《激辩风云》的影评10篇

　　《激辩风云》是一部由丹泽尔·华盛顿执导，丹泽尔·华盛顿 / 内特·派克 / 朱尼·斯莫利特主演的一部传记 / 剧情类型的电影，文章吧小编精心整理的一些观众的影评，希望对大家能有帮助。

　　《激辩风云》影评(一)：像成人一样的思考

今天是元宵节前夕。大街上人头攒动，我看着那些欢乐的人群，回想起刚看的这部片子，一个群体为了不平等所付出的代价，是何等强烈的对比。
为了民族的自由和平等，可以忍受屈辱，若心中没有对道德的定义，我想这是很难办到的一件事。
在我爱看的美国励志片中，我有一个发现，有大部分元素是类似的，比如直接、真诚的对话，师生间或是与长辈；对追求真理的自由和渴望，以及对道德的持守。
原来是因为长辈们的宽容。他们给小孩子足够的时间和自由去成长，去探索，当他们是小孩子的时候，像小孩子一样说话，像小孩子一样理解，像小孩子一样思考，但当他们长成一个大人，他们就丢掉所有幼稚的行为。于是，当他们长大了，他们能理解一个小孩子会做什么说什么，给予宽容和接受。
反观我本人以及我周围的小孩看得出，因为大家都不会当小孩，所以也可能一辈子都是小孩子。任性，索取，骄傲。代代在延续，有些甚至带到对子女的教育中。
我也在这样的环境中成长，身上也留了这些印记。我以为紧紧包裹是保护自我，其实是受了辖制。
我所向往的那种自由，是可以像一个成人一样理解和思考。有信念，接受苦难，帮助他人，持守道德的标准

　　《激辩风云》影评(二)：The Power of Debate

    Fantastic! This was the first black movie I have ever seen indeed and as the story went on, I was impressed deeply by the ongoing debates.
This was a true story of Professor Melvin B. Tolson, who formed a debate team at a small African-American college (Wiley College) in rural Texas in the 1930's and made his team overcome obstacles to achieve the ultimate goal in spite of the racial barriers that affective them. Denzel Washington not only directs that masterpiece of entertainment but also stars as the professor who teaches his students the tools to succeed. This movie has Oscar written all over it and seeing two of the greatest actors of our time (Denzel Washington and Forest Whitaker, both Oscar winners) together in one astounding picture that ranks as one of the best of 2007.
    What’s the meaning of debate？ What’s the power of words？ Certainly, words are not a powerful army; they are sometimes pale in front of the reality. Just like the four black debaters in the movie, they are able to put thoughts and feelings into clear speech. However, when they are facing a gang of mobs brutally burned their compatriot, they can’t even dare to look at it but only lie there and do noting. Maybe at that time they are also wondering what the meaning of the success of the debate is.
    Everything about the query of the words and debates has been placed in the last wonderful debate – “Civil disobedience is a moral weapon in the fight for justice.” In another word, when facing the injustice, we should choose whether words or weapons. The most brilliant part is definitely the Mr. James Farmer’s last debate and there comes my favorite sentences – “St. Augustine said, ‘An unjust law is no law at all,’ which means I have a right, even a duty, to resist with violence or civil disobedience. You should pray I choose the latter.”
    The final result is obvious from the beginning. The Wiley College won the debate historically. However, what surprises me most is the change of the debaters in the following years. Just seven years later, James founded the Congress of Racial Equality and became the greatest man in the civil rights movement before Martin Luther King. Samantha Booke became a famous lawyer fighting for the African-American Civil Rights. In 1961, the Congress of Racial Equality organized a Freedom Rider Movement to oppose the apartheid on the bus and James and Samantha with White volunteers took the first Freedom Ride to Alabama.
    The debate changed their life and then they changed the society somehow. That’s the real power of debate. We should form the habit of public speaking and then people learn to reject with tongues but not weapons.

