⑴ 求一篇關於外國電影的英語作文
阿凡達吧~「Avatar」 and the Critics
James Cameron's 「Avatar」 is visually stunning and theologically provocative. (Or so I suggest in today's column.) It is not, however, a very good movie overall. But you wouldn't know that from reading most of the reviews: Cameron's blockbuster boasts an impressive 83 percent favorable rating from Metacritic, and a whopping 94 percent 「fresh」 rating from Rotten Tomatoes' rounp of top reviewers.
Browse through the online reaction from fanboys and film geeks, though, and you'll find that a modest (and appropriate) backlash has been building since last week. (I particularly liked this fan's hostile review, carried out via Instant Messenger after a screening.) The source of the backlash is unexpected, in a sense, since you'd think that a movie like 「Avatar」 — a science fiction epic with groundbreaking special effects and a weak script — would find its most intense apologists on action and sci-fi obsessed sites like Aintitcoolnews and CHUD.com, and its most dismissive critics in the more rarefied air of, say, The New Yorker. But the more highbrow critics have all seemingly decided to grade the movie on a spectacle-driven curve. (Thus David Denby: 「The movie's story may be a little trite … but what a show Cameron puts on!」) So it's been left to the fanboys, the people who've watched 「Aliens」 97 times and worship the ground James Cameron walks on, to insist that there's more to epic-making than spectacle and special effects.
And good for them for insisting. Sci-fi spectaculars deserve to be taken seriously, as pop art if not as high art, and not just patted on the head for putting on a good show. That doesn't require comparing a James Cameron film to, say, 「The Rules of the Game」 and finding Cameron wanting. But it means recognizing that there's a world of difference between a truly great special-effects driven fantasy — like 「The Matrix」 (the first one, not the sequels), or Peter Jackson's 「Lord of the Rings,」 or 「The Empire Strikes Back」 — and a gorgeous disappointment like 「Avatar,」 which succeeds at being eye-popping but doesn't succeed at very much else.
⑵ 尋找一個外國電影的故事情節
外國電影的故事情節，是不是什麼電影都可以，可以給你推薦幾部美國電影《復仇者》系列。講的是鋼鐵俠，美國隊長，雷神，綠巨人等超級英雄不斷拯救地球的故事，拍的很不錯，值得一看！
⑶ 文章的電影有哪些
我知道的就四部
不二神探 這部推薦不要看，因為它的名字就叫錯了，它應該叫做最二神探，這部戲是廣 電 局 某位局長的兒子拍的，所以客串的明星很多，如果要想多看幾張明星臉的話，可以看看。（陳妍希在裡面也毀的很慘...）
海洋天堂 很不錯，很溫馨，除了不習慣李連傑演溫情戲外，其它沒有什麼缺點，劇情也不錯。
白蛇傳說 這部電影的劇情就有很大的問題，我不是什麼評論員，但是那些常識性錯誤有很多，給我感覺除了特效不錯（雖然和外國比還是很渣...），其它就沒有啥印象了。
西遊降魔傳 星爺出品，必屬佳作，內容很好，情節不錯，雖然有點不清楚女主怎麼喜歡上男主的，但是還是感覺不錯 ，文章演的也挺好，只是有點驚悚，看的話請做好心理准備。
⑷ 求一部國外電影電影的名字 曾經在讀者雜志一篇文章中提過
問那個女孩喜歡誰，這不是你們兩個大老爺們的事了，喜歡一個人就應該讓他快樂不是嗎，況且為了她兩個人鬧得不愉快，結果女生誰也不喜歡，你認為你倆還能做兄弟嗎，這個決定權應該交給女生，就算選擇了其中的一個你們還可以做兄弟，至少你不會後悔不是嗎。
⑸ 文章的電影有哪些
不二神探西遊·降魔篇血滴子 乾隆親家過年三個未婚媽媽失戀33天白蛇傳說萬有引力神奇俠侶三日三夜越位者海洋天堂真心話大冒險走著瞧
後頭幾個是客串
⑹ 求經典的英語文章和歐美影片。
第一篇：Youth 青春
•第二篇： Three Days to See(Excerpts)假如給我三天光明（節選）
•第三篇：Companionship of Books 以書為伴（接選）
•第四篇：If I Rest, I Rust 如果我休息，我就會生銹
•第五篇：Ambition 抱負
•第六篇：What I have Lived for 我為何而生
•第七篇：When Love Beckons You 愛的召喚
•第八篇：The Road to Success 成功之道
•第九篇：On Meeting the Celebrated 論見名人
•第十篇：The 50-Percent Theory of Life 生活理論半對半
•第十一篇：What is Your Recovery Rate? 你的恢復速率是多少？
•第十二篇：Clear Your Mental Space 清理心靈的空間
•第十三篇：Be Happy 快樂
•第十四篇：The Goodness of life 生命的美好
•第十五篇：Facing the Enemies Within 直面內在的敵人
•第十六篇：Abundance is a Life Style 富足的生活方式
•第十七篇：Human Life a Poem 人生如詩
•第十八篇：Solitude 獨處
•第十九篇：Giving Life Meaning 給生命以意義
•第二十篇：Relish the Moment 品位現在
•第二十一篇：The Love of Beauty 愛美
•第二十二篇：The Happy Door 快樂之門
•第二十三篇：Born to Win 生而為贏
•第二十四篇：Work and Pleasure 工作和娛樂
•第二十五篇：Mirror, Mirror--What do I see鏡子,鏡子,告訴我
•第二十六篇：On Motes and Beams 微塵與棟梁
•第二十七篇：An October Sunrise 十月的日出
•第二十八篇：To Be or Not to Be 生存還是毀滅
•第二十九篇：Gettysburg Address 葛底斯堡演說
•第三十篇：First Inaugural Address(Excerpts) 就職演講（節http://read.freean.com/data/2006/0527/article_2572.htm
《阿甘正傳》、《勇敢的心》、《e．t》、《鋼琴課》、《蒂凡尼的早餐》、《紫色》，《修女也瘋狂》，、《漂亮女人》(《風月俏佳人》），《世界末日》，《電子情書》《越獄》，用訊雷都有得下，對學習英語很有幫助
⑺ 【求歐美電影/短片/報道/文章】與社會熱點有關，且其中有較深刻的思考和對問題的評價
啊啊這么晚回答真是對不起，但是這種事不是一天兩天就有用的呢。英語雙向思維這本書不錯，然後就是可以看些科普文章。主要是敢說，先不要管說得好不好啦。
⑻ 文章電影有哪些
海洋天堂
走著瞧
再見最愛的人
神奇俠侶
白蛇傳說
萬有引力
失戀33天
真心話大冒險
愛在響螺灣
親家過年
我在路上最愛你
西遊降魔篇
不二神探
喜劇之王2
親我只知道這些了，求採納。
⑼ 英文作文 外國電影觀後感2篇
