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.
噢，丹尼尔出演反派，居然没看出来，怪不得那么眼熟啊！皮特那么多潇洒动作，就那样game over啦？！当作探险片，没想到是个搞笑片啊
为何评分这样低？？这部剧每个笑点都怼中我 自黑喜剧界的一朵奇葩 电影院上座率有点低但是我和其他观众笑到嚎叫
疫情期间库存的最后一个电影，没想到这个冒险模式竟然是丛林搞笑模式，小说家和封面模特，意外劫持到丛林里，哈利波特命令他们找到公主桂冠，结果桂冠竟是一个浪漫的爱情传说，两个人确收获了爱情。片子应该在5-6分水平，但是有了那十分钟布拉德皮特的客串营救，被崩掉，增加了故事趣味性，为喜欢的男人加一分吧。
总体很一般，虽然喜剧火花的感觉是有，但冒险寻宝的部分太糟，居然也就是皮特客串的一部分拍的最好，
【5.0-】每个段落都相当敷衍，跟近年来的无数部两个人嘚吧嘚的片子没啥区别。跟《无暇赴死》一个样子，那个是有安娜的片段都特好看，其余的基本不能看，这里就变成皮特了
哈利这么蠢，皮特他真的谢。爆米花的节奏不错，没让人快进就成功了。
就搞笑了十几二十分钟…然后就是无聊无聊无聊
看傻大姐玫红色大闪片紧身衣，就知道本片只是个蠢蛋秀，和“夺宝奇兵”类盗墓探险主题无关。演员不多却阵容强大，丹尼尔的反派，布拉特皮特的英雄，是不是看在傻大姐面子上才来的？
1.5
分数：55
但因杂糅寻宝、搞笑、爱情、个人成长各种素，而显得表面而凌乱。
挺好笑的，其实电影本身比预告所展现的要好，两个角色都更加立体。挺惊喜的。
多一颗星给皮特，身材动作都还不错，可以出演疾速追杀系列。其他不怎么样，尤其是布洛克，脸太僵硬了，和塔图姆配戏尴尬
属于搞笑的类型，但是比较轻松的搞笑，不是那种哈哈大笑的搞笑，中间男主和女主的戏很无聊，也比较多，所以感觉不好看。
全片插科打诨，嬉皮笑脸。创作者努力想把这部电影打造成一个通俗易懂的商品，格局一降再降导致严重失形。企图做成一包“薯片”和一瓶“可乐”时，难免会变成一件非常平凡的商品，若想要最大化吸引大众目光至少质量上要过关，从上而下的打造，而不是直接切入低层。逻辑混乱，注水严重，内容被不断涌现的“笑点”稀释。整体上的结构非常像经典网文模式，运用“反差”，“差距”来营造强刺激的戏剧感。
5分
能说皮特挂了后就不好看了么？非常流水线作业的爱情探险片，但整个情节的起承转合及节奏都非常奇怪，只能靠一个又一个搞笑段子撑场。比当年的《木乃伊》差了一百个《夺宝奇兵》。
没想到一部大牌云集的夺宝探险题材电影居然会这么无聊，全程除了拌嘴就剩下桑婆的bulingbuling秀，唯一的记忆点只剩下皮特的老子说，然后他就被爆头了，结果他又复活了……完完全全浪费了查宁·塔图姆紧致的屁股。
反正后面我玩手机去了.这2人是不是都打针去了？钱老板看上去特别不自然
110分钟，派拉蒙的片，塔图姆就和葛韦格芭比里的肯类似吧？好久不见的皮特，继阅后即焚之后又打了一滴大大的酱油并且被爆头。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
