广告加工厂转让:用英语叙述一部影片的简介

Sleepless in Seattle
Introduction

Sam is an architect in Chicago. After his wife Maggie died of illness, Sam and his eight-year-old son Jonah move to Seattle to avoid the sad memories. But he fails to cast off the deep sorrow because of his deep love for Maggie. On Christmas Eve, Jonah calls to a radio program and tells the psychiatrist that he hopes his father could find a new wife. At the MC's request, Sam tells his love for his wife. Annie is a journalist in Baltimore, she happens to listen to the program and is deeply moved by Sam's sensitivity. She can't help trying every opportunity to approach him.

This is a comic movie love story made in 1993. Tom Hanks, the Academy winner, and the sweetheart of Hollywood Meg Ryan, their wonderful performance makes the movie a heart-throb, and the songs in it are so beautiful that a thick warm feeling is made to encircle it.

西雅图不眠夜
影片简介

萨姆是芝加哥的一名建筑师。在妻子玛姬不幸病势之后，他就带着八岁的儿子乔纳远离那个伤心地，来到西雅图，以避免触景生情，勾起难过的回忆。但是他对玛姬的爱太深了，他拼尽了全身所有的力量，还是深陷悲哀，无法自拔。在圣诞前夜，小乔纳拨通了电台的热线，告诉主持人他希望给父亲找一位好妻子。在主持人的请求下，萨姆吐露自己对妻子的深深爱意。这话正巧被安妮--巴尔的摩一家报社的记者--无意中听到了，她收听着节目，被萨姆的款款深情深深打动。电波切断之后，她回过身来，情不自禁地想方设法、通过各种途径，一定要把萨姆找出来……(但此时，安妮已和男友沃尔特定了婚。如何面对一往情深的未婚夫，如何处理这突如其来的意外情愫？安妮面临着抉择……）

给你三个意大利电影《美丽人生》的简介，你自己选一个吧

给你三个英文简介,你看哪一个好

1.In 1930s Italy, a carefree Jewish book keeper named Guido starts a fairy tale life by courting and marrying a lovely woman from a nearby city. Guido and his wife have a son and live happily together until the occupation of Italy by German forces. In an attempt to hold his family together and help his son survive the horrors of a Jewish Concentration Camp, Guido imagines that the Holocaust is a game and that the grand prize for winning is a tank.

2.The film starts in the 1930s when Guido relocates from the country to a large Tuscan town where he falls in love with schoolteacher Dora. She is already engaged to another guy, but Guido stills fights for her. The story continues 5 years later, during wartime, Guido is married to Dora and they have a son called Giosue. Guido is of Jewish origin, and he is sent to a concentration camp with Giosue and Dora follows them, only to be sent to another part of the camp.

3.It's 1939. The ebullient, playful Guido comes to town. He works as a waiter under his uncle's eye, an elegant man who is also a Jew. Guido falls for Dora, a schoolteacher, whom he calls "princess" and courts by popping up at unexpected times. She dumps her fiancé to choose Guido. The film jumps ahead to the last months of the war. Nora and Guido have a child, Giosué, and when Guido and the lad are shipped to a concentration camp, Dora voluntarily follows. Although the men and women in the camp are separated and a child is in mortal peril, Guido finds ways to communicate with Dora, to hide Giosué, and to convince him this is an elaborate game, a special contest to win a tank.

呵~也是在百度看到的,希望能对你有帮助

给你1967年的影片《毕业生》的
The Graduate (1967/Mike Nichols)

If ever a song were more appropriate for a film, besides 'All Along the Watchtower' for "Apocalypse Now", it is 'The Sounds of Silence' preformed by Simon & Garfunkel in Mike Nichol's "The Graduate". The song, nearly word for word, describes the inner turmoil that the characters of "The Graduate" face. They are lost and confused, stuck on the bridge of life, two crossing into adulthood, and one into old age. And that's just one way to look at it.

"The Graduate" is one of the best films I have ever had the pleasure to witness, and I only wish I were alive when it was first released. Dustin Hoffman, in his first major film role, plays Benjamin Braddock: the epitome of the confused and isolated young adult male. He sits in his room and does nothing. He lies around in his parent's pool for hours on end. Ben, who has just graduated from college, is home for the summer. Then, after an awkward sexual encounter with a friend of his parents named Mrs. Robinson, a one night stand turns into a summer romance. But betrayal soon follows as Benjamin falls for Mrs. Robinson's daughter, Elaine.

