外国网友问，美国人怎么评价电影《长津湖》?我们看看网友们的回答。
问题
美国网友阿米尔•安巴拉的回答
My evaluation is that this commercial film will not sell well.
我的评价是，这部商业电影并不会卖座。
Firstly, this was almost 180 minutes of filming time, but only about 50 minutes truly mentioned the Battle of Changjin Lake. The rest of the time is spent introducing the protagonist brothers, and I feel that the title is a bit fraudulent.
首先，这是将近180分钟的片场时间，但只有大约50分钟的时间真正提到了长津湖之战。剩下的时间都用来介绍主角兄弟俩，感觉片名有点作弊。
The second is military. This movie made many mistakes in military affairs. For example, under media hype, many people believe that China has only defeated a 17 country alliance led by the United States through a large-scale strategy. But my rough understanding of telling tells me that large-scale strategy was lost at the moment the machine gun was invented. You cannot defeat the well-equipped, well-trained, and battleground experienced US military during World War II through so-called strategies.
第二个是军事。这部电影在军事上犯了很多错误。例如，在媒体的宣传下，许多人认为中国仅仅通过大规模战略打败了17个国家的美国领导的联盟。但我对告诉的粗略了解告诉我，大规模战略在机关枪发明的那一刻就失去了。你无法通过所谓战略彻底打败装备精良的，训练有素、二战时期久经沙场的美国军队。
I see that Chinese people are also dissatisfied with the Western propaganda about human sea tactics, and they think it is a smear. I remember China used a very advanced tactic called the 'Triangle Tactics'. In my opinion, if China wants to export its culture and break the monopoly of Western dialogue rights through this movie, then this movie should promote the "triangle strategy" instead of the massive crowd strategy, but it does not.
我看到中国人也对西方关于人海战术的宣传感到不满，他们认为这是抹黑。我记得中国使用了一种非常先进的战术，称为“三角战术”。在我看来，如果中国希望通过这部电影输出其文化，打破西方对话语权的垄断，那么这部电影应该宣传“三角战术”，而不是庞大的人海策略，但它没有。
The third act is propaganda. There is an impressive scene: once, Chinese soldiers were eating frozen potatoes in the snow, and then the camera turned around to see American soldiers eating a hearty meal. Based on experience, the better the logistics, the greater the likelihood of the military winning. But this movie did not explain well why China wanted to send troops, it did not showcase the spirit of the Chinese military, so it failed in propaganda.
第三是宣传。有一个令人印象深刻的场景：有一次，中国士兵在雪地里吃冷冻土豆，然后镜头转过身来，看到美国士兵正在吃一顿丰盛的饭。根据经验，后勤越好，军队获胜的可能性就越大。但这部电影没有很好地解释为什么中国要出兵，它没有展现出中国军队的精神，所以在宣传上失败了。
中国网友刘华的回答
Firstly, this article is aimed at those who write false reviews criticizing this film, as well as those ignorant puppet public intellectuals (such as Peter Breton, Mekhi Jordan Payne, etc.)
首先，这篇文章是致那些写虚假影评抨击这部电影的人，以及那些无知的傀儡公共知识分子（例如Peter Breton、Mekhi Jordan Payne等人）
Those who lied or chose to remain ignorant about the Korean War, but were corrected by me and others on Quora, but then blocked us and deleted our response to correcting you during the Korean War. You are either the most ignorant, the most dishonest loser, or both.
那些对朝鲜战争撒谎或选择保持无知，但在Quora上被我和其他人纠正，但随后屏蔽了我们并删除了我们在朝鲜战争上纠正你们的回应的人，你们要么是最无知的，要么是最不诚实的失败者，要么两者兼而有之。
The description of the Korean War in this movie is basically accurate, with one exception: the Chinese have never used the "sea of people" tactic, as the mass media often use this false stereotype to blindly describe this tactic.
