第一篇：费城故事(tom hanks)影评英文版——No difference love
No difference love
——the review of Philadelphia
Philadelphia is a story that an AIDS patient who also is a gay protected his own equity by law.The film marks the Hollywood no longer escape the social reality and it calls out people to care more about AIDS patient.Now, I want to say something about homosexuality.A famous Chinese author wang xiaobo said that does he love a person who is a man or woman so important to you? In my opinion, I think homosexuality is a kind of no difference love of human race.In the film, Andrew Beckett said, “Live still, I am life.Heaven is in your eyes.Is everything around you just the blood and mud? I am divine.I am oblivion.I am the god...that comes down from the heavens, and makes of the Earth a heaven.I am love!...I am love.” It’s the most wonderful section in the movie.It makes us realize that homosexuals as Andrew are so helpless but so brave.whether you accepted or not, homosexuality exist.And it will continue to exist.Maybe most of them reluctant to be Homosexuals,but they can’t.It's not their fault, it’s god's joke.After all, everyone has the right to love and be loved.茜茜、小鱼、猪大、我、小翔、冠冠（7点）、杨斌（看情况）、将军（陪一会儿）
没回复：芒果、叶子、王明丽、日日、龙爷
第二篇：英文影评《费城故事》
Film Review on Philadelphia
Philadelphia, directed by Jonathan Demme, featured by Tom Hanks and Danzel Washington, tells a story about a AIDS patients who has fired because suffering from AIDS fight for his right with legal.As the groundbreaking achievement in Hollywood's first look at AIDS discrimination, the movie is mainly about two sensitive topics: homosexuality and AIDS.To analyze the contradictions in the story from the theory of Structuralism, there are two sets of conflicts: the endless case with Andrew’s former employer, and Andrew’s good fight against sickness.The gay character, Andrew, a social outcast that facing to the death, is still fighting against the serious illness and the discrimination from the society all the way;The black lawyer, Miller, someone doesn't like homosexuals, agrees to take the case for sympathy.In the name of justice and humanity, in the spirit of compassion, Andrew and Miller tried to fight for legal right in a common action.They gradually become friends and come to understand one another during the quarrel.From Miller’s eyes, we can feel Andrew’s love to life and live.There is a impressiveness scene in the movie: Listening to theinspiring music, Andrew put on a drip, described to Miller his hunger for affection, and his desire for life.Life is not what you see in the films, it’s much harder.“Philadelphia” was made in 1993, In that time, people’s attitude to AIDS and homosexual are stern, rigid and unreasonable.Most people still feel a hearty dislike about homosexuality, much more a gay with AIDS.“Philadelphia” leads the trend of innovation to the AIDS discrimination.It gave hope to the many others who face this dilemma at some point or another in their lives.On the other hand, it also tries to turn our view to the AIDS.For viewers of the movie, the meaningful question is not whether they sympathize with Tom Hanks' AIDS-afflicted, but whether that sympathy opens up a different perspective on the victims of the disease in the real world.We should ask several questions to our selves: Should the social outcast have the unfair treatment? What the Public opinions to AIDS? Will any sex orientation of the people be accepted by society?No matter what he is, he has the right to live on happily.That’s what I learn from “Philadelphia”.when I see the light.I know I'll be all right.Philadelphia.
第三篇：英文影评《费城故事》
Film Review on Philadelphia Philadelphia, directed by Jonathan Demme, featured by Tom Hanks and Danzel Washington, tells a story about a AIDS patients who has fired because suffering from AIDS fight for his right with legal.As the groundbreaking achievement in Hollywood's first look at AIDS discrimination, the movie is mainly about two sensitive topics: homosexuality and AIDS.To analyze the contradictions in the story from the theory of Structuralism, there are two sets of conflicts: the endless case with Andrew’s former employer, and Andrew’s good fight against sickness.The gay character, Andrew, a social outcast that facing to the death, is still fighting against the serious illness and the discrimination from the society all the way;The black lawyer, Miller, someone doesn't like homosexuals, agrees to take the case for sympathy.In the name of justice and humanity, in the spirit of compassion, Andrew and Miller tried to fight for legal right in a common action.They gradually become friends and come to understand one another during the quarrel.From Miller’s eyes, we can feel Andrew’s love to life and live.There is a impressiveness scene in the movie: Listening to the inspiring music, Andrew put on a drip, described to Miller his hunger for affection, and his desire for life.Life is not what you see in the films, it’s much harder.“Philadelphia” was made in 1993, In that time, people’s attitude to AIDS and homosexual are stern, rigid and unreasonable.Most people still feel a hearty dislike about homosexuality, much more a gay with AIDS.“Philadelphia” leads the trend of innovation to the AIDS discrimination.It gave hope to the many others who face this dilemma at some point or another in their lives.On the other hand, it also tries to turn our view to the AIDS.For viewers of the movie, the meaningful question is not whether they sympathize with Tom Hanks' AIDS-afflicted, but whether that sympathy opens up a different perspective on the victims of the disease in the real world.We should ask several questions to our selves: Should the social outcast have the unfair treatment? What the Public opinions to AIDS? Will any sex orientation of the people be accepted by society? No matter what he is, he has the right to live on happily.That’s what I learn from “Philadelphia”.when I see the light.I know I'll be all right.Philadelphia.