　　《激辩风云》影评(三)：优秀的作品，无尽的力量

一个强大的国家，应该允许自己的子民发表任何自由的言论。政府可以听取，可以接受与不接受，但是不能打压民众，不能射杀民众。
美国，总统总是拿自己来开玩笑。而民众，也可以拿政府来开玩笑。在中国，哪一个敢。！！！
辩论，是为比赛，比谁的道理更能说服人，谁的思路更清晰，谁的判断更准确。我相信，如果在中国，如果来个辩论会，那么，说着说着就急了，然后就开始骂。“C你妈的，傻13”这种话就出来了，再然后，直接抄椅子干。再就没有然后了，就溅一脸血了。
“谁是你的裁判”，“是上帝”
“为什么是上帝”，“因为只有上帝才可以判罚我的输赢，而不是我的对手”
“那你的对手是谁”，“他是不存在的”
“为什么不存在”，“因为他只是我讲述真理反对的一个声音”
托尔森先生，在湖边，反复让四个孩子说出的话，重重的敲击每个人。
一个民族一个国家，是需要信仰的。说为什么欧美国家教堂建的好，因为那里面装着他们的信仰。而日本为什么学校建的好，因为那里面有他们的知识。而中国什么建的好，政府大楼建的棒，可见，不用我说出原因了。
一场辩论比赛，可以直播的，广播电视都能看到。而在我们的祖国呢，谁会去关心这样的比赛，谁又能让媒体，电影人说出真话。中国电影没有分级，所以他说无人区不能上就不能上，说苹果色戒不能上就不能上。更不用说颐和园这种了。而更深的，韩国的熔炉和素媛这类题材，哪里没有。不可能让你拍的。
如果，民众都不可以说真话，而媒体只能天天假大空，那么，还有什么希望。我想，每个人都希望生活的幸福，都希望独立自主。谁来睁眼看看那些山里的孩子，谁来看看他们有没有书，有没有老师，谁来看看他们有没有鞋，他们要爬多少里的山路，就是为了上学。
不怪崇洋媚外，不怪有钱人都移民。也许依据这个电影，我扯远了。但是，我想说。“请救救孩子吧”！！！

　　《激辩风云》影评(四)：种族歧视·民主·法律

在百度上搜索《激辩风云》的时候，看到封面的图片是两张黑人的剪影，对于电影的主题便有了几分猜测——种族歧视罢。但是随着剧情的深入，我慢慢发觉这部电影如同它的别名《伟大的辩论者》一般是部伟大的电影。它不落窠臼。由种族歧视的话题探讨，从而表达着对民主，对法制的思考。到底什么是法律，法律究竟是审判庭上的裁判还是仅仅是所谓实现制裁者意愿的工具。到底什么是民主，多数人的民主究竟是真正的民主还是民主外衣的多数人的独裁。怎样的民主与法制才能真正实现公正平等呢？ 故事是从一个教授的信念开始的。这是一段早于马丁路德金的故事。那时候的黑人还在为生而应有的平等挣扎。 上世纪三十年代，在种族歧视问题极其严重的德州，一所黑人大学--威利大学，一位共和党的地下党员（实际上他也领导了许多次秘密聚会，这连他的家人都不知道）也是学校的受人尊重的教授，辩论队的指导老师Mel Tolson，是黑人社区中那种为数不多一直接受着成功的人，他的积极与努力，也是他从教的威利大学的一种象征，既才华横溢，同时又有那么点难以捉摸。新学期来临之际，Tolson教授替辩论队做下了两个重大的决定，一是将端庄谨慎的Samantha Booke招入进来--她是学校辩论队中的第一位女性成员，二是擅自做主招了两个新队员，才华横溢的小伙子Henry Lowe和老实厚道的14岁便考上大学的James Farmer, Jr.，这两个人加入辩论队的目的都有点不纯，除了想在辩论中崭露头角，更为了吸引Samantha的注意。Tolson教授的到来，首先让辩论队意识到的是犀利的语言的强大，而他的目标也非常宏伟，那就是帮助这群来自于社会最底层、备受压迫的黑人学生，有朝一日能够迈向集中了历史上最杰出的精英的国际辩论讲台。Tolson教授算是一个人物，但他的行为却多多少少有一些争议，因为他那非传统、极度强大的教学方式，还有非常激进的政治观点，所以他一直以来，都是被所有人炮轰的对象。 ~ 1 / 5 ~ 这也适用于辩论队的教学，Tolson教授用具有个人强烈风格的方式对他们进行着严格的训练，那种高强度，与士兵突击里的训练几乎无异，当叛逆的亨利挑衅似地问Tolson教授，他们为什么要听他的指挥时，Tolson教授表示，弱者就应该受到强者的压迫，想不受到压迫，就把自己变成真正的强者。其深意在于，通过参加辩论对决，激发出每一位队员自己内心深处对“平等”的渴望。 在他们一同奋斗努力朝向目标进发之际，Tolson教授被列入了黑名单，许多之前接受邀请的大学取消了和威利大学的辩论赛，在这种时候，赢得Fisk大学和Howard大学就意味着可能赢得与哈佛大学辩论的机会，而机会，只在一线之间。 前往Howard大学的途中，四个人目睹了黑奴被焚烧，被白人凌辱的事件，他们却被迫躲在车里，把头塞在座位底下，狼狈苟且地逃脱现场，每个人都不能忍受这种侮辱，每个人都不能上前斗争。忍无可忍之下，Henry退出了比赛，大家也由于不敌Howard大学而战败。 万念俱灰之时，一个难得的良机却降临，他们收到了哈佛大学冠军辩论队的比赛邀请--大家欣喜若狂。 等到众人到达加州，到达剑桥的时候，哈佛大学却临时改变了题目，“消极抵抗是否是维护公正的道德武器”，威利大学是正方。 在辩论的过程中，哈佛大学不止一次地指出，在严明的秩序面前，在法律面前，主动出击，才能争取到生命与道德的全胜，他们指出，牺牲生命并不重要，重要的是顽强抗争之后的权利，如果消极抵抗的话，损失将是惨重的，消极抵抗并不是因为它不暴力而道德，为了国家全力以赴，才是最大的道德，因为这要求了全体在最高程度上的牺牲，而消极抵抗的道德是无政府主义的伪装。 Samantha说：甘地相信一个人面对对手时要永远带着爱和敬意，犯罪的人必须接受刑法，这并不是无政府主义，并且来源于美国民主的思想，哈佛毕业的卢梭。 哈佛大学又提出：卢梭认为每一个确定自己比别人正确的人都会代表大多数人的观点，但是这是理想化的，民主并不是这样，真正民主是无论什么时候，一个通过大多数人同意的观点才能获得采纳。