这部电影对朝鲜战争的描述基本上是准确的，只有一个例外：中国人从未使用过“人海”战术，因为大众媒体经常通过这种虚假的刻板印象来无知地描述这种战术。
In this movie, I think some of the depictions sometimes seem to imply a certain "crowd" tactic, the only reasonable reason being that film directors and producers hope to provide more "spectacular" depictions of large-scale war scenes to attract and realize ordinary people's imagination of what war movies should look like.
在这部电影中，我想，一些刻画有时似乎暗示了某种“人海”战术，唯一合理的原因只是因为电影导演和制片人希望对大规模战争场景进行更“壮观”的描写，以吸引并实现普通人对战争电影应该是什么样子的想象。
Having said that, I would like to add some background facts here to support my assertion about the accuracy of the Korean War movie description:
话虽如此，我想在这里补充一些背景事实，以支持我关于朝鲜战争电影描述准确性的论断：
I believe that the performance of the Chinese army in the Korean War was even better than that of the German army in the early stages of World War II.
“我认为，中国军队在朝鲜战争中的表现甚至比德国军队在二战初期的表现还要好。”据Farrar Hockley将军说，他是北约北欧盟军前总司令，曾是二战和朝鲜战争的老兵，也是朝鲜战争期间的战俘，以及在战场上不幸遭遇中国人的美国指挥官和将军。
In his memoir "The Role of Britain in the Korean War", he commented on Chinese soldiers in the Korean War: "I participated in World War II and the Korean War, and witnessed firsthand the battles of German, American, Soviet, and Chinese soldiers. I have to admit that German soldiers are superior to American and Soviet soldiers. But Chinese soldiers are superior to Germans
在他的回忆录《英国在朝鲜战争中的作用》中，他这样评价朝鲜战争中的中国士兵：“我参加过第二次世界大战和朝鲜战争，亲眼目睹了德国、美国、苏联和中国士兵的战斗。我不得不承认，德国士兵比美国和苏联的士兵都优越。但中国士兵比德国人优越。”
The reason why China won is because they have absolutely excellent and unique strategies and tactics, coupled with unparalleled discipline and a steel will that is more resilient than nails, which is different from any of their opponents.
中国之所以获胜，是因为他们拥有绝对出色和独特的战略和战术，再加上无与伦比的纪律和比钉子更坚韧的钢铁意志，这与他们的任何对手都不同。
They used the "crowd tactics", which is an ignorant stereotype. For example, Chinese soldiers never charged in the "crowd", but instead formed a team of three to charge. According to official estimates by the US military, if they relied on manpower and "manpower wave tactics", they would not have lost only 171000 lives in a war that lasted for more than three years.
他们使用了“人海战术”，这是一种无知的刻板印象。例如，中国士兵从未在“人波”中冲锋，而是组建了三人小队进行冲锋。根据美国军方的官方估计，如果他们依靠人力和“人力波战术”，那么在长达3年多的战争中，他们就不会只损失17.1万人的生命。
And the chances of fighting against the 16-nation United Nations alliance led by the world's only superpower were overwhelming. The superpower had complete technological advantages and dominant positions on land, air, and sea, with almost unlimited supplies, And at the beginning of the intervention, the total manpower of over one million troops increased to several times this number during the war, and then in the harshest terrain and climate in the world, North Korea's winter was different from any other winter.
而与世界上唯一的超级大国领导的16国联合国联盟作战的失败几率是压倒性的，该超级大国拥有完全的技术优势和对陆地、空中和海上的主导地位，几乎没有限制的补给，以及在干预开始时总计超过100万军队的人力，后来在战争期间激增到这个数字的几倍，然后在世界上最严酷的地形和气候下，在那里，朝鲜的冬天与其他任何地方的冬天都不一样。
In the long run, 60000 British soldiers were killed in just one day of battle during World War I, when they used true sea of men tactics against the Germans, despite their equipment being more or less as sophisticated as their German counterparts.
