求 狂野大自然 的观后感,要英语的
1Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: A lion and his friends rule the zoo at night, after all the people have gone home. When one of their own ends up missing, the animals escape from the zoo, travel around the urban jungle, and then wind up on a jungle island where they have to adapt to the… Heard it before? Yet despite its extreme similarities to Madagascar, Walt Disney Studios’ The Wild is a very different picture. Sure the storyline may be very close, at least until the animals get on the island (which, granted, is the bulk of the film) but Disney takes a far different approach to the story that Dreamworks released last year. The most obvious difference is the visual approach to the movie. While Madagascar went with a heavily stylized, cartoonish feel, Disney takes a more realistic approach to its film. The result is stunning at times, with lush jungles and furry animals that look almost lifelike. The CGI animation is quite impressive most of the time, with one downfall. Because the animals are made to look so real, they lose some of their expressiveness. The extremely talented vocal abilities of the cast make up for the lost visual, but it is still a loss for the movie. The second difference is that this is not a buddy picture like its predecessor. The story here centers around a father and son set of lions who can’t seem to communicate properly, leading to the son running off in an attempt to discover his inner roar by traveling to “the wild.” This element takes the story in a very usual Disney direction, focusing on a character (or characters) who are trying to find their place in the world. Because of that, the movie carries elements of Disney’s biggest animated hit, The Lion King. Some people will tell you Disney’s just ripping off as many pictures as they can with this film, but I think the nods to The Lion King are strong points for this film, and an element that really separates it from Madagascar. The film goes in an interesting direction for the cast, handing roles over to very non-Disney style actors like Kiefer Sutherland, Janeane Garofalo, and most notably, Eddie Izzard. The actors do a marvelous job of bringing very strong characters to life. I had great concerns from the trailers that the movie would try to set Izzard’s koala character up to be that annoying breakout character for the film. The truth is the film sets all of the characters up that way. There isn’t a character here that doesn’t serve a purpose for the story and really get a chance to shine, with unique personalities and performances for all. Besides, where else are you going to get a film with Izzard and William Shatner? Disney’s The Wild is a fun movie with fun characters, entertaining visuals, and a Disney style-story that most people will be able to relate to. So what if it bears a striking similarity to another picture released in the last year? That shouldn’t keep you from enjoying it, possibly even more than the other film.2Movie studios are notorious for pushing uninspired remakes, movies which borrow heavily from successful films, and sequels made for the sole purpose of turning a quick profit onto unsuspecting audiences. But with The Wild, the filmmakers have just pushed things too far. There’s nothing original here. Hardly a single character, scene or storyline in this unappealing and surprisingly lifeless animated movie is something we haven't seen done before - and done better. The Wild is more of the same old thing, wrapped in a just barely whisper-thin disguise.I don’t know who had the idea first – the filmmakers behind Madagascar or The Wild. Frankly I don’t care and neither should audiences. What does matter is that The Wild feels like a warmed over version of Madagascar and that film is recent enough (it was released in May 2005) that it’s still relatively fresh in our minds. Audiences will immediately notice the striking similarities between the two family films and justifiably feel as though they're watching an alternate cut of Madagascar rather than a film that stands on its own.A scene from the animated animal movie, The Wild.© Walt Disney PicturesBoth films feature New York Zoo animals. Both movies have a lion and a giraffe in prominent roles. Madagascar and The Wild also have rebellious penguins and zoo occupants who party once the people leave. The heroes of both films break out of their zoo enclosures and make their way through the streets of New York, although only in The Wild is the Times Square sequence so jarringly full of product placement. The main characters in both films ultimately wind up on a boat the animals commandeer in order to get to the wild. The similarities don’t end once the characters crash into land. In both movies, the New York Zoo creatures are met by dancing animals led by a bizarre ruler. Madagascar and The Wild even try and teach the same basic lessons.As for the voice cast, I admire Kiefer Sutherland (and I’m addicted to 24) but there’s not enough warmth in his voice as Samson, the father lion forced to travel to the wild to retrieve his young son. Sutherland’s vocal performance is basically a one note affair. He never connects emotionally and that's absolutely mandatory when bringing an animated character to life.Sutherland’s not the only member of the voice cast who fails to make much of an impression. Eddie Izzard is a wise-cracking Koala who generates the film’s few laughs. Izzard pushes the comedy toward a PG rating but apparently wasn't allowed to take the final step. Jim Belushi was just okay as a squirrel in love with a giraffe. And speaking of the giraffe, I had no idea she was voiced by Janeane Garofalo until I read through the credits after watching the movie. Is that a good thing? Not in this case. Garofalo’s biting wit wasn’t included in the character’s personality. Had it been, The Wild may have wound up a little edgier and not the total snorefest it turned out to be.To sum it up, The Wild is pointless. There are only a couple of good chuckles, the animation is beautiful yet detached, and the plot is Madagascar all over again with a little Finding Nemo sprinkled in for good measure. Even if Madagascar didn't exist, The Wild wouldn't be worth the price of a ticket. It’s a movie that, if it absolutely had to be made, should have gone straight to DVD. Rent almost any other recent animated movie, make your own