　　《激辩风云》影评(五)：激愤的话语

- Who is the judge？
谁是裁判？
- The judge is God.
裁判是上帝
- Why is he God？
为什么是上帝？
- Because he decides who wins or loses not my opponent.
因为他决定谁胜利，谁失败，而不是我的对手
- Who is your opponent？
谁是你的对手？
- He doesn't exist.
他不存在
- Why does he not exist？
为什么他不存在？
-Because he is a mute distant voice the truth that I speak.
因为它不过是反对我所说真理的声音
- Speak the truth!
只说真理
- Speak the truth!
只说真理

　　《激辩风云》影评(六)：典型美式教育-不管白人还是黑人

在这部电影里，其实我最关注的是青年人的成长，尤其是在面对严重的种族歧视时、在困难的社会环境下，黑人青年怎样有尊严、有思想地活着。我想这也是这部电影的主题并且是导演企图向我们展示的理念。
首先，不论是什么肤色的年轻人，关于他们的教育，是具有普适性的。在电影中我认为有不少对我有启发意义的话语。其中Dr. James Farmer Sr.在片头有这样一段话“When I was a child, I spoke as a child. I understood as a child. I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away all childish things.”所以当Farmer一家开车出行不小心撞死白人农夫的一头猪时，白人要求他们赔偿远远高于猪的价值的25美元时，小James义愤填膺，而老James却为保护全家答应了他们的众多无理要求。小James对父亲的行为感到不解并未他们的遭遇感到屈辱，为此他耿耿于怀。然而若不是因为老James的委曲求全，或许Farmer一家就要命丧白人的枪眼之下了。当Mel Tolson被警局拘留后，老James运用强大的证据和自己渊博的知识将Mel Tolson保释出来的时候，小James明白了父亲所谓的man和child的区别并深深地为父亲所折服。
在片中还有一段感人至深的片段，Mr. Tolson让四名辩论队队员口含坚果大声说出了一段话：Who's the judge？ The judge is God. Why is he God？ Because he decides who wins or loses, not my opponent. Who is your opponent？ He doesn't exist. Why does he not exist？ He's merely a dissenting voice to the truth I speak.他坐在小舟中，让学生在河岸上大声背诵，小舟越来越远，学生的声音必须越来越大。这不仅仅是训练学生的嘴上功夫，更是告诉他们真理就要大声的大胆的喊出来！诸多的内容我认为不仅仅是针对于黑人，所有的年轻人都应当学会像大人一样思考，学会坚守真理。
其次，对被歧视的黑人青年，要教会他们怎样面对这些不平等甚至是残暴的待遇，要教会他们怎样去维护作为个人和种族一员的尊严并勇于争取属于他们的权利。The team saw a man strung up by his neck and set on fire in the night. They drove through a lynch mob, pressed their faces against the floorboard. We saw the fear in their eyes... and worse... the shame. 残酷的现实让这些刚刚尝到胜利果实的年轻人为之震撼，不平等一如既往地存在。他们发出呐喊“What was this Negro's crime that he should be hung, without trial, in a dark forest filled with fog？ Was he a thief？ Was he a killer？ Or just a Negro？” Dr. James Farmer Sr.还说了这样一句话：We do what we have to do, so we could do what want to do.所以沉默地忍受屈辱是他们不得不做的，而他们也定会在沉默后爆发，做他们想做的，the time for justice, the time for freedom, and the time for equality is always, is always, right now! 当他们战胜哈佛大学队举起了胜利的奖杯时，我们看到的已经不仅仅是一场比赛的胜利，甚至不是黑人的自我突破，更是黑人走向独立自由和平等的希望！

