外國(guó)網(wǎng)友問，美國(guó)人怎么評(píng)價(jià)電影《長(zhǎng)津湖》?我們看看網(wǎng)友們的回答。
問題
美國(guó)網(wǎng)友阿米爾?安巴拉的回答
My evaluation is that this commercial film will not sell well.
我的評(píng)價(jià)是，這部商業(yè)電影并不會(huì)賣座。
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，這是將近180分鐘的片場(chǎng)時(shí)間，但只有大約50分鐘的時(shí)間真正提到了長(zhǎng)津湖之戰(zhàn)。剩下的時(shí)間都用來(lái)介紹主角兄弟倆，感覺片名有點(diǎn)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.
第二個(gè)是軍事。這部電影在軍事上犯了很多錯(cuò)誤。例如，在媒體的宣傳下，許多人認(rèn)為中國(guó)僅僅通過大規(guī)模戰(zhàn)略打敗了17個(gè)國(guó)家的美國(guó)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的聯(lián)盟。但我對(duì)告訴的粗略了解告訴我，大規(guī)模戰(zhàn)略在機(jī)關(guān)槍發(fā)明的那一刻就失去了。你無(wú)法通過所謂戰(zhàn)略徹底打敗裝備精良的，訓(xùn)練有素、二戰(zhàn)時(shí)期久經(jīng)沙場(chǎng)的美國(guó)軍隊(duì)。
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.
我看到中國(guó)人也對(duì)西方關(guān)于人海戰(zhàn)術(shù)的宣傳感到不滿，他們認(rèn)為這是抹黑。我記得中國(guó)使用了一種非常先進(jìn)的戰(zhàn)術(shù)，稱為“三角戰(zhàn)術(shù)”。在我看來(lái)，如果中國(guó)希望通過這部電影輸出其文化，打破西方對(duì)話語(yǔ)權(quán)的壟斷，那么這部電影應(yīng)該宣傳“三角戰(zhàn)術(shù)”，而不是龐大的人海策略，但它沒有。
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.
第三是宣傳。有一個(gè)令人印象深刻的場(chǎng)景：有一次，中國(guó)士兵在雪地里吃冷凍土豆，然后鏡頭轉(zhuǎn)過身來(lái)，看到美國(guó)士兵正在吃一頓豐盛的飯。根據(jù)經(jīng)驗(yàn)，后勤越好，軍隊(duì)獲勝的可能性就越大。但這部電影沒有很好地解釋為什么中國(guó)要出兵，它沒有展現(xiàn)出中國(guó)軍隊(duì)的精神，所以在宣傳上失敗了。
中國(guó)網(wǎng)友劉華的回答
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，這篇文章是致那些寫虛假影評(píng)抨擊這部電影的人，以及那些無(wú)知的傀儡公共知識(shí)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.
那些對(duì)朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)撒謊或選擇保持無(wú)知，但在Quora上被我和其他人糾正，但隨后屏蔽了我們并刪除了我們?cè)诔r戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)上糾正你們的回應(yīng)的人，你們要么是最無(wú)知的，要么是最不誠(chéng)實(shí)的失敗者，要么兩者兼而有之。
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.
這部電影對(duì)朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的描述基本上是準(zhǔn)確的，只有一個(gè)例外：中國(guó)人從未使用過“人海”戰(zhàn)術(shù)，因?yàn)榇蟊娒襟w經(jīng)常通過這種虛假的刻板印象來(lái)無(wú)知地描述這種戰(zhàn)術(shù)。
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.
在這部電影中，我想，一些刻畫有時(shí)似乎暗示了某種“人海”戰(zhàn)術(shù)，唯一合理的原因只是因?yàn)殡娪皩?dǎo)演和制片人希望對(duì)大規(guī)模戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)場(chǎng)景進(jìn)行更“壯觀”的描寫，以吸引并實(shí)現(xiàn)普通人對(duì)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)電影應(yīng)該是什么樣子的想象。
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:
話雖如此，我想在這里補(bǔ)充一些背景事實(shí)，以支持我關(guān)于朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)電影描述準(zhǔn)確性的論斷：
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.