popcorn, and save yourself some money.3Antz” and “A Bug’s Life.” “Deep Impact” and “Armageddon.” It’s been a while since major Hollywood studios have come out with competing films that were alike in concept. Now renewing the feud, Disney releases “The Wild,” a picture so similar to Dreamworks’ “Madagascar” that it’s shocking there hasn’t been a major lawsuit involved. Like “Madagascar,” “The Wild” begins in New York’s Central Park Zoo. Lion cub Ryan (Greg Cipes), born in the zoo, lives in the shadow of his wild-born father Samson (Kiefer Sutherland). Unable to roar ferociously, Ryan runs away and finds himself inadvertently loaded on a shipment heading to Africa. Feeling responsible, Samson sets out to find his son and bring him home, but not without the help of some oddball friends, including a giraffe, a koala, a snake and a squirrel.Like most animated features, “The Wild” features some impressive voice talent. Along with Kiefer “Jack Bauer” Sutherland, other actors lending their voices to characters include Janeane Garafalo as Britney the Giraffe, a surprisingly funny James Belushi as Benny the Squirrel, and William Shatner as the evil Wildebeest Kazar. All put in good performances, but Eddie Izzard stands out as the hilarious Koala Nigel, who is inexplicably English and not Australian.The similarities to “Madagascar” are too abundant to mention, but there are some differences. For one thing, the story has a little more heart. The father\\\/son bonding story in “The Wild” is more akin to “Finding Nemo,” another Disney picture, but made by Pixar. Also, the romantic subplot between odd couple Bridget the Giraffe and Benny the Squirrel is quite humorous.Although not a Pixar creation, “The Wild” is beautifully animated; especially in its darker moments. The effects are almost too perfect, however. The characters in the film are so lifelike that sometimes their visages lack the ability to convey a suitable amount of emotion, which ultimately hurts one’s ability to properly relate to them. But some of the effects are quite affective, specifically those of the opening dream sequence of the film, which are some of the most inspired in quite a while. “The Wild” is a slight improvement over “Madagascar” (if only because the characters are a little less annoying), but the film still falls short of being anything other than box office filler. Although the idea of having the prey become predator (wildebeest hunting lions) is an interesting one, the basic story and characters are nothing new, and the action of the film is actually a little tedious. Kids may enjoy this as a DVD rental, however.4The Wild, the latest feature cartoon from the Walt Disney Studio, starts out with a few strikes against it, including a story suspiciously similar to last year's not-so-hot Madagascar. But The Wild, as it turns out, is better than its zoo-escape rival. It has a good director, snazzy visuals and some really funny animals, and that's at least half the battle.Directed by visual effects specialist Steve Spaz Williams, Wild is about a group of New York City zoo chums who wind up in the jungles together and find that living there, while sometimes a blast, can be hazardous to their health. For them, a world full of predatory beasts isn't necessarily preferable to a city full of Yankees fans and occasional muggers.If that story sounds a lot like Madagascar, it may be because there aren't that many ideas circulating around Hollywood these days. In any case, The Wild sends its zoo crew, headed by star lion Samson (Kiefer Sutherland), back to the jungle and presents them with an unnerving foe-- a gang of over reaching wildebeests, prodded by their bullying leader Kazar (William Shatner), who wants them all to rise up on the food chain.Madagascar, with its similar setup, wasn't a very good movie. If you enjoyed it, it was probably because you dug the all-star vocal cast (Chris Rock as the zebra, Ben Stiller as the lion, David Schwimmer as the giraffe and Jada Pinkett Smith as the sensuous hippo) and the bows to the great minimalist style of Looney Tunes maestros Chuck Jones and Friz Freleng.The Wild is better, mostly because it has some truly spectacular animation and because the cast is just as likable--even, in some cases, preferable.Sutherland's Samson, whom I like as a lion better than Stiller as Alex, is the zoo's big sports star (in a weird sport called turtle-curling, involving actual turtles) and also the overly boastful dad of teenage cub Ryan (Greg Cipes of Deadwood), who has been beguiled by Dad's tales of the old veld battles and wants to see for himself. So he does, after getting wrongly boxed up for shipment, with his would-be rescuers Samson and his buddies chasing through New York, its alligator-infested sewer system and eventually across the ocean.If Sutherland's lion edges Stiller's (on leonine sincerity alone), I'd say Janeane Garofalo also easily wins the giraffe sweepstakes over Schwimmer's sad-sack Melman. As the sexy and resourceful Bridget, the unlikely love object of a fast-talking, bossy little squirrel named Benny (Jim Belushi), she's a giraffe you'd like to spend time with. There's also a friendly but dopey 21-foot anaconda named Larry (Richard Kind). And the film's funniest character is Nigel the sarcastic, shaggily British koala voiced--and apparently largely improvised--by Eddie Izzard.Because Izzard made so much of his stuff up, Nigel has a living, breathing quality, coming across as a mixture of some dithering old British character actor and the acerbic Simon Cowell of American Idol. When Nigel gets adopted as a deity, in a scene reminiscent of Sid's ascension in Ice Age: The Meltdown, it's a top-of-the-world-Ma moment, especially played alongside the megalomaniac Kazar (a very ingeniously cast Shatner, whose villainy is as overstated as his heroism).There are a lot of wisecracks in The Wild, but the script is less vital than the visual virtuosity. Celebrated for his smashing computer effects in The Abyss (the water funnel) and The Mask (that wolf-whistle), Williams here creates backdrops so dense, you can all but feel them pressing in--filled with characters so detailed they look as three-dimensional as the dolls and toys that we know will eventually be made from them. Especially impressive: the 6 million separate hairs computer animators claim to have put into Samson's wavy mane and coat.
