《红粉惊魂》观后感精选10篇
《红粉惊魂》是一部由Bhaskar Roy Chowdhury执导，阿米达普·巴强主演的一部剧情 / 惊悚类型的电影，文章吧小编精心整理的一些观众的观后感，希望对大家能有帮助。
《红粉惊魂》观后感(一)：巴强爷爷最后念白的那首诗
Tu Khud ki Khoj mein Nikal
tu khud ki khoj mein nikal
tu kis liye hataash hai
tu chal tere vajood ki
amay ko bhi talaash hai
(go, find yourself,
why are you despondent？
go, even time is
looking for your existence.)
jo tujh se lipTi bediyaan
amajh na inko vastra tu
ye beRiyaan pighaal ke
ana le in ko shastra tu
(the chains that cuff you,
don't think of them as your clothes.
melt these chains,
and make them your weapon.)
tu khud ki khoj mein nikal
tu kis liye hataash hai
tu chal tere vajood ki
amay ko bhi talaash hai
charitra jab pavitra hai
to kyun hai ye dasha teri
ye paapiyon ko haq nahi
ke lein pareeksha teri
(when your character is pure,
why are you in such a state？
inners don't have a right
to examine or check you.)
tu khud ki khoj mein nikal
tu kis liye hataash hai
tu chal tere vajood ki
amay ko bhi talaash hai
jalaa ke bhasm kar use
jo kroorta ka jaal hai
tu aarti ki lau nahi
tu krodh ki mashaal hai
(burn and incinerate
the web of atrocity around you.
you aren't the holy flame of worship,
ut a fire of anger.)
[mashaal = torch]
tu khud ki khoj mein nikal
tu kis liye hataash hai
tu chal tere wajood ki
amay ko bhi talaash hai
chunar uRa ke dhwaj bana
gagan bhi kampkampaayega
agar teri chunar giri
to ek bhukamp aayega
(fly your scarf like a flag,
even the sky will shake.
and if your scarf falls,
an earthquake will come.)
tu khud ki khoj mein nikal
tu kis liye hataash hai
tu chal tere wajood ki
amay ko bhi talaash hai
《红粉惊魂》观后感(二)：The not-so-pinky messages from Pink
Recently I have unfailingly surprised myself with the fact that I have so far watched 55 movies that has “India” as a tag. I know, though, that it is nothing to be surprised about when dwarfing this figure against either the sheer volume of Bollywood productivity, or the subsequent reminder that has already been seven years since the rabbit hole of this incredible country has cracked open for me.
This figure has nonetheless put me into a justifiable position to summarize my stereotypes on Indian movies. And it does not take long to come up with these words:
cheesy, “masala”, dramatic (and sometimes naively or even stupidly so), loudly, and- of course- sing and dance, sing and dance, sing and dance…
These stereotypes sometimes feel comforting to foreigners like me, because stereotypical movies are easy to follow even if you don’t understand the language. You can also start guessing the plots early on, and the movies would end up with no substantial difference from your guessing. Being easy and predictable, it also saves brainpower so that you don’t have to think much. In other words, it is a cheap and really effortless way of relaxation. An entertainment.
Insomuch as it is entertaining, it can be confusing and even frustrating. In all the Bollywood movies I’ve watched so far (perhaps with the sole exception of Slumdog Millionaire which is actually from Hollywood), India is always portrayed as spotlessly clean, without dust and no single trace of pollution. Metros or local trains are never packed. Traffic jam never a grueling pain to be confronted (fair enough: why waste the precious screen time on the seemingly endless jams？!) Suffocating crowdedness and the lack of space？ All these can be whitewashed by an idyllic hue with some simple maneuvering of colors and lights made possible by advanced filming technologies…
If even the surface of life is fabricated and brushed into such a fancy and romantic fairy-tale never-land, what portion of reality would you expect the movies to touch upon in terms of real contents？
That is where Pink, the latest Indian movie I have watched, differs. It is a precious anomaly on the Indian screens after such a long while that was brave enough to pick up and challenge against a grave social reality. It embodies a rare and respectable effort to actually make people think. And think hard, as the message delivered are way less pinky than the title would suggest.