Nichol's directorial genius (he won an Oscar for the film) really shows in the opening party sequence celebrating Ben's arrival home. There is a close-up of Ben's face as he stumbles his way through the event, listening to advice and shaking hands with the faceless (much like his future) masses. The camera moves in such a way that a feeling of claustrophobia comes over the viewer. They are overcome by what is going on around them, much like Benjamin is at this crossroads in his life. Another example is when Ben first arrives at the fateful hotel where he meets Mrs. Robinson for sex. He walks around the lobby, suspicious that the desk clerk is on to him, and then he attempts to walk into a room. Only a large group of the elderly walks out, and Benjamin stands there holding the door for them. Then he proceeds inside, only to be passed by a group of high school students. This image once again reinforces the crossroads that Ben is at in his life.

After finally viewing this classic, I realized that many of my favorite directors to emerge from the 90's (mainly Wes Anderson) were greatly influenced by this film. What's more interesting is that "The Graduate" was a landmark film for American cinema and the decade in which it was released, sharing the same themes that Benjamin experiences throughout the film. Most of American cinema was very conventional up until the 60's. Nothing extremely scandalous was shown in a film, and many serious topics were not widely addressed through cinema…yet. "The Graduate" is the perfect mix of old and new. It's the 'bridge' that separates the standard American films from the more experimental ones that would emerge all throughout the 1970's.

The same can be said for the decade of the 1960's. America lost its innocence the day Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. For the next five years, the country went through a spiral of events that led to the sexual revolution of the late 1960's. And "The Graduate" separates the white picket fences of the 50's and early 60's from the Rock and Roll and drugs of the late 1960's and early 70's. It's a crossroads in the middle of the most turbulent time in American history. In one of the films most ironic images, a tired and lonesome Benjamin slumps on a bench on the Berkley campus (an important place for the sexual revolution) under an American flag blowing in the wind. The flag still waves, but Benjamin is beat. He represents the fall and eventual metamorphosis of the American dream.

But aside from all its serious themes and deeper meanings, "The Graduate" is a comedy at its heart. It contains one of the funniest and most exciting climaxes in cinema. And the final image is a knockout. It shows Benjamin and Elaine sitting at the end of a bus filled with elders, looking ahead blankly, at the road and at their future. Then the bus drives off in the distance. They do not know where their future is headed, or where the bus is even going. It was the same circumstance for America in 1967. The film closes with the same song it opened with: "The Sounds of Silence".

Mission: Impossible III

Starring: Tom Cruise, Ving Rhames, Kelly Brook, Eileen Atkins, Justin Kirk

Directed by: J.J. Abrams

RS: 3of 4 Stars Average User Rating: 3of 4 Stars

2006 Paramount Pictures All Movies

Recently retired, Agent Ethan Hunt lives a slower-paced life training new IMF agents. With this change, new opportunities enter his life, including a possible marriage to his girlfriend Julia. However, when a new conflict arises, Ethan is called back to duty to confront the toughest villain he's ever faced -- Owen Davian, an international weapons and information provider with no remorse and no conscience.

Watch the trailer

The thrills come mad hot and wicked sweet in Mission: Impossible III, the movie to beat this summer in the race to push your pulse rate past the danger zone. And please don't ask if the plot makes sense. It didn't the last two times either. Here's what counts: Tom Cruise is back as secret agent Ethan Hunt and he takes it to the limit -- running, jumping, punching, kicking, freefalling and flashing his laser-beam peepers with an intensity that could cut steel. But Ethan doesn't faze weapons trader Owen Damien, the most deliciously vile movie villain in ages as played with dry wit and hardcore menace by the newly Oscared Philip Seymour Hoffman. It's a kick to watch Hoffman play hellboy to Cruise's action hombre and you can believe the movie is all the better for it. Having said that, the true star of M:i:III is director and co-writer J.J. Abrams. Best known for his TV work, notably on Alias and Lost, Abrams takes to feature directing like the tabloids take to Cruise. He's all over it. With a reported budget of $185 million, M:i:III is the most expensive movie ever undertaken by a first-time director. After David Fincher (Seven) and Joe Carnahan (Narc) left the project, producer Cruise put his trust in new guy Abrams, who does him proud.
It's nuts trying to untangle the plot concocted by Abrams and his Alias collaborators Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. Here's as far as I'll go: Ethan has found the right girl to marry in Julie (Michelle Monaghan, a star in the making), who knows diddly about his job at IMF (Impossible Mission Force for the uninitiated). It's love that makes Ethan vulnerable to Owen, who threatens to put a bullet in Julie's pretty head if Ethan doesn't give him some damn rabbit's foot. OK, enough, you get the picture.