从长远来看，在第一次世界大战中，6万名英国士兵在仅仅一天的战斗中就被杀了，当时他们对德国人使用了真正的人海战术，尽管英国人的装备或多或少与德国对手一样精良。
By the time of the Korean War, nearly 40 years after World War I, the weapons of war had evolved into more deadly weapons than those of World War I, capable of causing more deaths more easily. Therefore, if the Chinese use the "sea of people" tactic against their enemies and their weapons are much better than theirs, people will think that they will not even last for three days, let alone more than three years. Even when the two sides finally sign the "ceasefire agreement" to represent the final moment of the ceasefire, they still maintain strong strength. Isn't this very obvious? Very obvious? However, uneducated people have never been able to come up with such simple logic alone without being informed.
到第一次世界大战近40年后的朝鲜战争时，战争武器已经进化成比第一次世界战争更致命的武器，能够更容易地造成更多人死亡。因此，如果中国人对他们的敌人使用了“人海”战术，他们的武器比他们好得多，那么人们就会认为，他们甚至不会持续3天，更不用说3年多了，即使到双方最终签署“停战协定”以表示停战的最后时刻，他们仍然保持着强大的实力。这不是很明显吗？非常明显？然而，没有受过教育的人从来没有能力在不被告知的情况下独自想出如此简单的逻辑。
However, despite often being outnumbered, technologically far behind, lacking weapons and supplies, and often lacking food, water (many Chinese soldiers can only rely on snow to obtain water), clothing, and supplies, the Chinese People's Volunteer Army is one of the most backward "peasant armies" from one of the poorest countries in the world just to protect themselves from the harsh winter, Although there were almost no heavy weapons in the later stages of the war, apart from weapons that could be taken from the enemy, it was still able to repeatedly strike the 16 nation alliance led by the United States. The United Nations returned to the peninsula all the way from near the Yalu River, crossed the 38th and 37th lines, and even occupied the capital of South Korea, Seoul, multiple times.
然而，尽管经常寡不敌众，技术上远远落后，武器和物资都远远不足，而且经常缺乏食物、水（许多中国士兵只能靠吃雪来获得水）、衣服和补给，只是为了保护自己免受严冬的影响，中国人民志愿军是来自世界上最贫穷国家之一的最落后的“农民军”之一，尽管在战争后期除了能够从敌人手中夺取的武器外，几乎没有任何重型武器，但它仍然能够一次又一次地打击美国领导的16国联盟。联合国从鸭绿江附近一路回到半岛，穿过三八线和三十七线，甚至多次占领韩国首都首尔。
The Chinese are not equipped enough, to the extent that a significant portion of their total casualties throughout the war were due to insufficient protection against natural disasters or hunger.
中国人装备不足，以至于在整个战争中，他们的总伤亡人数中有很大一部分是由于没有足够的保护来抵御自然灾害或饥饿造成的。
To consolidate the position of the Chinese military in the pantheon of world history, there is nothing more resounding and convincing than accepting opponents. The following numbers are engraved on the Korean War Memorial in Washington D.C., USA, and according to the US government, these numbers represent the most accurate official statistics on the number of casualties by the United Nations:
要巩固中国军队在世界历史上万神殿中的地位，没有什么比接纳对手更响亮、更令人信服的了。美国华盛顿特区朝鲜战争纪念碑上刻有以下数字，根据美国政府的说法，这些数字代表了联合国伤亡人数的最准确官方统计数据：
--United Nations (League of 16) KIA: 11161523 (including MIA)
--联合国（16国联盟）KIA:11161523（包括MIA）
--United Nations (League of 16) total number of injured: 1167737
--联合国（16国联盟）伤员总数：1167737人
Total casualties of United Nations Command: 2.33 million
联合国军总伤亡人数：233万
On the other hand, the most accurate official statistics compiled by the Chinese government on the number of casualties in the Korean War are as follows:
另一方面，中国政府编制的关于朝鲜战争中中国伤亡人数的最准确官方统计数据如下：
--Total number of KIAs in China: 197653 (actually higher than the official estimate of 171k by the US military)
--中国KIA总数：197653（实际上高于美国军方官方估计的171k）
--Total casualties in China: 370000
--中国总伤亡人数：37万
Therefore, the total casualty ratio between China and the United Nations 16 nation alliance is 370000 to 2.33 million, or 1-7.