《狂野大自然》英文观后感 小学六年级水平 要译文 谢谢
沙发。
。
。
这个观后感，是要你看了之后去体会的，咋的，那么急啊
野性的呼唤读后感
〈野性的呼唤〉读后感 心中都有狂野，正如书中那条银色的狗，或者狼。
人心是很隐秘的，我们无法了解他，许多人甚至不知道他的存在。
等到我们经历了很多，许多沧海变做桑田，自己的心也累了，甚至连跳动的力量也没有了，猛然做梦时发现了自己祖先也与狼一般于禁林中召唤，我们会义无返顾的回到本就属于也是我们本影在的地方吗
野性不光在呼唤我们的心，甚至灵魂也为他屈服。
忽的想起了那句“随风奔跑自由是方向”原始的自有他的美丽。
这个复杂的世界正是由自然用最简单的方法造就的。
这只是个时间问题，时间可以改变坚固的山石，清明的流水，让世界毁灭又让它重生。
但他永远不能磨灭生命的骨髓——野性。
因为他是不可改变的。
没有他则生命也无从谈起，他有无穷的哲理。
唤起了野性不是重生就是涅盘。
也正是他的矛盾让人们渴望野性之火的燃烧又惧怕他焚毁自己。
再见了灰灰读后感
写读的要诀我们读完一部或一篇文章后,自然会受到感动,产生许多感想,但这许多是零碎的,是模糊的,一闪而失.要写读后感,就要善于抓住这些零碎、甚至是模糊的感想,反复想,反复作比较,找出两个比较突出的对现实有针对性的,再集中凝神的想下去,在深思的基础上加以整理.也只有这样,才能抓住具有现实意义的问题,写出真实、深刻、用于解决人们在学习上、思想上和实践上存在问题的有价值的感想来.第四,要真实自然.就是要写自己的真情实感.自己是怎样受到感动和怎样想的,就怎样写.把自己的想法写的越具体、越真实,文章就会情真意切,生动活泼,使人受到启发.从表现手法上看,读后感多用夹叙夹议,必要时借助抒情的方法.叙述是联系实际摆事实.议论是谈感想,讲道理.抒情是表达读后的激情.叙述的语言要概括简洁,议论要准确,抒情要集中.三者要交融一体,切忌空话、大话套话、口号.从表现形式上看,也有两种：一种是联系实际说明道理的.这是用自己的切身体会和具体生动的事例,从理论和实践的结合上阐明一个道理的正确性,把理论具体化、形象化,使之有血有肉,有事有理,以事明理,生动活泼.另一种是从研究理论的角度出发,阐发意义.根据自己的研究和理解,阐明一个较难理解的思想观点,或估价一部作品的思想意义.它的作用是从理论上帮助读者加深对原文的理解.这一种读后感的重点仍在“感”字上,但它的理论性较强,一定要注意关照议论文论点鲜明、论据典型、中心明确突出等特点.
人物传记的读后感怎么写?
