《欲海情魔》是一部由迈克尔·柯蒂斯执导，琼·克劳馥 / 杰克·卡森 / 扎查瑞·斯考特主演的一部剧情 / 黑色电影 / 悬疑 / 爱情类型的电影，特精心从网络上整理的一些观众的观后感，希望对大家能有帮助。

　　《欲海情魔》观后感(一)：珍惜人生远离傻逼吧

　　居然买餐馆的时候居然还没离婚。。。真你妈逼了。。这他妈就是一个超级傻逼女人嫁给一个傻逼男人生了个畜生女儿又认识一个对她很好的男人。。。在那个傻逼男人走掉之后这个超级傻逼女人不要对她很好的男人却要一个表面渣逼的禽兽男人搞在一起。。。结果畜生女儿和禽兽男人搞奸情。。。。最后畜生女儿击毙禽兽进笼子。。。这故事真你妈精彩啊。。。何必呢弄出这么无语的故事。。。女主角真的是一错再错。。。。而且是在有很好的选择的情况下。。。。。珍惜人生远离傻逼吧

　　《欲海情魔》观后感(二)：反千人一面

　　支持永远给美女挣脸的克劳馥！看到她的表演Gardner应该跳楼去。克劳馥的表演让我有一种很奇异的感觉。我一直认为，只有很少的演员能演出好几种不同的感觉，——再伟大的演员，无论演什么，一个表情一个皱眉一举手一转身，总有他自己的气质。有"千人一面"的悲剧。而克劳馥让我惊奇的原因是，她四十岁以后的角色里表现的软弱、无奈、真诚、脆弱，和她二三十时的骄横拔扈、强势、美艳、咄咄逼人，全都真实得让人觉得她一辈子都是这样的性格和气质。除了一样的脸，仿佛是两个人。除此之外，这部影片带给我的沉重感和对没落贵族的寄生生活的抨击就不多说了。

　　《欲海情魔》观后感(三)：情節劇典范

　　如何拍一部J.Cain的小說，我覺得Curtiz比Wilder更成功。Curtiz善于處理人物的道德困境，進退維谷是他拿手的場景。而J.Cain并不是一個真正意義上的硬漢派，無論是雙重保險、郵差總按兩次鈴還是欲海情魔，都不怎么硬漢。盡管，都是以殺人的故事線索，但是重點并不在于找出真兇，而在于悲劇的來由。

　　所以說，J.Cain的戲其實更適合交給情節劇能手拍，像Curtiz、Sirk都是個中好手。他們很細膩，善于表現人物感情沖突，而他們對編劇顯然不會像Wilder那么在行，兩種路數。這戲交給Wilder的話，Crawford不會得影后，但C.Turney和R.MacDougall有機會拿最佳編劇。

　　《欲海情魔》观后感(四)：这个电影名字起得有点色，其实是很严肃的家庭生活伦理片

　　老电影的魅力在于故事和演员，那时没有高科技的装备，很多电影都在是摄影棚里完成的。但从演员化装、发型、服装、家装布置等都一丝不苟，另外就是紧凑的情节与现实相呼应的人生思考。琼·克劳馥凭借本片获奥斯卡影后，我只是觉得我们翻译的片名有点色，但也有道理欲望之海、母爱之情深入魔。影片描写一个自强不息的女性，丈夫斥其溺爱女儿，不顾家庭实力满足女儿的物质需求，与丈夫争执而闹分居，独自养育二个女儿，为了生存去应聘餐馆服务员，后在其追求者的帮助下，与一贵族通过买下他的房子经营餐馆，后发财致富的经历，其间小女儿病故，使母亲对大女儿的爱无以复加，为了女儿的虚荣心，女儿不感恩母亲所做的一切，反而一直看不起母亲通过勤劳致富的事，指其浑身散发着油烟味，希望过上贵族般体面优雅的生活，逼得母亲嫁给那个贵族花花公子，最终酿成悲剧，是女儿的责任吗？其实根子还在母亲的教育上，和父亲的放任不管。这部电影到现在还有其教育的价值。

　　《欲海情魔》观后感(五)：乱纹中依稀的自画像——记琼克劳馥《欲海情魔》

　　无关交织的浓情密爱，无关风流委婉的华丽篇章，只有缀幽孤鸿的噙冷栖榕，只有父母心的灵犀与谆谆的告诫。浪漫主义教会吾们将人性的情意综放逐，而保守主义的至德则要求吾们悔恨欲海情魔的意态情衷。

…… 此处隐藏5743字 ……

　　Veda Ann Borg

　　Rating: 6.9/10

　　Joan Crawford’s Oscar-crowning star vehicle, directed by Michael Curtiz, the Oscar-winner from CASABLANCA (1942), based on a novel from James M. Cain and centers on the checkered life of our titular heroine, a twice-married woman, a mother of two, an entrepreneur starts her restaurant business ex nihilo.