“我認(rèn)為，中國(guó)軍隊(duì)在朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中的表現(xiàn)甚至比德國(guó)軍隊(duì)在二戰(zhàn)初期的表現(xiàn)還要好。”據(jù)Farrar Hockley將軍說(shuō)，他是北約北歐盟軍前總司令，曾是二戰(zhàn)和朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的老兵，也是朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間的戰(zhàn)俘，以及在戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)上不幸遭遇中國(guó)人的美國(guó)指揮官和將軍。
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
在他的回憶錄《英國(guó)在朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中的作用》中，他這樣評(píng)價(jià)朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中的中國(guó)士兵：“我參加過第二次世界大戰(zhàn)和朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，親眼目睹了德國(guó)、美國(guó)、蘇聯(lián)和中國(guó)士兵的戰(zhàn)斗。我不得不承認(rèn)，德國(guó)士兵比美國(guó)和蘇聯(lián)的士兵都優(yōu)越。但中國(guó)士兵比德國(guó)人優(yōu)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.
中國(guó)之所以獲勝，是因?yàn)樗麄儞碛薪^對(duì)出色和獨(dú)特的戰(zhàn)略和戰(zhàn)術(shù)，再加上無(wú)與倫比的紀(jì)律和比釘子更堅(jiān)韌的鋼鐵意志，這與他們的任何對(duì)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.
他們使用了“人海戰(zhàn)術(shù)”，這是一種無(wú)知的刻板印象。例如，中國(guó)士兵從未在“人波”中沖鋒，而是組建了三人小隊(duì)進(jìn)行沖鋒。根據(jù)美國(guó)軍方的官方估計(jì)，如果他們依靠人力和“人力波戰(zhàn)術(shù)”，那么在長(zhǎng)達(dá)3年多的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，他們就不會(huì)只損失17.1萬(wàn)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.
而與世界上唯一的超級(jí)大國(guó)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的16國(guó)聯(lián)合國(guó)聯(lián)盟作戰(zhàn)的失敗幾率是壓倒性的，該超級(jí)大國(guó)擁有完全的技術(shù)優(yōu)勢(shì)和對(duì)陸地、空中和海上的主導(dǎo)地位，幾乎沒有限制的補(bǔ)給，以及在干預(yù)開始時(shí)總計(jì)超過100萬(wàn)軍隊(duì)的人力，后來(lái)在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間激增到這個(gè)數(shù)字的幾倍，然后在世界上最嚴(yán)酷的地形和氣候下，在那里，朝鮮的冬天與其他任何地方的冬天都不一樣。
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.
從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看，在第一次世界大戰(zhàn)中，6萬(wàn)名英國(guó)士兵在僅僅一天的戰(zhàn)斗中就被殺了，當(dāng)時(shí)他們對(duì)德國(guó)人使用了真正的人海戰(zhàn)術(shù)，盡管英國(guó)人的裝備或多或少與德國(guó)對(duì)手一樣精良。
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.
到第一次世界大戰(zhàn)近40年后的朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)時(shí)，戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)武器已經(jīng)進(jìn)化成比第一次世界戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)更致命的武器，能夠更容易地造成更多人死亡。因此，如果中國(guó)人對(duì)他們的敵人使用了“人海”戰(zhàn)術(shù)，他們的武器比他們好得多，那么人們就會(huì)認(rèn)為，他們甚至不會(huì)持續(xù)3天，更不用說(shuō)3年多了，即使到雙方最終簽署“停戰(zhàn)協(xié)定”以表示停戰(zhàn)的最后時(shí)刻，他們?nèi)匀槐３种鴱?qiáng)大的實(shí)力。這不是很明顯嗎？非常明顯？然而，沒有受過教育的人從來(lái)沒有能力在不被告知的情況下獨(dú)自想出如此簡(jiǎn)單的邏輯。
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，盡管經(jīng)常寡不敵眾，技術(shù)上遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)落后，武器和物資都遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不足，而且經(jīng)常缺乏食物、水（許多中國(guó)士兵只能靠吃雪來(lái)獲得水）、衣服和補(bǔ)給，只是為了保護(hù)自己免受嚴(yán)冬的影響，中國(guó)人民志愿軍是來(lái)自世界上最貧窮國(guó)家之一的最落后的“農(nóng)民軍”之一，盡管在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)后期除了能夠從敵人手中奪取的武器外，幾乎沒有任何重型武器，但它仍然能夠一次又一次地打擊美國(guó)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的16國(guó)聯(lián)盟。聯(lián)合國(guó)從鴨綠江附近一路回到半島，穿過三八線和三十七線，甚至多次占領(lǐng)韓國(guó)首都首爾。
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.