第四篇：费城故事影评
《费城故事》影评
JOE: Are you a good lawyer?
ANDREW: I'm an excellent lawyer.JOE: What makes you an excellent lawyer?
ANDREW: I love the law.I know the law.I excel at practicing it.It's the only thing
I've ever wanted to do.JOE:What do you love about it?
ANDREW: Well...many things.But I think the thing I love the most, is that every once
in a while, not that often, but occasionally...you get to be part of justice being done.It's really quite a thrill when that happens.以上是《费城故事》中JOE和ANDREW在法庭上的一段对话。我看过三遍这部影片了，但是，每次听到这段对话，都觉得很震撼，心情复杂，有对ANDREW的崇敬之情，又有作为一个学习法律的人的自豪，还有一点，用ANDREW的话说，是thrill，振奋！
ANDREW作为一名律师，他所从事的工作，不仅仅是为了生计，更是兴趣所在。正是如此，他学习勤奋，工作努力，忙碌中感受着工作带给他的乐趣。他工作的动力，正如他所说：“我爱法律，我了解法律，我善于从事这一行；我最爱法律的什么？就是有时，不是时常，但偶然，我是促成公平的一份子，这真是一种令人振奋的感觉。”听着他的话，我为自己是一个法学专业的学生而感到由衷的骄傲，因为我，我们，就像ANDREW一样，也可能是促成公平的一份子。这是证明自己存在价值、实现自我价值的途径，是对社会的贡献。这种精神上的愉悦是任何物质享受所不能比拟的。
但是，我们并不能保证所有的法律人都像ANDREW那样热爱法律，信仰法律。想起行政法课上老师讲的一件令人哭笑不得的事：一个法学专业的学生，居然请教老师“有人出2万元请我替考，我去还是不去？”一个学习法律的人，了解法律的人，居然连基本的道德观念都没有！学习法律的人不遵纪守法，我们似乎司空见惯了。报纸上铺天盖地的新闻，我国有那么多律师、法官违法犯罪，和国外，尤其是一些法制健全的国家相比，数量实在是多得有些不可思议了。在这些报道的影响下，普通百姓对法律工作者的评价似乎越来越差了，而法律工作者自己也对自己的职业缺少职业自豪感和捍卫职业尊严感了。著名法学家伯尔曼曾经说过：“法律必须被信仰，否则它将形同虚设”。如果连学习法律，了解法律，运用法律的人本身都不信仰法律，那么，法律究竟为什么而设立？在实践中有能起什么作用？有与没有又有什么区别？有人说，中华民族是缺少信仰的民族。也许这是一个影响因素。但是，我们这些学习法律如此多年的人，难道会对法律没有丝毫感情吗？我不相信。因为当我看到不公平的事情时，我和绝大多数同学一样，首先想到的是运用法律武器来捍卫自己的权益；当我们看到报刊上的案件时，我们会用法律思维去思考、分析这些问题；甚至在生活中，很多玩笑都是有关法律的。我们时时刻刻都在关注法律，运用法律，这难道不是对法律的热爱吗？难道不是一种对法律的信仰的体现吗？普通百姓并不了解法律，让他们建立对法律的信仰并不容易。但是对于我们，对于学习和以法律为职业的人来说，是承担树立法律信仰责任的最佳人选，也是最应该的人选。只有法律人自己信仰法律，才能影响周围的民众。
在第一次开庭后，记者问ANDREW：“Do you see this as a gay rights issue?”