　　《激辩风云》影评(七)：最后与哈佛的精彩辩论 - The Great Debaters EVER (严重剧透，不喜误入！）

The Great Debaters EVER
  只是刚刚看完 《the great debaters》
  因为 Denzel Washington而去看，最后却为电影中一场场的辩陈词所倾倒
  无话可说 这无疑是部很棒的电影 让我无法忘记
  来来回回地把最后一场和哈佛的辩论听写下来
  多么铿锵有力的文字 我真的很崇拜写出这些文字的人 在他们的内心 必定有更加强大 以至于改变世界的力量
Resolved:
Civil disobedience is a moral weapon in the fight for justice. But how can disobedience ever be moral？ Well, i guess depends on one's definition of the word. In 1919, in India, 10000 people gathered in Amritsarto protest the tyranny of British rule. ( 有借鉴wiki，历史太差，诶—）General Reginald Dyer (对英文人名的反映度还是迟钝...） trapped them in a count yard and order his troops to fire into the crowed for ten minutes. 379 died. Men, women, children. Shot down in cold blood. Dyer said he had taught them a moral lesson. Gandhi and his followers responded not with violence but with an organized campaign of non-cooperation. Government buildings were occupied. Streets were blocked with people who refused to rise, even when beaten by police. Gandhi was arrested. But the British were soon forced to release him. He called it a moral victory.(电影里，海默父亲解救了Mel，同样的）
The definition of moral:
Dyer's lesson or Gandhi's Victory？
You choose.
Applause:
From 1914 to 1918, for every single minute, the world was at war.
Four men laid down their lives (没有懂这句话什么意思...), Just think of it. 240 brave young men were hurled into eternity, every hour of every day, of every night. (诶，知道他一直说240是在强调伤亡人数的庞大...但是， 你懂得，主角光环，就算对手是哈佛...) XXXX 这段我跳过去了，大概就是在讲人死的很多，在这期间. Here was a slaughter, immeasurable greater than what happened at Amritsar. Can there be anything moral about it？ Nothing...Except that it stopped Germany from enslaving all of Europe. Civil disobedience isn't moral because it's non-violent. Fighting for your country with violence, can be deeply moral, demanding the greatest sacrifice of all; life itself. Non-violence is the mask civil disobedience wears to conceal its true face... anarchy.
Gandhi believes one must always act with love and respect for one's opponents. even of they are Harvard debaters. Gandhi also believes that law breakers must accept the legal consequences for their actions. Does that sound like anarchy？ Civil disobedience is not something for us to fear. It is ,after all, an American concept. You see, Gandhi draws his inspiration not from a Hindu ｓｃｒｉｐｔure. But from Henry David Thoreau, who i believe graduated from Harvard and lived by a pond not too far from here.
My opponent is right about one thing. Thoreau was a Harvard grad, and, like many of us, a bit self-righteous. He once said, "any man more right tan his neighbors constitutes a majority of one."(也不太懂，梭罗先生果然有深度...) Thoreau the idealist could never know that Adolf Hitler would agree with his words.
The beauty and the burden of democracy is this: No idea prevails without the support of the majority. The people decide the moral issues of the day, not a majority of one.
Majorities do nit decide what is right or wrong. Your conscience does.So why should a citizen surrender his or her conscience to a legislator？ No, we must never, ever kneel down before the tyranny of a majority.
Applause:
We can not decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. If we could i'd never stop for a red light. My father is one of those men that stands between us and chaos: A police officer. I remember the day his partner, his best friend, was gunned down in the line of duty. Most vividly of all, I remember the expression on my dad'a face. Nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral, no matter what name we give it. （当哈佛辩手说这句话的时候，他的鼻孔都微张了，真的用了真感情，我有被他说服到，特别是最后一句话，不过，前提是，所谓的法律，是公正的。）
亮点来了！！！可爱的=-= 海默二世停顿了小久，小眼睛咕噜咕噜地左右瞧座位上的听着。我等待着他的一语惊人。
In Texas... they lynch Negroes. My teammates and I saw a man strung up by his neck and set on fire. We drove through a lynch mob, pressed our faces against the floorboard. I looked at my teammates, i saw the fear in their eyes...and worse, the shame. What was this Negro's crime that he should be hung, without trial, in a dark forest filled with fog？ Was he a thief, was he a killer？ Or just a Negro？ Was he a sharecropper？ A preacher？ Were his children waiting up for him？ And who are we to just lie there and do nothing？ No matter what he did, the mob was the criminal. But the aw did nothing, just left us wondering why. My opponent says, nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral. But there is no rule of law in the Jim Crow South, （这地方是神马———）not when Negroes are denied housing, turned away from schools, hospitals and not when we are lynched. St. Augustine said, "An unjust law is no law at all," (这句经典！！！足足反驳哈佛辩手的 鼻孔微张时说的那句！！也是他老爹之前说过的话！！—）which means I have a right, even a duty, to resist with violence or civil dis0bedience. You should pray i choose the latter.
BRAVO!!!!
我打的好累...
勿喷！
敬礼~