　　Ostensibly begins with a murder in the witching hour, the last word of the victim Monte Beragon (Scott), whom we later would know is Mildred’s second husband, is an exclamatory “Mildred!”, together with Mildred’s suicidal impulse and sequentially tries to frame Wally Fay (Carson), an old friend (who persistently makes romantic advances to her, twice a week), as the killer, handily inscribes Mildred’s name on the offender’s seat in viewer’s mind, then during the police interrogation, the narrative’s main constituents are big chunks of flashback told entirely and chronically through Mildred’s angle, not unlike Billy Wilder’s DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944), Cain’s hard-boiled femme-fatale tall-tale.

　　Technically speaking, leaving out the murder scene (under the shades of striking chiaroscuro and atmospheric suspense), this film has barely any chromosome of film-noir in its vein and Mildred, is anything but a femme-fatale, what’s on offering is, firstly, a spirited story of a modern woman’s liberation from her domestic stereotype, following by a harrowing melodrama. Mildred is a tough gal, when she first husband Bert Pierce (Bennett) has an affair and loses his job, she has no hesitation to pull the plug of their marriage and takes it on herself to raising their two daughters Veda (Blyth) and Kay (Marlowe), starting from a menial job as a waitress. But, Mildred has her Achille’s heel, it is Veda, who is coddled by her unconditionally, which also causes the rift of her first marriage (and second as well), a rather discontent flavour in hindsight, is that we don’t get the motivation behind her indulgence of Veda from the word go other than her own characteristic foibles (which is further facilitated by mawkishly taking Kay out of the entire picture, pneumonia fails to take the bad seed), which insinuates that Mildred is awfully bad at being a mother, now one can see the picture: a woman can actively seek divorce, independence and become the bread-maker for her children, she also can have a successful career (however convenient the process seems according to the film), but she cannot have everything, she must has her clay of feet, and that falls upon to another woman, her young, angel-faced teenage daughter portrayed as a petulant, callous, stuck-up ingrate, whose utter resentment towards her mother also leaves no elucidation, thus, the only rationale is she is pure evil. That’s why it is very difficult to overlook its misogynous undertow in today’s view, a curse Mildred eventually breaks at the end but the sadistic approach is artistically unsavory, a sideline depiction of Eve Arden’s sharp-tongued Ida, a woman man intends to ignore because of her lack in sex appeal also comes off as a flea in the ear.

　　Of course, men aren’t better in every aspect in Cain’s cynical conception, wily and lecherous as Wally, decadent and obnoxious as Monte, prim and inadequate as Burt, on different scales, they are scourges of Mildred’s fix too, but some gets the comeuppance, some just doesn’t. Ms. Crawford gives a genuinely pulsating performance notwithstanding, even errs on the side of operatics, but the fine-line between good and great for an actress of her status is that, in the end of the day, she cannot afford to completely de-glamorize herself for the sake of her character, Mildred doesn’t need to be sexed up or gussied up, she is overall, a more head-headed type, but Ms. Crawford needs that, at the age of 39, she needs to reinforce her glamour not just by her acting bent, but her usual objectified sexual allure as well, which according to my lights, her own vanity and insecurity curtails the virtuosity of a well-rendered characterisation.

　　lyth and Arden are both Oscar-nominated, the former banks on a meaty role reek of insidious perverseness and the latter is a rapier-like wise-cracker, only Mildred never listens to her. Zachary Scott, on the other hand, combines a scintillating veneer of alluring urbanity, rank snobbery and depravity, one cannot really begrudge why those two women of disparate nature would both fall upon his sophisticated spells (however momentary they are), but that’s the crux of MILDRED PIERCE, it appears more convincing in eliciting the unabashed rottenness from menfolk, but less so in its petticoat discord, which actually is the nexus of the entire tear-jerking enterprise, however scrumptious it may pander to ours eyes.

　　arallel comparisons: SUDDEN FEAR (1952) 7.1/10; CASABLANCA (1942) 8.9/10; DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944) 8.2/10