中國(guó)人裝備不足，以至于在整個(gè)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，他們的總傷亡人數(shù)中有很大一部分是由于沒有足夠的保護(hù)來(lái)抵御自然災(zāi)害或饑餓造成的。
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:
要鞏固中國(guó)軍隊(duì)在世界歷史上萬(wàn)神殿中的地位，沒有什么比接納對(duì)手更響亮、更令人信服的了。美國(guó)華盛頓特區(qū)朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)紀(jì)念碑上刻有以下數(shù)字，根據(jù)美國(guó)政府的說(shuō)法，這些數(shù)字代表了聯(lián)合國(guó)傷亡人數(shù)的最準(zhǔn)確官方統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)：
–United Nations (League of 16) KIA: 11161523 (including MIA)
–聯(lián)合國(guó)（16國(guó)聯(lián)盟）KIA:11161523（包括MIA）
–United Nations (League of 16) total number of injured: 1167737
–聯(lián)合國(guó)（16國(guó)聯(lián)盟）傷員總數(shù)：1167737人
Total casualties of United Nations Command: 2.33 million
聯(lián)合國(guó)軍總傷亡人數(shù)：233萬(wàn)
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，中國(guó)政府編制的關(guān)于朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中中國(guó)傷亡人數(shù)的最準(zhǔn)確官方統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)如下：
–Total number of KIAs in China: 197653 (actually higher than the official estimate of 171k by the US military)
–中國(guó)KIA總數(shù)：197653（實(shí)際上高于美國(guó)軍方官方估計(jì)的171k）
–Total casualties in China: 370000
–中國(guó)總傷亡人數(shù)：37萬(wàn)
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，中國(guó)與聯(lián)合國(guó)16國(guó)聯(lián)盟的總傷亡比例為37萬(wàn)比233萬(wàn)，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”.
這就是為什么朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)在美國(guó)歷史上被稱為“被遺忘的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)”，因?yàn)檫@是其歷史上第一次美國(guó)未能獲勝，盡管美國(guó)在對(duì)抗一個(gè)看起來(lái)非常落后和可悲的敵人時(shí)，在力量指標(biāo)的各個(gè)方面都有著壓倒性的優(yōu)勢(shì)。關(guān)于這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，有太多可以寫出來(lái)和列出的內(nèi)容，說(shuō)明了為什么中國(guó)人仍然能夠獲勝，而這些都與“人力”或“數(shù)字”無(wú)關(guān)。
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，美國(guó)方面在上甘嶺等關(guān)鍵戰(zhàn)役中實(shí)際上使用了真正的人海戰(zhàn)術(shù)，許多中國(guó)士兵在上甘嶺創(chuàng)造了世界軍事史上創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的步兵壯舉。在朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間，中國(guó)對(duì)美國(guó)和聯(lián)合國(guó)軍隊(duì)創(chuàng)造了類似的前所未有的、仍然無(wú)與倫比的殺傷率世界軍事歷史記錄。
美國(guó)網(wǎng)友托米?鮑什的回答
It is not only an inaccurate description of historical facts, but also a promotional video.
它不僅在歷史史實(shí)上描述不準(zhǔn)確，而且是一部宣傳片。
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，在電影的開頭，它讓美國(guó)軍隊(duì)看起來(lái)很“邪惡”。在美國(guó)軍隊(duì)“征服”朝鮮的過程中，他們永遠(yuǎn)扮演著屠夫的角色。
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，他們把美國(guó)士兵描繪成“被寵壞了”的小男孩，生活在非常好的條件下，而把中國(guó)人描繪成幾乎沒有吃到任何像樣的食物，雖然美國(guó)人確實(shí)比中國(guó)人吃得好，但這并不意味著他們沒有受苦。影片拒絕描繪美國(guó)士兵的苦難和磨難。
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.