因此，中国与联合国16国联盟的总伤亡比例为37万比233万，即1比7。
That is why the Korean War is known as the "forgotten war" in American history, as it is the first time in its history that the United States has failed to win, despite its overwhelming advantage in various aspects of strength indicators in confronting an enemy that appears to be very backward and tragic. There is too much to write and list about this war, which explains why the Chinese people are still able to win, and these are not related to "manpower" or "numbers".
这就是为什么朝鲜战争在美国历史上被称为“被遗忘的战争”，因为这是其历史上第一次美国未能获胜，尽管美国在对抗一个看起来非常落后和可悲的敌人时，在力量指标的各个方面都有着压倒性的优势。关于这场战争，有太多可以写出来和列出的内容，说明了为什么中国人仍然能够获胜，而这些都与“人力”或“数字”无关。
On the other hand, the United States actually used real human sea tactics in key battles such as Shangganling, and many Chinese soldiers created a record breaking infantry feat in world military history at Shangganling. During the Korean War, China created a similar, unprecedented and still unparalleled world military history record for the US and UN forces.
另一方面，美国方面在上甘岭等关键战役中实际上使用了真正的人海战术，许多中国士兵在上甘岭创造了世界军事史上创纪录的步兵壮举。在朝鲜战争期间，中国对美国和联合国军队创造了类似的前所未有的、仍然无与伦比的杀伤率世界军事历史记录。
美国网友托米•鲍什的回答
It is not only an inaccurate description of historical facts, but also a promotional video.
它不仅在历史史实上描述不准确，而且是一部宣传片。
I think at the beginning of the movie, it made the American military look very "evil". In the process of the US military's "conquest" of North Korea, they always played the role of butchers.
我想，在电影的开头，它让美国军队看起来很“邪恶”。在美国军队“征服”朝鲜的过程中，他们永远扮演着屠夫的角色。
In some places, they depict American soldiers as "spoiled" little boys living in very good conditions, while they depict Chinese people as almost not eating any decent food. Although Americans do eat better than Chinese people, this does not mean they have not suffered. The film refuses to depict the suffering and trials of American soldiers.
在某些地方，他们把美国士兵描绘成“被宠坏了”的小男孩，生活在非常好的条件下，而把中国人描绘成几乎没有吃到任何像样的食物，虽然美国人确实比中国人吃得好，但这并不意味着他们没有受苦。影片拒绝描绘美国士兵的苦难和磨难。
Apart from anti American rhetoric. This movie also showcases the main character's "supernatural" abilities, such as in a scene where the main character manages to use an M48 tank and uses it to defeat several American tanks.
除了反美言论。这部电影还展示了主要角色具有“超自然”能力，比如有一个场景，主要角色设法使用M48坦克并用它击败了几辆美国坦克。
What I mean is that these Chinese people grew up in a fishing village in the countryside and now serve in the infantry army. They may have learned how to operate the M48 there, let alone eliminate those who have truly received training in using and operating it.
我的意思是，这些中国人在农村的一个渔村长大，现在在步兵部队服役，他们ze那么可能在那里学会了如何操作M48，更不用说消灭那些真正受过使用和操作训练的人了。
Also at the end of the movie... I don't agree with its statement. In fact, no one won the Korean War.
同样在电影的结尾…我不同意它的说法。事实上，战争没有赢家。
美国网友山姆•斯腾格尔的回答
The movie shows that US reinforcements arrived with multiple aircraft carriers, large bombers, support ships, and infantry in full force. It shows that the United States is advancing towards the north of North Korea, and they destroyed some villages with perfectly coordinated carpet bombing.
电影显示，美国增援部队携多艘航空母舰、大型轰炸机、支援舰艇和步兵全力抵达。它显示了美国向朝鲜北部推进，他们用完美协调的地毯式轰炸摧毁了一些村庄。
Then, when Mao Zedong learned about this news, the movie switched to Mao Zedong and he decided that China must send troops. His son wanted to go, but he allowed it.
