Two differences between this Austrian version and the generally available American version are immediately obvious: they differ both in their length and in the language of the intertitles. The American version is only 1,883 metres long - at 18 frames per second a difference of some 7 minutes to the Austrian version with 2,045 metres. Whereas we originally presumed only a negligible difference, resulting from the varying length of the intertitles, a direct comparison has nevertheless shown that the Austrian version differs from the American version both in the montage and in the duration of individual scenes. Yet how could it happen that the later regional distribution of a canonical US silent film was longer than the "original version"?
The prevalent American version of Blind Husbands does not correspond to the version shown at the premiere of 1919. This little-known fact was already published by Richard Koszarski in 1983. The film was re-released by Universal Pictures in 1924, in a version that was 1,365 feet (416 metres) shorter. At 18 frames per second, this amounts to a time difference of 20 minutes! "Titles were altered, snippets of action removed and at least one major scene taken out entirely, where von Steuben and Margaret visit a small local chapel." (Koszarski)
From the present state of research we can assume that all the known American copies of the film derive from this shortened re-release version, a copy of which Universal donated to the Museum of Modern Art in 1941. According to Koszarski the original negative of the film was destroyed sometime between 1956 and 1961 and has therefore been irretrievably lost. This information casts an interesting light on the Austrian version, which can be dated to the period between the summer of 1921 and the winter of 1922. Furthermore, the copy is some 200 metres longer than the US version of 1924. If one follows the details given by Richard Koszarski and Arthur Lennig, this means that, as far as both its date and its length are concerned, the Austrian version lies almost exactly in the middle between the (lost) version shown at the premiere and the re-released one.A large part of the additional length of the film can be traced to cuts that were made to the 1924 version in almost every shot. Koszarski describes how the beginning and the end of scenes were trimmed, in order to "speed up" the film. However, more exciting was the discovery that the Austrian version contains shots that are missing in the American one - shots/countershots, intertitles - and furthermore shows differences in its montage (i.e. the placing of the individual shots within a sequence). All this indicates that Die Rache der Berge constitutes the oldest and most completely preserved material of the film.
这部片，似乎想拍的高大上，但感觉剧情还是奇奇怪怪…
分几层来看这个电影哦，导演的能力不足应该扣两颗星，但是全员细腻演技又能补回来一颗心，说是悬疑那就是笑话了，导演想要把立意拔得很高，但是又讲不好故事。我本来是不那么喜欢短发造型的tkr的，但又因为感觉这个故事能和最近的上海共情，就看了，然后就拜倒在tkr的演技下了，全程没有什么妆造的变化，也没有浮于表面的情绪波澜，是以一种进入角色的方式，把他演绎出来。tkr真的是天赋型的演员啊，老天爷追着喂饭吃的那种吧！
有时候梦里也会梦见他
好压抑
缓缓看下去，慢慢的泪流满面啊。疫情之下，感触好深刻，现在大家都难，请多些宽容和理解，一起改变和行动，希望我们的世界越来越好。
王传君人设已经定了，这么严肃让我很难有带入感啊
这是个爱情片？前一半和后一半确实像两个人写的
異様な事件の裏に隠された、切なすぎる真実とは―
大为无语，是非要政府把饭送到嘴边求你吃才是关爱吗？人自己选择不吃饿死了就要放火杀人？都是些什么巨婴，没觉得你们得不到保护，明明是自己不要保护。反复横跳还要怪人不够关心了，真是惯的。用这漏洞百出的剧情设置来批判社会保障完全没有说服力好吗，没法共情，只觉得公职人员好无辜。最后狠狠吐槽一句，濑濑敬久到底会不会拍电影啊😓tkr到底是不是演技的问题啊，还是脸太好？这几年演了几部社会题材的片子但一直让我觉得格格不入，有时候端着有时候过火，咋回事。
看到这女的就能猜到她肯定是凶犯，男主替她背锅的……天灾无可避免，人祸呢！！！
很喜欢这部电影，很小说化。但好多地方都能戳中心里。这个故事我也写过，没写完，也是我想表达的内容。真好啊。
标题就叫《孤寡老人活活饿死，究竟该怪谁？》
“他好的时候我不用在”，“那他要不好呢？”
3.5
分几个时间线拍，但是又不明显，所以这两天我看了两遍。灾难后的次生问题更加隐秘可怕，其实站在不同的角度和立场，这都是场悲剧。
从二十世纪六十年代末讲起，一直讲到比二十世纪还要往后很多年，给故事带上了一些科幻未来的色彩，再加上片中出现的“干细胞永生”的话题。此外，男主角郭小鲁小时候经过爆炸事件后，产生了“慢速视觉”现象，所有快速的物体在他眼中都变得速度很慢。这导致后来他做临床手术和在打乒乓球方面的天赋异禀，成就了片中情节的传奇性。
本杰明巴顿奇事+阿甘正传+回忆八九十年代+突如其来的莫名其妙的一些东西
一个月后再评价，剧本和成片的距离是一部广播剧
看得人怪难受的。。。（佐藤健现在跟龟梨和也也太像了吧。。。
奇怪的故事，奇怪的女二线，奇怪的落脚点，不如叫老不奇怪
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
