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.
韩寒的现在最大问题是太多没有任何逻辑的无厘头打断故事节奏和整体质感，最后就是四不像，故事太不合理，人说死就死...
连着看了两部春节档电影，主角吴京和刘昊然都燃起来了，真的燃。
前后割裂的片子，感觉一部片子的钱看了二部，而且都不好看，韩寒的老毛病还是不可接受。
这是我近半年最喜欢的一部电影！觉得韩寒一直保持着年轻人的热情，不断变换着身份，做的却是一样酷的事情。
其实还好。以为是四海之内皆兄弟，却不过是漂泊四海剩一人。
@@（2022-02-01）四海（Only Fools Rush In）
前半段太过于差了，韩寒那些尴尬的冷笑话和过时的段子让人不住摇头和翻白眼，即便沈腾都hold不住啊…后半段尽管剧本本身的漏洞仍然存在，但减少了段子和出戏的台词之后，明显节奏更好情感也更真挚了
没那么好 也没那么差。可能我的新年一直都不怎么喜庆热闹，和男朋友一起看这么个片子也不觉着有什么不妥。他倒是以为“很搞笑”去看了，结果是部有点割裂的文艺片。所以可以说是有点土嗨又有点丧的小作文。
半部好片。上半部节奏干脆利落，烂gag不断，是我熟悉的韩寒。后半强行悲剧，各种生搬硬扯，直接脱离地气。结局整盆狗血淋下来。大型禁摩+反网贷宣传片。当然，我理解韩寒的作者表达：大城市如洪水猛兽。四海很大，高手很多。我只能龟缩。负能量爆灯。
虽然剧情很弱，还夹杂了大量抖机灵、不好笑的笑话和略漂浮的青春疼痛文学，但是肯定不是烂片，因为导演是有想要表达的东西的，只是小镇青年迷惘故事和电影受众下沉不能兼得，你不能既要……又要……。
其实，作文还是很感人的。
做好了就会像没做一样。
而颠覆了造型的小土狗刘昊然居然还散发出一种独特味道，也给了角色更丰富的角色弧光。
1.几个幽默的点是否和全片氛围不太契合？2.影片前段，床上有本书，欧亨利的《麦琪的礼物》，预示了结尾。3.刘昊然的小胡子，致敬了《从海底出击》中的胡子自然生长。
非常韩寒，小镇青年被没能实现的梦想、没能满足的欲望和大城市霓虹灯吞没，最终如梦一场的故事。 但既然是“大梦一场”，就肯定不能达成大团圆了，可能想在春节看he喜剧的朋友会不爽吧哈哈哈
不是因为不喜欢lhc给低分，而是这个电影是真的不太行。韩寒直男癌太严重了吧，拍的电影太不连贯了，是真的老了？没才华了？
韩寒的电影我还会去看的，不管怎么说，他总是能掐住我心中的一块肉，让我看完总是回味无穷。
韩寒没有任何进步 依旧是小镇青年那一套 和接受的教育有一定关系 怀念的永远是他自己中学时候的那一套东西 拍个摩托车就套个柯受良飞越 一切都太过于表面了。
为了表现骑摩托车和讲段子，放弃了剧情的逻辑。
啊这个剧本零散成这个样子，我都无法控制我的不忍心不去责备了。韩寒这是践行了男人至死是少年的格言，电影写成了新概念未入选作文的水平——语句优美，辞藻华丽，词不达意——你看，我认识的字你不会组合。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