Mr. A Gan has his own perseverance, keeping on running without any reason, JUST RUNS. He said: 「Man has to look forward, and never encumbers by foretime. I think that's the meaning of my running.」 Say goodbye to foretime and don't stay in-place. Although so many people in the world are used to following others and few people can stick to one thing, Mr. A Gan does and becomes 「GOD」. There is another character Captain Dan. Dan lost his legs in Vietnam War. He said that his fate was death in war. However, Mr. A Gan saved him and let him be alive. After losing legs, Dan was decadent and disgusted with life, complaining that A Gan shouldn't save him. When he adjusted his mind, living on fishing with A Gan, he started to enjoy the wonderful life and thank A Gan's help. The movie is intended to tell people that life is wonderful by this character. Rainbow is always after cloud. The key point is that whether we have a good mind and an opportunity to ourselves to change bad situation. The movie also sends such a message to us: do well what we should do, and life will return us well. There will be a miracle if there is perseverance. http://hi..com/84777524/blog/item/757081d4af641c05a18bb7e4.html
⑽ 關於經典電影英文文章
珍珠港的影評
pearl harbour film review
Pearl Harbor consists of three incongruous acts, mashed together into an ungainly whole. It appears to be more interested in reprocing the success of Titanic, which also set a fictional love story amidst a tragic historical event, than it is in telling the story of the men and women who fought and died in the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Titanic worked because the central characters were interesting, the story was cohesive, the historical events were handled respectfully and with the proper dramatic tone, and underneath it all was an intelligent reflection on the human failings that permitted such a tragedy in the first place.
Pearl Harbor reces the historical backdrop into a series of action set pieces. Instead of exploring ideas inherent in the events, it extracts them, recing the reason for Japan's attack to something inexplicable at best, and having utterly nothing to say about why the attack happened, how it was carried out, or how we responded. The film is dedicated to the men who died at Pearl Harbor, but what does it dedicate to them? It does not seem very interested in them except as a tool for dramatic imagery. Consider, for example, a scene in which we learn that men are trapped in a sunken ship in the harbor. We learn this to emphasize the brutality of the attack, as if such emphasis were needed. Then the film forgets this point entirely, providing the fates of those men in a narrated line just before the closing credits. Why wasn't the third act of the film about those men, instead of a rushed covering of the Doolittle raid on Tokyo, complete with overblown crash landings and an improbable engagement with Japanese soldiers?
If you want to see a real movie about Pearl Harbor or the Doolittle Raid, one that paints a deep and accurate picture of what it was like, one you can learn from, one that pays tribute to our veterans, or even just one that functions as convincing entertainment, there is no shortage of options. Tora! Tora! Tora! chronicles the events before, ring, and after the attack from both the American and Japanese sides. Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo is as thorough a chronicle of the Doolittle Raid as is probably possible in a feature film, while also following the personal stories of a few indivials involved (any one of which is more interesting than the personal story in Pearl Harbor). The Purple Heart, one of the most heartbreaking movies I've ever seen, tells the story of Americans captured by the Japanese after the raid.
Writing off the historical aspects of the film, I am left with the love triangle that makes up the entire first act and pervades the rest of it. It is wholly uninteresting. This same story has been told better, countless times before. Not one of the three characters is fleshed out into an indivial: they are bland stereotypes, dolled up to look pretty and given trite lines that they recite to convey the illusion of genuine emotion. It's telling that it doesn't much matter to us how the love triangle is resolved. Unless they both die, she'll get one of them, and who cares which? Neither of the men are personable, and we surely suspect early on that her decision will be based more on fate than her own volition anyway. (In plots like this, it's survival of the survivors.) And so, alas, we are denied even the most basic of all elements of storytelling, namely, characters making actual decisions