《诗人与他的情人》是一部由Brian Gilbert执导，米兰达·理查森 / 威廉·达福 / 罗斯玛丽·哈里斯主演的一部传记 / 剧情 / 爱情类型的电影，特精心从网络上整理的一些观众的影评，希望对大家能有帮助。

　　《诗人与他的情人》影评(一)：疯癫和爱情

　　用福柯的话说： 疯癫在各个方面都使人们迷恋。它所产生的怪异图像不是那种转瞬即逝的事物表面的现象。那种从最奇特谵妄状态所产生的东西，就像一个秘密，一个无法接近的真理，早已隐藏在地表下面。这是从艺术的角度，而在最世俗的生活，就只会产生灾难。

　　老太太叠女儿衣服的时候和tom说的这段话，很喜欢：“这些底层的人就是英式生活的中心，把八卦变成艺术，写着关于朋友们的恶俗小说，这难道不是成就吗？黑格伍德家的人已经被埋葬了，远在阿尔伯塔和尼泊尔的地方，地方法官教堂看守，真是一点都不时尚”。从tom第一次去Viv家看，以为这家人是非常世俗的，这段话说的非常高贵。

　　《诗人与他的情人》影评(二)：短译名好些

　　有几段台词令人叫绝。抢凳子的游戏后两人大吵一架，汤姆说我们作弊了，维芙指责汤姆不过想配合大伙儿高兴，意想不到的小口角都是戏，整部电影两人根本的矛盾都在于此，维芙是更富幻想、更天真的一个，某种角度上说甚至更像一个诗人。

　　老太太和汤姆的对话放在结尾，原来维芙的气质也是她一家人的气质，远离谣言和俗子，高贵沉静，她的父母是那种你没法挖苦的人。

　　很有趣的一个人物是莫尔斯。他是维芙的兄弟，更像弟弟的角色，最后与汤姆一起做了决定。汤姆与他最亲近，同维芙和母亲相比，他们依然是没有长大的男孩子，比单纯世俗，比世俗单纯。

　　然而片段的诗作和圣歌并不足以揭示多么深刻的内心世界，或许“诗人”的头衔更有用吧。单就剧本来说，维芙的形象渲染太过，汤姆到了后半段简直判若两人了。

　　怀疑编剧是否有女权倾向，维芙的过去是她直接的病因，她的世界只有汤姆，母亲无法为女儿争取。

　　《诗人与他的情人》影评(三)：浪漫凄惨的爱情故事

　　Vivan深爱着Tom，用青春的激情和才华激发Tom撰写出大量的诗歌，帮助Tom走向成功的顶峰，用家庭的资源和继承的遗产支持Tom，让Tom慢慢走向财务自由，名利双收。当然Tom也因为神经质的疾病经常陷于尴尬和痛苦。

　　Tom在逐渐成名和富裕后，慢慢无法忍受神经质的Vivan，不得不把她送进神经病院监管。自己则远遁美国，追求自己的成功人生。且十余年从未再回英国探视被监管在神经病院的Vivian一次。

　　真实的T.S.Eliet和他的这位恋人的关系是啥样的，不得而知。但这个剧本把 T.S.Eliet写成了英格兰版本的陈世美。

　　即便身陷神经病院十余年，这个痴女人还是念念不忘远去的诗人背影和他所爱的巧克力，痴痴地听他的诗歌，并做好巧克力点心托弟弟带给喜欢巧克力的爱略特。而那个用她自己继承的遗产把她送进精神病医院监护的诗人爱略特却在故友提及他曾经爱过的前妻的时候，冷漠的脸上毫无表情，漠不关心。

　　艺术家的爱是风中飘落的树叶，起舞的时候随风飘荡，浪漫华丽。落下的时候，仓惶凌乱，结局凄惨。如果你注重爱的过程，那美丽的爱情始终值得回味。如果你注重爱的结果，那凄惨的结局会让你遗憾终生。

　　《诗人与他的情人》影评(四)：一对痛苦的夫妻

　　维维和汤姆的婚姻应该持续了23年，这不是一段很短的时光，影片比较侧重从维维的角度讲述这样一对夫妻劳燕分飞的故事。至于事实如何，恐怕除了上个世纪这对夫妻之外谁也不知道。

　　比起诗人汤姆，妻子维维更像是诗人，维维活泼可爱，无拘无束，像一个自由的精灵，二人一见倾心，美好的爱情故事往往都是从此开始的。汤姆在了解维维有精神错乱的毛病后仍然愿意照顾她，维维也一心要嫁给汤姆，二人之间可谓情深，汤姆对维维说，她存在于她诗中的字里行间。

…… 此处隐藏2991字 ……

　　《诗人与他的情人》影评(八)：转载-TIMES

　　“AT SOME point in their marriage Tom Eliot went mad and promptly certified his wife.”

　　That’s what Edith Sitwell said to Michael Hastings before he wrote this absorbing, moving play in 1984, and, if Tom and Viv is to believed, she had a point. Eliot’s first wife was mischievous, erratic and sometimes pretty peculiar. But was T. S., who had vowed undying love for her, justified in so utterly abandoning a woman who could claim to be his muse, or at least his Dark Lady？

　　ut then, as Hastings concedes in his intro to the text, Tom and Viv isn’t wholly to be believed. The play belongs to that increasingly popular but deeply questionable genre, speculative biography, or “faction”.

　　Yet Lindsay Posner’s revival offers more than fake-historical frisson. With Will Keen effectively charting Eliot’s progress from shy, naive graduate to exhausted husband and guilt-ridden poet, and Frances O’Connor at her best as the doomed Vivienne Haigh-Wood, it’s undoubtedly strong theatre.

　　Much of the play is funnygoing-on-hilarious. No wonder that’s the case when the insecure young American, blinded by the spurious glamour of Europe’s upper-middle class, escapes from his origins into the decent but unpoetic world of the Haigh-Woods: Benjamin Whitrow as the dry, wry paterfamilias, Anna Carteret exuding seigneurial hauteur as his wife, Robert Portal as their genially Wodehousean son. They’re all excellent, and O’Connor superlative as a Viv who radiates a wicked, glittering charm at the start and deepens as the evening proceeds.

　　erhaps she lacks the sense of danger that Julie Covington brought to the role 22 years ago. But then Hastings’s point is largely that to diagnose her condition as “morally insane”, as one eminent doctor did, is like accusing Peter Pan of paedophilia. Her sin was to push too far the games, whoopee cushions and all, in which she and Tom indulged. Perhaps she shouldn’t have poured melted chocolate through Faber and Faber’s door or terrorised Virginia Woolf and Ottoline Morell with a joke knife — but then again, perhaps she should.

　　Anyway, O’Connor sees her as a wayward child, unaware of her own excesses and baffled past the point of desperation by other people’s starchy reactions to her. In extremis, she’s like some injured animal at bay and, at the end, touchingly dignified as she defends her husband to a sceptical psychiatrist. Meanwhile, Keen’s Tom, always a bit of a stick, becomes more confident and colder while retaining the sense of pain and defeat that infiltrated his verse. But can we accept the implied conclusion, which is that she made him while he unmade her？ Not really.