer, the tempestuous and freethinking Philadelphia debutante, the snarling and brutal zillionaire fiance (with an improbable touch of Brando's Stanley Kowalski), and the fiance's sadistic and preying valet (David Warner).
For better and for worse, this is a movie that appears to believe in what it's saying--and the lack of cynicism is refreshing.
【泰坦尼克号观后感英文】相关文章：
2.泰坦尼克号观后感