You should also know that Ving Rhames returns to watch Ethan's back as Luther Strickwel.l (Remember how the rug in The Big Lebowski tied the Dude's room together? Rhames does the same for this series). New faces include a hard-ass Laurence Fishburne as Brassel, Ethan's boss, Billy Crudup as Musgrave, the boss's wingman, and new team members: Declan (Jonathan Rhys Meyers of Match Point), Zhen (Maggie Q of modeling fame), and Lindsey (Keri Russell of Felicity, another Abrams TV staple). This is one director who does more than keep the actors from bumping into each other as they wear disguises, speak various languages and play daredevil. Going way beyond the call of action flick duty, Abrams gives each character moments that resonate. If this is just favorable ruboff from Lost, don't knock it. It helps to give a damn about a IMFers before they get blown away.

Abrams is sincere about wanting the stunts to serve the story, but don't expect Chekhov. This is a film franchise built on the principle of the unbroken rush. Look, there's Ethan leaping over a gap on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. Over there, he's scaling a rooftop in Shanghai. And catch him on a speedboat chase on the Tiber with a quick stop at the Vatican to steal the Da Vinci code (just kidding about that last part). Cruise doesn't so much act as treat the film as an Olympic event, doing many of the stunts himself. On the debit side, the movie -- should you decide to accept it -- peaks in its first hour. The surprise ending is way too easy to see coming. And there's a sappiness to the romantic climax that strains our goodwill. Plus, Hoffman isn't onscreen nearly enough. And the disguise gimmicks, especially Cruise wearing a Hoffman mask, now feel like unconvincing relics from the old Mission: Impossibleseries that ended thirty-three years ago. Bury the nostalgia. Like the rap twist Kayne West puts into the film's classic theme, this movie is best when it stirs it up.

PETER TRAVERS

(Posted: May, 2 2006)

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/_/id/6128976/rid/10202952/?source=movie_reviews_rssfeed

Plot Summary:
Harry Potter battles homework, foreign exchange students, the forces of evil, and the sheer terror of having to find a date to a dance in his fourth year at Hogwarts. Much magic and darkness ensues...

Opinion:
As noted in my articles on Harry Potter movies 1, 2, and 3, I have not read any of the books, nor feel I should need to in order to properly view the movies. If you need to read the book in order to understand the movie, why make the movie at all? Previously, this was not an issue as both "Sorceror's Stone" and "Chamber of Secrets" followed the text religiously with few details changed or left out. When "Prisoner of Azkaban" came out, more effort had to be made to create a comprehensible movie that remained faithful to the text but within the constraints of a non-mini-series length film. While my friends who had read the book complained about the omissions, I felt they had succeeded in creating a true movie version of Harry Potter--still faithful to the framework of the original text but streamlined specifically for the screen. The "Harry Potter" movie series seemed to be on an upswing...

Now here we are at "Goblet of Fire" where the seams of trying to shove an extremely long book into a 2-1/2 hour movie have started to show. "Prisoner of Azkaban" was abridged but still coherent--"Goblet of Fire" is the first Harry Potter movie where I genuinely felt lost while watching. Characters are introduced and then disappear for the rest of the movie without doing much of anything. Plot points are convoluted and hard to follow (Did I miss it or did the movie never explain exactly what "Polyjuice potion" was?) I seriously started to wonder if my DVD player was somehow skipping every third scene or something...

Even worse, "Goblet" suffers from much of the same poor plotting that plagued the first two movies, including an extremely dubious master plan from the arch-villain (the kind of plan that makes no sense whatsoever upon reflection but, you know, if he didn't do it that way, there'd be no movie...) and ending with another one of J.K.Rowlings' patented "ghost in the machine" resolutions (this time literally) that wraps things up for Harry at the end.