The movie did prove itself to be different since the very beginning. No typical elements mentioned above were present. What caught the eyes was instead an intenseness that flows through the swift volatility of scenes around the girls and the boys despite the normality of neighborhood. The high-pitched, playful and sexy female singing common to most Bollywood pieces was also replaced by a low-pitch gloomy voice that preys and haunts and lingers, to create and corroborate a feeling of tragic vulnerability.
ut I also feel that the mood of the first half (before intermission) was a bit overdone that made it comparatively mediocre and even somewhat bizarre. For example, perhaps to showcase the character of a lawyer, Deepak Sehgal has worn a stern face ever since his first appearance- which, immersed in and intermingled with the creepy and nervous background music, disseminates an uneasy feeling as if Big B[rother] is watching you. This sternness was tendered only by his visits to his hospitalized wife.*
Then, when it comes to the second half, the lawyer had and charmingly held the whole stage. Yet what enriches the movie from a one-man show into the current version of depth and audacity is that other characters played their part with equal strength and excellence. Especially the lawyer from the opposite side Prashantji, who cunningly tries to underpin the three girls as sex workers by highlighting the monetary issues. Indicating the girls as such also adds another delicate yet thought-provoking dimension to the story, on which the current Indian society is perhaps yet to grow adapted so as to reflect frankly and open-mindedly. At the very least, concerns on this dimension may well be the reason why they did not resort to the police in the first place. (The police do not seem to be a trustworthy venue of justice whatsoever.)
I particularly like the last two rounds of questioning which, in my opinion, have been the climax of the entire movie. Till then, my initial boredom and cluelessness has evaporated entirely. And although I still wasn’t able to capture every detail because of the language barrier, the broader message got me completely (also thanks to the timely interpretation of my friend). Through the intense flurry of gestures, tears and expressions of the girl Falak under the increasingly overwhelming pressure from Prashantji, I had no problem sympathizing with her deep frustration and depression. Similarly, when the boy Rajveer was cornered by Deepakji’s turn, I cannot agree more with the final message: No means NO. Whether it comes from a girl, a girlfriend, a random person or a sex worker.
uch a simple message it is. Such a helpless situation that the country has been so ignorant about it, that a simple message like this needs to be delivered in as a serious and sophisticated manner as possible in order to be heard. And such a brilliant initiative the movie is taking, in conveying it in this well-elaborated and well-played story.
For those who question why the movie did not fix the character of Deepak Sehgal as a female lawyer, I was nevertheless unable to get the point. Pardon my limited knowledge about the Indian movie industry, but I failed to nominate in my mind a single actress who is as influential as the Bachchan and can thus deliver the message in an equally eloquent, cogent and powerful manner. More importantly, the charge is missing the point. It is too rigid an interpretation of feminism, women empowerment or whatever you call it. Compared with the gender of the messenger, the message itself matters much more. If anything, Big B’s playing such a decisive role in the movie is the best demonstration of “He for She” that I can think of. In the end, it is less about reversing the dominance of men with that of women. It is about creating a widespread and much-needed consensus, among men and women alike, that women are to be respected rather than abused, whose free wills are to be honored rather than violated.
If one is really picky about the movie, you can say that it is still somewhat ideal. Poor King’s College whose name was borrowed as a negative illustration that higher or more degrees does not necessarily prove one’s being educated at an expected level. However, at least in this movie, schooling abroad at prestigious universities does seem to indicate a minimum of civility, which is why the case was lucky enough to be rested in the court.
India’s harsh reality is by no means endowed with this luxurious luck. In the more common patterns frequency exposed in the media, sexual harassment, intimidation, molesting or other abusive cases were more likely to be succumbed to macabre male violence, sometimes with deadly consequences, before the court ever got the chance to be involved. Nor did the movie inquired deeper into the family background of the boys, or how their rich yet illiterate or poorly-educated mothers and “successful” yet similarly minded fathers have doted them into the irresponsive and misbehaving persons they have now become. Accordingly, it might be the case that the breadth and depth of the “mental bomb” detonated by this movie may be restricted by its very set-up.
Having said so, those minor limitations would not prevent the radiance of the movie from shining at all. Indeed, instead of routinely embracing the more revealing and tantalizingly sexual Bollywood music videos featured by excessive showoffs and consumptions of breasts and hips, it is movies like Pink, with brain and compassionate heart, which should be encouraged, warmly received and solemnly contemplated.
Finally, an outcry to Chinese filmmakers (or rather the regulators for that matter): In Korea, movies like So-won or Memories of Murder have been the brave bullets that bite directly the brutal scars of the society. Japanese movies and TV series also have the reputation of being closely connected to reality (接地气). Now even Indian screens are catching up with Pink- how or indeed when can we anticipate a change from your side？
(I later on learned from IMDB plot that Deepak Seghal suffers from bipolar disorder. If that is the case, then the big-brother-watching-you type of face does make sense. Still, background information in the first half could have been unfolded in a more succinct and elegant way.)