写作方法其实就是四点：(1)引——围绕感点 引述材料。
简述原文有关内容。
概括本文的主要内容 ,要简练,而且要把重点写出来。
(2)议——分析材料，提练感点。
亮明基本观点。
(3) 联——联系实际，纵横拓展。
围绕基本观点摆事实讲道理。
(4)结——总结全文，升华感点。
“读”的内容不放松。
附：人物传记读后感范文供参考阴沉的宫殿，矗立着崇高的塔尖如长矛一般，柔和而又苦索的山岗细腻地映在天际，岗上摇曳着杉树的圆盖形的峰巅，和闪闪作色、波动如水浪似的橄榄林；热狂、骄傲、神经质的气息，易于沉溺在一切盲目的信仰中，守着一切宗教和社会的狂潮耸动，人人是自由的，人人是专制的，生活是那么舒适，可是这里的人生无疑是地狱。
就在这个天堂般又魔鬼般的地方，升起过一轮红热的太阳，明媚，刺眼。
他从没有落过，随着时间的推移，一直悬挂在我们头顶，发光发热，直至永恒。
他，就是米开朗基罗。
他狂野，他不羁，他高贵。
他欣赏自己，赞赏自己，他不答应别人把他当艺术家来看到，他认为，天才这个词都不配于他。
天才，总有过人的品性。
他的意志简直是一无所能；甚至可说他的精神与他的心也是一无所能。
这是一种狂乱的爆发，一种骇人的生命，为他太弱的肉体与灵魂所不能胜任的。
“他在继续不断的兴奋中生活。
它的过分的力量使他感到痛苦，这痛苦逼迫他行动，不息地行动，以小时也不得休息。
”他写道；“我为了工作而筋疲力尽，从没有一个人像我这样地工作，我除了夜以继日地工作之外，什么都不想。
”这种病态的需要活动不特使他的业务天天积累起来，不特使他接受他所不能实现的工作，而且也是他堕入偏执的癖性中去。
他要雕琢整个的山头。
当他要建造什么纪念物时，他会费掉几年的光阴到石厂中去挑选石块，建筑搬运石块的大路；他要成为一切：工程师、手工人……他要独个子干完一切；建造宫殿、教堂，由他一个人来。
这是一种判罚苦役的生活。
他甚至不愿分出时间去饮食睡眠。
他的父亲也劝告他不要劳作过度，但是劝告业不起影响。
他从不肯把自己的生活安排得更合人性些。
他只以极少的面包与酒来支持他的生命。
自然，他的健康状况每日愈下，他的精神因他苦难的生活也极度悲观起来。
他猜疑，他不安，他孤独。
他甚至说过：“我的快乐是悲哀。
”没有一个人比他更不接近快乐而更倾向于痛苦的了。
他在无垠的宇宙中所见到的所感到的只有它。
世界上全部的悲观主义都包含在这绝望的呼声，这极端悲伤的语句中。
他也是孤苦的。
——他恨人；他亦被人恨。
他爱人；他不被人爱。
人们对他又是钦佩，又是畏惧。
他孤独地生活着，他孤独地思考着，他孤独地工作着，他孤独地看着这个世界，他孤独地看着自己。
死对于他来说是一种解脱，一种快乐，但更是一种可望而不可及的奢侈品。
因为他还有意志，又思想，有追求。
也许，孤独可以让人静静地审视自己，审视世界，它帮助我们驱除世俗的嘈杂，给我们一片静谧的森林。
也许，孤独让我们更能坚定自己的意志，让我们变得更坚强，好让我们在苦海中寻找救命的稻草。
或许，孤独创造意志，而意志，则创造英雄
读书摘记
《幸福的七种颜色》读书摘抄●丰富的层次会让你觉得生活美好、万象更新。
●太多的人，习惯珍藏苦难，甚至以此自傲和自虐。
这种对苦难的持久迷恋和品尝，会毒化你的感官，会损伤你对美好生活的精细体察。
●享受幸福是需要学习的，当幸福即将来临的时候需要提醒。
人可以自然而然地学会感官的享乐，却无法天生地掌握幸福的韵律。
幸福是一种心灵的震颤，它像会倾听音乐的耳朵一样，需要不断地训练。
●幸福常常是朦胧地、很有节制地向我们喷洒甘霖。
你不要总希冀轰轰烈烈的幸福，它多半只是悄悄地扑面而来。
你也不要企图把水龙头拧得更大，使幸福很快地消失。
而虚静静地以平和之心，体验幸福的真谛。
●幸福不喜欢喧嚣浮华，常常在暗淡中降临，贫困中相濡以沫的一块蛋糕，患难中心心相印的一个眼神，父亲一次粗糙的抚摸，女友一个温馨的字条……都是千金难买的幸福啊
●丰收的季节，先不要去想可能的灾年，我们还有漫长的冬季来得及考虑这件事。
不要管以后的风霜雪雨，让我们先把麦子磨成面粉，烘一个香喷喷的面包。
●常常提醒自己注意幸福，就像在寒冷的日子里经常看看太阳，心就不知不觉暖洋洋亮光光。
●好的家庭需要有丝网般的过滤功能。
快乐的幸福的消息，如高屋建瓴，肥水快流，多拉快跑，让佳音火速进入所有成员的耳鼓。
好的家庭是会变形的镜片，能发生奇妙的折射。
凸透使视物变大，凹透使视物变小。
如果是愉快的源泉，
