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.
什么叫诈骗电影？这就是。女主的王珞丹没有女二李婷婷一半戏多。完全无法理解整部电影的高潮点和表达点在讲什么。如同流水账一样的白痴叙事和矫揉造作的旁白来讲一个老去的回忆录。王传君面瘫式表演以及那种刻意感满满的祝祷词，人生的无奈，生命的流逝拍成这个鬼样子。运镜和题材借鉴，娄烨和大卫·芬奇知道了都自愧不如。
除了女主，都挺好，后半段有点拖沓了。前半段那种老式生活的描写复古极了
吴彦姝演技完全不是盖的，一分钟的戏也可以演得让你痛哭流涕。王珞丹演得也不错，相比之下，作为大男主的王传君演得倒是很糟糕，仿佛演啥电影都一个演法。 剪辑很多地方详略不当，可以理解主题的想法，但是却没能更好地表达出来，前面显得很冗长，后面显得很急促。
这故事要真发生在中国人身上，那就真奇了怪了。
感觉整个情节和阿甘正传一模一样。。。某些点很打动人，爱而不得，离别才是永恒
有一种老派的美和伤感，对生命衰老死亡这些人生命题看的很透彻，同时又无比悲观颓废，但台词又带着一丝不经意的讥讽不羁，痞痞的。感觉这电影的“文化素养”不错，一看编剧：王朔。噢，秒懂。王珞丹演的好，同时自身带有一份别样的凄美冷艳，令人难忘，王传君吧、演好人挺僵的，生硬，总觉的怪怪的，还是小老流氓适合他，这个书呆子造型也不适合他。电影居然有去布拉格取景，应该是疫情前拍摄的。
“他好的时候我不用在”
“小鲁要出国了，你不送送他吗？”
比较有意思的一点是主题曲从副歌到尾声的时候，从F小调的三拍子变成了四拍子，似乎在说着，我们圆舞曲般深重的人生，终将会更加绵长地流传下去。
眼看着28岁了 ，我还单身，工作还没定 ，前路在何处，茫然失措。
老王一辈子就是这么点事，总想往苦恋方向走，特一往情深，再有个别人爱，也是生死相依的。这倒好，两女传下合力后代合体了啊。男主角还不老了。他们死了，要么老的不行。我还在栈桥上风景这边独好。 老王还是眷恋啊，除了出来挣钱，还要发表点意见：同志们，爱和记忆，一样重要啊。
希望越挫越勇，再有新作。
王朔实在是太过文字自恋，话密到角色说不完的要让旁边来说。影片中段的剧情走向走太偏了，让观众直接失去了对男女主人公命运的关切，不过王珞丹和王传君真是演得好啊。
吐了，第一：故事推动极其赶，如此简陋的剧情用得着这么赶？故作高深…
“你好啊，苏凌芳！”爱不知所起，一往而深。
感觉两个小时的片子像两个导演拍的，前一个小时质感很好，剧情和智商人物逻辑都在四星的线，后一半像拍到一半没有经费了开始拉干细胞企业的经费成了大型干细胞广告，剧情和人物关系往无厘头的方向发展一直拉垮到收尾。换个名字和剪掉中间大幅讲干细胞的部分其实会是一部质感很好的作品。有点可惜。
这是个啥？什么都想讲 什么都没有讲清楚 莫名其妙
喜欢王传君王珞丹
立意是很高，剧本够硬，但是被玩崩了。观影体验很复杂，前面以为是爱情片，后面又开始天马行空了医学系、摇滚、电影、干细胞……什么猛料都往里加，找不到重点，看起来就像一个传记电影。借用电影里的话，文艺电影有没有人看不重要。
百转轮回心不变，人生忆往无所住，竭我一生照现实。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
