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.
3，既不会拍漫改也不会拍喜剧，把猥琐当有趣，把油腻当诙谐，也完全没把原著那种奇幻设定下日常幽默拍出来，电影频繁致敬《疯狂的石头》，但水平比宁浩差了N条街
故事好对我胃口，拍的也挺美。但可能还是有点太想讲清楚了，展现了太多逻辑性的线索和细节，就少了很多情感上说不清道不明的感觉。好可惜啊，那种抓不住的只能凭感觉的暧昧情愫才应该是影视化的魅力所在。（没想到会看到优子，有点感动+惊喜。真好啊，演技进步了好多，已经是立派的演员了啊）
人物故事停留在一个平面上，基本没有往前移动的痕迹，有着优秀的生活片段，却无法拼凑成整体，哪怕是出色的演技在本片里都难以成为优点。两星。
看评论不太行，抖音看了解说，好像确实不用浪费生命中的两小时了
故事讲明白了，元素较多题材不多见，很日本的片子
比较新颖的设定，当生活中天天见天天用的物品，天天照顾的绿植和宠物都变得拟人化，换谁都会各种社死。剧情荒诞，剪辑有点乱，喜剧感浓厚。
故事构思新颖，光影佳构图好，凯瑟琳让人想起勿言推理里面的莱卡，心疼至极，但整体看来主线剧情较为单薄，主人公行为疑点过多，田中圭形象建设的很到位，但笑起来变态形象就一秒崩坏，时常搞不清楚到底是恐怖片还是黑色幽默电影，相反几个学生表演的倒都挺出彩的。
整部电影充满了压抑无聊，中年无爱婚姻让人异常痛苦。女主的演技太强了，每个动作表情都在状态里，越看越心疼，希望能够释放出来，脸上写满了痛苦。越是痛苦，越是寄托在灵修上，越是依赖越是放不下。就像最后婚礼的出租上他们之间巨大的黑色深渊，无法逃脱。
兩星不能再多，電影主線故事與其說是故事，更似一種狀態的描述，而其他一切scene都只是狀態或者情緒的延伸和表達，而最重要的暗線之一的「修行」缽音確是毫無節奏，也無明確cut……導演似乎忽略了一點，哪怕是想拍做意識流，也是要以講好故事作為基礎的。
花妞是九亿少女的梦。
设定很带感，什么女子高中生、老师、多重人格、有想被杀的变态心理，但是没啥意义，也拍的没啥意思！
#HKAFF
看完贼压抑
今年打五星的不多，这片子值得。好看，万物都有自己的小精灵。
老夫老妻终归是：不抛弃，不放弃。很细节，很写实。
成也细节败也细节。戴着戒指的手、抱树的疯狂呐喊、一通电话逐渐勾勒出一个不幸福，且有些神经质的女人。但在剧情的推进上也太拉垮了吧，浪费了演员的表现力。为女演员的情绪感染力加一星。
挺能轻松解闷的片子呐，别对他定位太高，就图个乐子，合格了。
艾灸越来越像是传销。跟什么活力霜、正骨康之类差不多是一路货色，宣传能医百病。
可恶的是，她本守自己的本分，该做的家务没落，一副贤妻良母的样子。但另一方面明知道丈夫想要什么，却又不肯给予。还强迫对方和自己吃难吃的素食，喝难咽的果汁，还要绑着对方，连老狗也要阉了。这到底是为什么
十分钟就能拍完的东西干嘛浪费钱拍85分钟？莫拉古？全程都在呈现一种状态，时不时还得鸣个钟提醒你一下咱们这是剧情片。学人家只学到一半，想装点啥发现裤衩穿反了。美其名曰修行呗，也没个结果。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