ANDREW：“I'm not political.I just want compensation for being fired.”很简单的回答。ANDREW没有怨恨，没有报复，没有其他的想法，只是简单的，维护自己的权利。“人生而平等”，每个人都清楚的真理，但是面对AIDS，却完全不同了。因为AIDS，律师事务所非法解雇了ANDREW；因为AIDS，JOE一开始拒绝了ANDREW的案子；因为AIDS，图书馆管理人员要求ANDREW到另一
个房间查阅资料；因为AIDS，JOE代理ANDREW的案子受到了很多骚扰和耻笑„„在那个艾滋病刚刚被认识的年代，艾滋病人的平等权是那么难以实现。
在这样的背景下，JOE一开始拒绝了ANDREW的案子，似乎合情合理。因为ANDREW他得艾滋病并不像那位女士一样，是因为输血，而是同性恋发生性行为导致。同性恋不被当时大众所接受，而JOE自己也是个对同性恋有偏见的律师。JOE的回答与前边拒绝ANDREW的九名律师相同，他们似乎已经麻木，因常期处于城市烦躁独立的生活方式里而变得谨慎和小心，很难敞开心关注身边的人，亦不懂得理解彼此，距离越大隔阂越深。但是，作为一名律师，他的职业伦理和大众伦理是不同的，他自己应该深知这一点。像刘涌案，田文昌被很多大学生指责，说他以前为弱势群体做代理，现在变了，竟然为犯罪分子、坏人作辩护。当时听到这个消息时，很多同学都哭笑不得。法律人所遵循的伦理与大众所崇尚的伦理是有所区别的，法律家对待道德问题的方式也是有其独特之处的。善于关注道德问题的法理学家朗．L．富勒曾就律师的职业道德谈到这样一个问题：在一件刑事案件中，律师替一个他明知有罪的人辩护是完全妥当的。非但如此，而且律师还可以收取费用，他可以出庭替一个他明知有罪的人辩护并接受酬劳而不感到良心的谴责。富勒说： 假如被告所请的每一位律师都因为他看上去有罪而拒绝接受办理该案件，那么被告 就犹如在法庭之外被判有罪，因而得不到法律所赋给他的受到正式审判的权利。„„假如他因为认为一个诉讼委托人有罪而拒绝替他辩护，那末他便错误地侵占了法官和陪审员的职权。[1] 更何况ANDREW没有罪，他是一个工作勤奋、热爱家庭、有责任感的完美男人，他只是在维护自己的权利。无论什么人，都有权辩护，请律师代理。简单的道理，却在大众的伦理观面前变质了。在图书馆，在人性善的驱使下，JOE许久之前封闭的良知被ANDREW的坚强、坚定唤起。ANDREW获胜得到了巨额赔偿，赔偿的数额并不是ANDREW追求的，他关注的是对自己权利的维护。ANDREW在病床上笑着说：“What doyoucall a thousand lawyerschained together at the bottom of the ocean?JOE：“ What?”ANDREW：“A good start.” Joe smiles.开始我并不十分了解这个玩笑的含义，在看到第三遍时，才明白：一千个律师被捆在一起丢进海里，的确是个好的开始，律师少了，不公少了，社会不需要太多的律师来主持正义了，那么，这就是一个好的开始。ANDREW得到了公平的判决，但他希望更多的人得到公平公正。于是又回到庭审时ANDREW所说的“I think the thing I love the most, is that every once in a while, not that often, but occasionally...you get to be part of justice being done.It's really quite a thrill when that happens.”这句话也成为他运用法律武器维护自己权利的理由，不止为自己，也是为公平公正，为更多人的权利。
影片最后在
注：[1]哈罗德·伯尔曼：《美国法律讲话》，陈若桓译，三联书店1988年版，页26。
第五篇：费城故事英文影评[小编推荐]
Name: 倪天一
Class: 酒管131
Dept.: 酒店管理学院
Film Review ofPhiladelphia
Philadelphia was directed in 1993 when AIDS first became a common cause of death.It told us a story about how an AIDS patientcalled Andrew fought for his own rights with help of his lawyer Joe.Andrew Beckett was played by Tom Hanks, and Joe was played by Denzel Washington.The story happened in Philadelphia, where the United States Declaration of Independence was born.At the very beginning of the film, the director seemed to try to give us an impression of tolerance, which differed from the sad story very much.Andrew was fired for the reason he did something badly wrong during his work after one of his colleagues found that he had AIDS,.Since Andrew knew the real reason, he decided to charge against his past bosses.When Joe and Andrew first met each other, they sat side by side, arguing about a case, which looked normal and humorous.Before long Andrew asked for Joe’s aids, telling Joe that he got AIDS.When Joe heard that news, he soon kept Andrew away and went to see his doctor for checking whether he would catch HIV later.The scene showed a conflict between people with and without AIDS.We cannot blame Joe much since we could do the same thing under the same circumstances.First Joe tended to turn his back on Andrew, but he was determined to help
Andrew because of sympathy and belief in law and equality.As a man who opposed homosexuality, Joe did not understand Andrew until he attended a party for gays, seeing Andrew dancing with his partner.I think at that moment Joe suddenly understood the love between two men, which actually was the same as love between women and men.They sat together shoulder by shoulder again just like the first meet, which meant their hearts and souls became closer and closer.At the end of the film, Andrew was too ill to attend the court.Joe eventually won before Andrew died, but he could only tell him the good news right beside his sickbed.The ending was not like those of typical Hollywood films;it was not such a kind of happy ending.However, through it we can still see hope and warmth.Philadelphia was seen as a symbol that marks the first time that Hollywood has risked a big-budget film on AIDS and homosexuals.The film may attract people’s attention to AIDS, homosexuality as well as humanism.When some people tend to look down upon AIDS patients, this film may be an alarming bell.
点击咨询 