　　《激辩风云》影评(八)：25美元的猪

        小詹姆斯·法默在哈佛演讲的最后总结陈词，我哭了！当在场的所有人们站起来，当掌声响彻整个礼堂时候，我看到了黑人民族解放的光芒，看到黑人地位在不断提高。
     的确，判断输赢的不是法官，是正义。
     黑人们的自我权利意识在不断的提升、民族不断的觉醒。他们用辩论唤醒了名族意识的觉醒，为黑人解放出了一份力。若中国也能在辩论方面为社会问题做贡献才能发挥语言和舆论应有的作用吧！
     印象最深刻的除了被人们捆起来活活烧死的黑人那个片段，还有就是25美元的猪让我难以忘怀。
    为小詹姆斯的父亲教育方式而感动。他们经过一白人庄园的家门时为不小心撞死的猪而被迫赔偿25美元，这25美元的猪在我脑中挥之不去。或许你能说我是在同情弱者，但我认为触动我心灵的是父亲作为一家之主为家庭完整所做的牺牲：低头，服从，都源于2个词：责任和担当！。同时我仿佛也能感受到被歧视的痛苦，试问，白人也有自己的家庭，动不动就拿枪能解决问题吗？无非是多了几个分裂的家庭。这让我又想到现在中国同日本的钓鱼岛问题和矛盾。以及日本和中国曾经遗留的历史矛盾和问题。日本很重视家庭和亲情，那为什么不推己及人想想别的国家的家庭呢？（不好意思跑题了有点）
    无奈，真的是只有你的民族崛起了，才有说话的权利，才有权利被重视、被尊重。庆幸现在的美国总统是黑人奥巴马，黑人的奋斗和崛起得到了实质性的证实。
    辩论，能唤起民族觉醒和民族地位的提升；辩论，能让奥巴马当上总统。什么时候，辩论，在中国也能起到这样的作用呢？

　　《激辩风云》影评(九)：台词的魅力

(2009.10.12) 感觉最后和哈佛的那场决战作为最重要的的一场似乎还是显得过于短促而不过瘾。一些台词很有味道，激辩的力量或许就是在于能启发人的多少。
Who is the judge？
The judge is God.
Why is he God？
Because he decides who wins or loses. Not my opponeent.
Who is your opponent？
He does not exist.
Why does he not exist？
Because he is a mere dissenting voice of the truth I speak!
在奥巴马上台后的今天再看这部片子似乎更是验证了这段真理。

　　《激辩风云》影评(十)：You should pray that I choose the latter.

这是继《批评官员的尺度》之后最令我印象深刻的关于美国种族歧视的作品，毫无疑问它的视觉冲击加了分。本身这个片子其实大概只能让我给4星，但是最后那一段"You should pray that I choose the latter"是真的震撼到我了。因为它，我能想象当初美国南北战争乃至直到二十世纪八十年代那段美国黑人的惨痛历史。仿佛一切的残忍都能追溯于此再以千丝万缕的姿态铺开延展，他们不是因为动情的辩论才得以揭橥，而正是因为真的就有这么残忍所以能够打动人心。说了这么多年的自由、民主和平等，那么圣洁崇高毕竟天赋人权，其实“天赋”需要多少鲜血热血才能换来呢。每一分鄙夷的眼神与每一声愤怒的咆哮交织在一起，酒水和情爱都无法使之褪尽，那是一种原始的呼唤，就像是《勇敢的心》华莱士死前那句"Freedom!"一样。那是一种真正让人一次就铭记于心的东西。