然后，电影切换到毛泽东主席得知这一消息后，他决定中国必须派兵，他的儿子想去，他允许了。
The Chinese Volunteer Army took a train to North Korea, but had to remove the pins and flags, so they could not represent China because they had not yet officially participated in the war. Subsequently, American planes discovered the personnel carrier and bombed it while searching for cover.
中国志愿军乘坐火车前往朝鲜，但必须摘下别针和旗帜，这样他们就不能代表中国，因为他们还没有正式参战。随后，美国飞机发现了这列运兵车，并在寻找掩护时对其进行了轰炸。
Most of the content at the beginning of the film clearly covers the dominant position of the United States in military technology and organization, and shows that the Chinese army has almost no enough food and weapons.
电影开头的大部分内容清楚地涵盖了美国在军事技术和组织方面的主导地位，并显示中国军队几乎没有充足的食物和武器。
After engaging in war with American planes, they finally found themselves very close to the enemy (Americans). In the next three battles, China's ambushes against the Americans were mostly successful, but there were also some significant losses. Every time Americans fall into retreat.
在与美国飞机交战后，他们终于发现自己离敌人（美国人）很近了。在接下来的三场战斗中，中国对美国人的伏击大多取得了成功，但也有一些重大损失。每次美国人都陷入撤退。
At the end of the movie, the remaining Chinese army, protecting the ridge waiting for the enemy, froze to death. The American general went to inspect and paid tribute to them, stating that China is a steadfast force that will protect their land. The US headquarters learned about China's participation and returned to South Korea, ending the movie.
在电影的结尾，剩下的中国军队，保护着等待敌人的山脊，冻死了。美国将军前往视察，向他们致敬，并表示中国是一支坚定的力量，将保护他们的土地。美国总部了解到中国的参与，返回韩国，电影结束。
In the final subtitle, they played some white letters on the black screen, telling the audience to respect those who sacrificed for China. I can't remember any other details, it's awkward for all of us, including me, the only foreigner.
在最后的字幕中，他们在黑色屏幕上播放了一些白色字母，告诉观众要尊重那些为中国牺牲的人。我记不清其他细节了，这对我们所有人来说都很尴尬，包括我这个唯一的外国人。
I think the accuracy of events and dates is better than most war movies I have watched. The performance of Americans is not very good, but it is very humorous and interesting. They showcase more enemy customs and culture than most war movies.
我认为事件和日期的准确性比我看过的大多数战争电影都要好。美国人的表演不是很好，但很幽默，很有趣，他们展示了比大多数战争电影更多的敌人习俗和文化。
The battle scenes in this movie are a bit redundant, but there are many details of bullets, assassinations, death, and blood. I think doing this is more for entertainment than anything else, but in a sense, war is terrifying, which is a reality.
这部电影的战斗场景有点多余，但有很多子弹、刺杀、死亡和血腥的细节。我认为这样做更多的是为了娱乐，而不是其他任何事情，但从某种意义上说，战争是可怕的，这是现实的。
I think this movie was made very well. I don't know if they are catering to the feelings of the Chinese people and preparing for any future conflicts, as China now has more modern technology.
我认为这部电影拍得很好。我不知道他们是否是为了迎合中国人民的感情，为他们未来的任何冲突做好准备，而现在中国有了更多的现代技术。
Some explanations and wording are somewhat awkward, such as some generals who have been saying that they must fight to prevent the United States from invading China, downplaying any realistic negotiations that occurred between all countries at that time.
有些解释和措辞有点令人尴尬，比如一些将军的角色一直说他们必须为阻止美国入侵中国而战斗，他们淡化了当时所有国家之间发生的任何现实的谈判。
There are no North Koreans or Koreans in the film.
影片中没有朝鲜人或韩国人。
Although this movie is defined as entertainment rather than a documentary, they do tell the story from a Chinese perspective and the details they have elaborated on in the education system over the years.
虽然这部电影被定义为娱乐而非纪录片，但他们确实从中国的角度讲述了这个故事，以及他们多年来在教育体系中所阐述的细节。
以上就是小编为大家整理的关于《外国网友问: 美国人怎么评价中国电影《长津湖》?》的最新内容，了解更影视资讯、明星动态，请多关注策驰影视。