(It's probably pointless to remain spoiler-free since everyone by now is probably familiar with either the book or the movie, but I've left the specifics for the In-Depth Analysis section below...)

Similar to "Prisoner", "Goblet" doesn't really feel complete, either. Other than Voldemort having a body now, nothing has really changed from the beginning to the end, and neither good nor evil particularly triumphed in any small or large area. It feels like we just finished watching the second hour of a three hour movie where we're just biding time until the true conflict and climax arrives. Even "The Two Towers" had more of a self-contained sense of closure after the Battle of Helm's Deep, even though it was still just setting up the final movie in the trilogy.

In the end, I'm not sure what to make of "Goblet of Fire"--all things considered, I'd have to rank it 4th out of four movies--it certainly would be the least appealing to watch again out of the four. Is this a sign that the Harry Potter series isn't really a neat fit for the big screen after all? I can't say I'm all that excited to see "Order of Phoenix" when it comes out...

In-depth Analysis:
Some more specific notes from the movie:

Insignificant Characters: The Death Eaters are introduced early in the movie when they blow things up--but don't do anything else the rest of the movie. Rita Skeeter is introduced early but disappears after the first hour and also has no important role in the events of the movie. Krum is introduced as being an excellent flier--oddly, he then never flies during the rest of the movie, nor, in fact, speaks much. Formerly significant characters such as Draco Malfoy, Hagrid, and Sirius Black have 'cameos' but don't do much either. In fact, contrary to the earlier movies, even Hermione and Ron don't have much of a part to play in the flow of the story either. Much of this is almost certainly due to many parts from the book being necessarily left out, but adds to the feeling of incompleteness that the movie creates.
The "Extremely Dubious" Master Plan: Barty Crouch Junior (and Wormtail) need one thing to resurrect Voldemort: Harry's blood. What's their plan to get Harry's blood? Is it (a) Junior (disguised as Moody) waits until he's alone with Harry one day (like the beginning of the movie), stabs him with a knife, and runs away with the necessary blood? Or (b) comes up with an exceedingly complicated scheme involving Harry being mysteriously entered into a dangerous tournament where he may or may not survive long enough to touch the trophy so they can then take his blood. The 'plan' here has any number of fatal flaws: (1) it requires great planning and magical sabotage that will be taking place right under the nose of a lot of important people during a very public event, (2) it takes a very long time before it completes--almost the entire school year, (3) it involves the very public and strange occurrence of Harry's name being tossed from the Goblet beyond all reason--something highly suspicious that would only attract attention to their plot and (4) having Harry participate in the tournament only increases the opportunity for failure. If Harry had found himself eaten by a dragon or drowned at the bottom of the lake during the course of the tournament, there's now no blood for Voldemort. (Sure, they'd still be happy he's dead, but doesn't help in the resurrection process...) Even if Harry's presence was required at the ritual for whatever reason (instead of just a blood sample), Junior could have just cast a PortKey spell on anything: Harry's schoolbook, Harry's shoes--something that Harry would touch any day of the week and would get whisked away secretly without anyone ever knowing. Why in the world would you depend on Harry having to touch a trophy in a remote, dangerous location where the chances of him even making it there are slim?
Question #1: Why wasn't the first thing out of Harry's mouth when he gets back to Hogwarts at the end: "Lucius Malfoy is a Death-Eater! I saw him!" Isn't this a fairly significant fact that was revealed right in front of Harry that other people might want to know about?
The Underlying Premise: I don't quite understand why two complete schools of students would leave their homes for an entire year so one of their students can participate in a tournament. Note that during the second and third tasks the participants are completely out of sight of the rest of the student population, defeating the purpose of even being a spectator... I also don't understand why there wasn't more of an uproar about students being involuntarily captured and used as living bait during the second task. For all the discussion of 'safety' the tournament sure takes a lot of chances with student lives, doesn't it?
Question #2: Now, I've seen Star Trek IV (the one with the whales) where sounds that are different underwater than above water play an essential part of the plot. There the sound transformation is credible, but how exactly does the screeching sound made by the egg translate into beautiful mermaid singing when placed in water? And how were the competitors supposed to glean that bit of knowledge in order to try holding it underwater, anyway?
