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.
好工整的电影。what a crazy world
受不了Bradley Cooper这个油嘴滑舌本油，前段clut马戏团的情节加一星
7
这不就是资本主义工厂的“教父”吗？结尾又讽刺又真实。看哈维尔·巴登演“好”老板还蛮不习惯的，总感觉下一秒他就会拿气枪爆人脑袋...
充满震慑力的主线也好，丛生而相互关联的支线也好，都非常适合陀螺按自己的风格发挥。
美术果然好的非常陀螺，本来以为是反诈骗片，结果最后变成了戒酒片……ps所以为啥不把画画的技能好好运用下…另外好莱坞女星的抗老医美真的有点过了……
我还挺喜欢片子的30-40s的调调，虽然剧情也跟当年的电影一样简单直接，但过渡和起承转合都足够吸引我继续看下去。服化道太赞了，各种马戏团怪物怪咖也看得出陀螺玩得很开心
前一个小时以为看到神作了，但是后面似乎找不到一个足够怪力乱神的叙事方式来支撑它诡诞的开头结尾，让中间的部分显得冗长不堪，骗中骗的剧情也过分简单，也没能展现出心灵魔术的奇妙所在，陀螺在剧情片掌控上的空白暴露严重，真正好看的部分又游离于主线之外。这过长的片长，也只是为了一种美学的展示而做了拉长。即使我再说自己是陀螺粉，分也确实给不到五星了，（但我还是好喜欢啊）。
没看过原版 但黑白版效果拔群 演员阵容也太惊人了 光影运用也是精妙 很多抽烟点燃火柴的光源 人物初登场头顶灯 面部全黑的打光 极为舒适 还有摊牌阶段的眼部打光 镜头方面 最开始Lilith和Stan室内那场戏 镜头语言超级细腻 Lilith的过肩镜头 显得Lilith更渺小 问到法官时 权力调转 Stan变成了过肩 影片开场就是以人还是野兽这个疑问开始 当人类想充当上帝 改变他人命运时 却忘记自己也在那宿命之中 当然源起于欲望 Stan的“Never”就像是想避免一切跟父亲的联系 然而他却没有逃脱自己的宿命【PCC - Oscar Nominees】
故事比较老套，结局中途就已经猜到了。有趣的元素很多，但最后呈现出的故事却有点无聊。心理医生的伤疤由来没有交代，老头究竟干过什么没有交代，pete的死到底是怎么回事没有交代。影片一开始的镜头就让人出戏，一个男人费力把一具用袋子装起来的尸体拖到屋子中间，翻进屋中间的坑里，然后……他点了把火把整个屋子烧了！？？？？你既然要烧屋子，你为什么还要挖坑，还要把尸体装袋，还要把它扔到坑里？？？你就直接点不就行了？
当你陷入了一种狂热的地步不能自拔的时候，你还能告诉自己马上结束吗。self destructive trait is on everyone
我以为最后那个老工人会用电钻击穿老板的头😢
什么什么都好但是索然无所的那种莫名其妙的感觉....
一个大家伙已经实在是看腻了的文本结构，风格再搭也能给骂的惨兮兮，实在是熟悉过了头，以至于再精巧的叙事也没办法遮掩这是一个重复文本的信号。当观众在看一部电影时认识到的却反复是来自别的影像的现象，那么这部电影就已经镂空了，它只能成为一种Parody，尽管我相当入迷陀螺的风格和Carnival文本的向性，甚至完全想要力挺陀螺应聘下一届Bioshock的影像指导，但他哪怕不叙事就表现我都大爱了，如此的翻拍反倒让显相的这部分完全被文本的重复所覆盖，以至于观众会失去判断的能力因为一切的判断的前提都被文本的重复所否决。有几场做的是真的很入味儿，但是如果这个味儿不过是一种对先在文本的回指，那对如此感受本身的判断将不可能脱离对回指项的判断，这样，不如干脆别讲故事。不过虽然但是，还是请布兰切特干我，真的太行了。
还是前半部分马戏团的部分比较好看，为啥我有种库珀台词多了，戏反而变拖了的错觉。前半段没啥话的地方味道就很对。
社会塑造的常人与怪物，全程明示，靠置装置景烘托气氛，硬说是拍破碎的美国梦，不如说是没摆脱刻奇的匠气改编，炫技大于叙事。三个应该血肉丰满的女性角色成了剪影，最让人失望的是，剧中女性角色单薄的价值观和背弃男主角的动机，几近丧失人性，这就是托罗认为的新时代女性主义我不接受。而男主角功能性大于一切，模糊过往使男主角“适配一切不幸的幼年”，使劲拍了俩半小时，就是为了结尾那句不得不认命的台词，操控感也太强了吧，何必呢。这哪是拍电影，这是马戏团主与木偶人啊。
美术、摄影、灯光和服化道都不赖，只是这么一个故事真的需要用两个半小时去讲述吗？尤其第一幕的铺陈有必要如此大费周章吗？要不是结局带来了我始终迷恋的宿命感，观感只会更一般。
不是我以为的那种故事。花了将近一个小时来铺垫太长了，哪怕看到后来发现了伏笔也并没有很惊喜的感觉。演员演技虽然出色，但角色之间的互动和交锋并不多，整个故事像是一场大型回忆。直到最后，才明白曾经众人眼中被视为异类的怪人原来是这么诞生的。
寻着liedownplease来看的 我真是看不得电影了
2.5不能再多了/马戏团就很适合陀螺美学，但我这滤镜再厚也经不住这种磨蹭法，胖陀螺你哪里来的自信cooper可以撑起两个半小时的？👊🏻
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