《红粉惊魂》观后感(三)：NO means NO
电影一开始是三男三女各自回家，然后男生如何威胁，女生如何想冷处理被激怒而报警却被反诉。法庭上一点点展开，片尾才展示了事件的真实情况，使得观众能真的以非当事人非上帝的视角去审视。
这个法庭感觉乱糟糟的不像之前看的那些欧美律政片。
控方律师集直男癌之大成。
辩方律师颇有年纪了，观念却比很多年轻人更为“年轻”。前面他为什么戴那个口罩等戏份有点奇怪。“不不是一个单词，而是一个句子。不论那个女生是妓女还是你的女友、妻子，她说不得时候，你就该停下来。”很羡慕印度能拍出这样的电影了，而不是“根据相关法律法规，该微博已被删除 ”。
站的翻译太差了，音画也有点不同步。
《红粉惊魂》观后感(四)：《女生规则》：印度男人真的比其他男人更热衷强奸吗？
2012年12月，德里一名女大学生与其男友，在回家路上搭乘了一辆黑公交，随后噩运就降临了。
公交车上的7名男子将男友殴打后，关押在驾驶室，女生则遭到了轮奸，由于激烈反抗，她还被施以暴力，罪犯甚至将异物塞入她的下体。暴行过后，两人被扔出车外。
女孩被发现时，连肠子都露在体外，送医抢救后，不治身亡。
这就是震惊世界的印度黑公交轮奸案！
lt;图片1>
随后，印度三天两头都会爆出强奸新闻，且情节恶劣，此后，这个文明古国，就被戏称为强奸帝国。
为什么印度的强奸案这么多？
有人说，是因为印度男人比其他男人更热衷强奸。别闹了，好色是男人的天性，哪里都一样。
在此，推荐一部优秀的印度新片《女生规则》，也许它能给你答案。
lt;图片2>
影片讲述的是一桩性侵事件。
三个印度女孩，在一场摇滚音乐会后，遇到三个印度男孩，经熟人介绍，共进了晚餐，本是一片祥和，但随后男孩们频频调戏女孩，直至动手动脚，一名姑娘情急下，用酒瓶砸伤了带头的男孩，混乱中，她们匆匆逃离。
事情没完。
男孩们心有不甘，不断进行骚扰、辱骂，甚至绑架，最后还将女孩们告上了法庭，理由是：故意伤人。
lt;图片3>
什么叫恶人先告状，大抵不过如此！
强奸都是女人自找的
说是故意伤人案，但原告律师，纠着姑娘们的品行做文章，用一系列确凿的“证据”，证明了她们是妓女，以下就是他的“证据”：
她们经常晚归、她们喝酒、她们进了男人的房间（其实是去借厕所）、有一个女孩有家不住，却在外面借房子、有两个女孩谈过恋爱、有一个女孩接受过前男友的经济援助......
可以想象，女孩们在法庭上，遭遇了什么。这桩伤人案，更像是一次对她们的道德审判！
lt;图片4>
以硬汉形象走红的老牌明星阿米特•巴强，以往都是用拳头来伸张正义，此次他换了身行头，改用法律来捍卫正义。
他扮演的退休律师，充满睿智，法庭上，他出人意料地顺着原告律师的思路，去盘问砸伤原告的米纳尔是不是处女，进一步证明她们品行“不良”，而就在得出让原告称心的答案时，他话锋一转，质问原告，是不是觉得这样的女孩就可以调戏，甚至强奸，最终用激将法，迫使原告承认，他就是认为她们是婊子，任何男人都会想在她们身上试试运气。
lt;图片5>
lt;图片6>
lt;图片7>
lt;图片8>
阿米特•巴强在法庭上的辩词，几乎条条是金句，尤其是所谓的好女孩规则，深刻揭示了在男权思维下，男性对女性的霸道定义，其包括两部分，一，什么样的是好女孩，二，坏女孩被强奸很合理。
这其中，唯独缺乏女性自我的意愿。
lt;图片9>
现在，知道为什么印度强奸多了吧？传统糟粕是重要原因。
这种糟粕先是给一大批女性莫名贴上坏女孩的标签，随后再将强奸坏女孩合理化，所以，不是印度男人特别喜欢强奸，而是印度男人觉得某些时候强奸是合理的，而且合理强奸的机会还挺他妈多的！
lt;图片10>
lt;图片11>
lt;图片12>
lt;图片13>