Harry Potter Villains: It's interesting that in all four movies, from Voldemort, to Tom Riddle, to Wormtail, to BC Junior, no Harry Potter villain actually plays a large role in any of the movies. They're always off screen and out of sight except for brief scenes near the end. Even Darth Maul had more screen time...
Question #3: How does Junior's transformation into Mad-Eye Moody work with Moody's fake leg (which he takes off and shows us during the course of the film)? Does Junior have a fake leg too?
Cedric Diggory: I think Diggory's death was mishandled. Here's why: Harry was meant to go to the graveyard through the Portkey alone--that much is obvious. Harry has the opportunity to reach the trophy alone, leaving Diggory behind. He does not--instead coming back to help Diggory escape the vines and then they both get teleported together. The obvious lesson here: there's always room for 'good sportsmanship' in any competition, and your rivals aren't necessarily your enemies. The movie's point seems to be Harry made the correct decision. And yet, in hindsight, Diggory's death was directly due to his being with Harry at the time--had Harry left him behind in the vines (non-fatal, as we saw with Fleur) he would still be alive. Harry did not know this at the time, of course, but it's obvious in retrospect. Why, from a plot perspective, would you undercut the important lesson of Harry's choice in the maze by having it become the primary cause of Diggory's death--even indirectly? Is that the lesson you want the children in the audience to come away with ('No good deed goes unpunished...')? And, as constituted we miss an opportunity for a stronger ending: Voldemort and his crew would not be expecting there to be two of them coming through the Portkey (surely, they'd reason, two competitors won't be working together and touch the trophy at the same time, right?). Diggory coming to the graveyard along with Harry thus becomes a wildcard to the carefully planned trap of Voldemort which they hadn't anticipated How easy it would have been to have Harry facing defeat, but have Diggory (who's not supposed to have been there) be the deciding factor in helping Harry escape. This would show the karmatic principle of Harry being kind to his competitor coming back around and providing his salvation (rewarding the earlier good deed), rather than the deus ex machina ending which still needed Diggory's help anyway from beyond the grave. A missed opportunity all around...
On the Other Hand: At least as written Voldemort didn't fall for the "Talking Killer" syndrome (where the villain delays killing the good guy for no reason, usually just to taunt him for a while). As soon as he appears, he tells his henchmen to take care of Diggory without delay, as in his situation he should have...
Of course, On the Other Hand: The "Talking Killer" syndrome is then exactly what happens with Harry after Voldemort's resurrection. If he had just taken care of business with Harry still immobilized (instead of tempting fate by freeing him) Harry wouldn't have had a chance...
Question #4: Dumbledore warns the competitors that the forest maze 'changes people' and that people that go inside can 'lose themselves' if they are not careful... What exactly is he talking about? This description doesn't line up with any part of the competitors' experience inside the maze...
The Good Stuff: Yes, there are a number of things I liked about the movie. The flying chariot and boat that the new schools arrive in are cool. (In fact, the French girls look quite smashing in their matching outfits) Harry's duel with the dragon is one of the better action scenes in all four movies. Hermione walking down the stairs in her dress (with a wry smile) at the ball is a great scene also. Emma Watson is going to be an absolute babe in ten years. Maybe sooner. (And don't think she doesn't know it...) I liked a portentous scene at the end where Snape is holding his wand into Junior's face while he waits for everyone else to leave. The movie cuts away just as it seems Snape is going to say something significant to Junior when they're alone which we don't hear. For those who know how the series continues, there are a number of things he could have said, with many dark implications.
Question #5: As if one deus ex machina wasn't enough, we also have Dumbledore and company showing up and saving Harry from Mad-Eye Moody just when Harry needs it. Is there a particular reason why they would have suspected anything from Moody at that particular point in time, and that they'd know Harry was in trouble?

Random Notes & Comments:
Between Sirius Black in the last movie, and Barty Crouch Junior this time, there seems to be a lot of criminals who find a way to escape Azkaban prison without much trouble. Perhaps a review of their security system is in order?
Convenient that they happened to bring four dragons to the Tournament even though there was no reason for them to know ahead of time that there would be four contestants, isn't it?
Speaking of which, if they were going to have the contestants go one at a time against the dragons anyway, why do you need one each? Just send them against the same dragon in turn...