除了反美言論。這部電影還展示了主要角色具有“超自然”能力，比如有一個(gè)場(chǎng)景，主要角色設(shè)法使用M48坦克并用它擊敗了幾輛美國(guó)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，這些中國(guó)人在農(nóng)村的一個(gè)漁村長(zhǎng)大，現(xiàn)在在步兵部隊(duì)服役，他們ze那么可能在那里學(xué)會(huì)了如何操作M48，更不用說(shuō)消滅那些真正受過使用和操作訓(xùn)練的人了。
Also at the end of the movie… I don’t agree with its statement. In fact, no one won the Korean War.
同樣在電影的結(jié)尾…我不同意它的說(shuō)法。事實(shí)上，戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)沒有贏家。
美國(guó)網(wǎng)友山姆?斯騰格爾的回答
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.
電影顯示，美國(guó)增援部隊(duì)攜多艘航空母艦、大型轟炸機(jī)、支援艦艇和步兵全力抵達(dá)。它顯示了美國(guó)向朝鮮北部推進(jìn)，他們用完美協(xié)調(diào)的地毯式轟炸摧毀了一些村莊。
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，電影切換到毛澤東主席得知這一消息后，他決定中國(guó)必須派兵，他的兒子想去，他允許了。
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.
中國(guó)志愿軍乘坐火車前往朝鮮，但必須摘下別針和旗幟，這樣他們就不能代表中國(guó)，因?yàn)樗麄冞€沒有正式參戰(zhàn)。隨后，美國(guó)飛機(jī)發(fā)現(xiàn)了這列運(yùn)兵車，并在尋找掩護(hù)時(shí)對(duì)其進(jìn)行了轟炸。
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.
電影開頭的大部分內(nèi)容清楚地涵蓋了美國(guó)在軍事技術(shù)和組織方面的主導(dǎo)地位，并顯示中國(guó)軍隊(duì)幾乎沒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.
在與美國(guó)飛機(jī)交戰(zhàn)后，他們終于發(fā)現(xiàn)自己離敵人（美國(guó)人）很近了。在接下來(lái)的三場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)斗中，中國(guó)對(duì)美國(guó)人的伏擊大多取得了成功，但也有一些重大損失。每次美國(guó)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.
在電影的結(jié)尾，剩下的中國(guó)軍隊(duì)，保護(hù)著等待敵人的山脊，凍死了。美國(guó)將軍前往視察，向他們致敬，并表示中國(guó)是一支堅(jiān)定的力量，將保護(hù)他們的土地。美國(guó)總部了解到中國(guó)的參與，返回韓國(guó)，電影結(jié)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，他們?cè)诤谏聊簧喜シ帕艘恍┌咨帜福嬖V觀眾要尊重那些為中國(guó)犧牲的人。我記不清其他細(xì)節(jié)了，這對(duì)我們所有人來(lái)說(shuō)都很尷尬，包括我這個(gè)唯一的外國(guó)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.
我認(rèn)為事件和日期的準(zhǔn)確性比我看過的大多數(shù)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)電影都要好。美國(guó)人的表演不是很好，但很幽默，很有趣，他們展示了比大多數(shù)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)電影更多的敵人習(xí)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.
這部電影的戰(zhàn)斗場(chǎng)景有點(diǎn)多余，但有很多子彈、刺殺、死亡和血腥的細(xì)節(jié)。我認(rèn)為這樣做更多的是為了娛樂，而不是其他任何事情，但從某種意義上說(shuō)，戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是可怕的，這是現(xiàn)實(shí)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.
我認(rèn)為這部電影拍得很好。我不知道他們是否是為了迎合中國(guó)人民的感情，為他們未來(lái)的任何沖突做好準(zhǔn)備，而現(xiàn)在中國(guó)有了更多的現(xiàn)代技術(shù)。
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.
有些解釋和措辭有點(diǎn)令人尷尬，比如一些將軍的角色一直說(shuō)他們必須為阻止美國(guó)入侵中國(guó)而戰(zhàn)斗，他們淡化了當(dāng)時(shí)所有國(guó)家之間發(fā)生的任何現(xiàn)實(shí)的談判。
There are no North Koreans or Koreans in the film.
影片中沒有朝鮮人或韓國(guó)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.
雖然這部電影被定義為娛樂而非紀(jì)錄片，但他們確實(shí)從中國(guó)的角度講述了這個(gè)故事，以及他們多年來(lái)在教育體系中所闡述的細(xì)節(jié)。