回想印度黑公交轮奸案，一些官员不停强调受害人不是处女，企图以此平息抗议性暴力的群众，而在BBC制作《印度的女儿》中，一名主犯接在采访中也明确表示，女人不该出门，她们走在路上，就像是一道道活动的菜肴，等待男性享用，就强奸来说，女人比男人的责任更大。在他看来，一个未婚就私自和男人谈恋爱，还和他晚上外出的女人被强奸，太正常了，采访结束前，他还感叹了一声，现在的好女孩越来越少了。
lt;图片14>
这不是如出一辙的逻辑么？强奸，都是女人自找的！
在结案陈词中，阿米特•巴强扮演的律师，掷地有声说了这样一句话，“我的委托人当时说‘不’......‘不’就意味着‘不’，不管那女孩是熟人、朋友、女朋友、妓女、或甚至是你的妻子。”
他无意去证明女孩们是所谓的好女孩，而只想告诉众人，即便是坏女孩，也有保护自己身体的权利！即便是坏女孩，也有拒绝和人发生关系的权利！这，是人权！强奸一个坏女孩，依旧是犯罪，这，是法律！
lt;图片15>
传统比法律更重要
常有人羡慕印度的传统文化保存的好，但却忽略了，印度为此付出的代价也是相当惨重，各种传统糟粕难以铲除，尤其是歧视女性的思想十分严重，至今在印度，还能看到童婚、寡妇殉葬、荣誉谋杀等歧视女性的习俗。
印度女人美丽、妖娆的纱丽之下，是其地位低下的残酷现状。强奸，只是这种现状的外在表现之一。
lt;图片16>
有人会问，没有法律吗？像这部电影的女生一样，用法律维护自己权益呀！
印度当然有法律，不但有，印度独立后的第一部宪法，甚至被誉为最先进的法律，但然并卵，在陈旧思想没根除的情况下，法律成了一纸空文。
片中，三个女孩第一次去报警，不但没有得到同情和重视，反被警察数落了一番：你们为毛和男人一起去喝酒呢？
lt;图片17>
这在印度是一种非常典型的现象，去年的印度影片《国道十号》中，就描写了一位维护荣誉谋杀的警察，而在阿米尔•汗的《真相访谈》节目中，一位因为没有生出男孩被丈夫殴打的女人叙述，她去法院控诉丈夫的暴行时，法官说，一个男人想要个儿子难道不正常吗？
可见，在印度执法者心中，传统远高于法律，他们更倾向于维护传统，而不是执行法律。
lt;图片18>
lt;图片19>
lt;图片20>
lt;图片21>
因而，阿米尔•汗在《真相访谈》中沉重的说道，“在印度，法律更保护的是强奸犯。”
执法不力，也是印度强奸频发的原因，因为犯罪成本实在太低了。
频发的强奸事实上证明了印度在进步
印度记录在案的强奸案件由1971年的2487起增至2011年的24206起，增长率为873.3%。男权传统在印度几千年了，为什么这几年才爆发如此多强奸案呢？
lt;图片22>
一是因为越来越多的女性走出家门，接受教育、参与工作，甚至自由恋爱，所谓的坏女人越来越多，所以合理强奸的机会也就多了。
二是因为更多女性在遭遇强奸后，敢于报案维权了，而以往可能就是打掉牙齿吞进肚子里。
以上两点，说明了为什么印度强奸案在近些年呈爆发性增长，而它们都证明了印度女性的地位在进步。
本片也正是在这种进步思想下诞生的，影片导演在接受采访时说，“我的电影是对我们在印度几乎每天都能看到的所有暴行和道德警察的回应。”
lt;图片23>
如今，《女生规则》不但被制作出来，还引起了印度社会的强烈反响，票房一路飘红，可见注重女性权益正在逐步成为印度的主流。
剧作家Ritesh Shah则表示，《女生规则》的意义“早已超越了一部电影”。
lt;图片24>
所以，虽然现实是黑暗的，但未来却是光明的，就像影片最后给出的画面一样。
——————————————————————————————————————
想看更多有关印度电影的评论，欢迎订阅公众平台“Indianmovie”。
信息福利：在印度，结婚费用以及房子、车子，都是由女方出钱的，单身的中国汉子，可以考虑前往，当地通行英语，你无需另学印度语言。