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.
太闹腾了，技术没的说……时隔一个月没在影院看电影了，激动！感觉今年北影节又有戏了……
没来由送死，动机不明，情感像猜谜，巨幅摇摆，为了悲生搬硬套，太低阶。
回归到简单一点，善就是善恶就是恶，没有那么多救赎和反转的故事，也挺好。
中規中矩。diane好a！話說每次鯊魚偽裝成人，這麼明顯不同，為啥這些人都沒有察覺？
Being good just feels so good.
属于比较中规中矩的故事吧，故事流畅度是有的，就是没有太多新鲜感，套路比较多…主打的是友情，还有反对刻板印象，坏人之所以会成为坏人，有一部分原因是别人的眼光，但主要还是自己的原因…所以，这个电影也还是没能自圆其说吧～
毫无疑问，今天三部连看最好的一部。但是依旧无法逃过只敢隔靴搔痒无法深入病灶的悲哀和遗憾。小谢很好。
导演走好。港片的时代，早该落幕。
到底是我心有魔债还是它真的很像秘密特工……
应该是2D，制作没那么精美，剧情什么的也比较老套，就追车戏还不错
7分，应该是五一档最轻松最喜剧的电影了。虽然是坏蛋联盟，但同样也是五个同甘共苦的好朋友，绝不能落下一个人。
脸谱化角色，故事人物套路，说话节奏太慢了，还有为啥要用配音？只有谢霆锋是原声吧。甄子丹的西装太小了，这么紧怎么跑步追贼？两个星都是给谢霆锋的，他还是从前那个少年，没有一丝丝改变啊，身型挺拔，宽肩瘦腰的倒三角身材（把甄子丹衬的歪歪扭扭的），光影更是强调了他优越的面部轮廓，还有这个卷发简直是美人必备吧，甜茶也这个发型，不知道有没有人给剪辑一个霆锋所有戏份供大家吸，诶，不说了这就去听谢霆锋的歌。。。
里面的音乐真不错～剧情可以的～大坏狼好帅哈哈哈哈哈～看的蛮开心的～疫情结束后电影院看的第一场电影～
PS.很难不让人怀疑梦工厂想用这部电影对标迪士尼的《疯狂动物城》
看来大家都不太买情怀账啊，电影导演确实不如画家，亡故以后作品涨价的空间实在有限。
“善良之花，生长于所有人心底，只待盛放。”
就这？3D的意义在哪里？平平淡淡，甚至有点老掉牙，基本的剧情脉络都能猜出个一二三来。
甄子丹的时装动作片，真是看一部少一部了，最后掏出甩棍和玩蝴蝶刀的谢霆锋教堂大战，梦回多年前《杀破狼》里的那条午夜深巷。
还是陈旧了些。另外，坏人哪怕弃暗投明还是要先伏法的，但如果当了州长又似乎可免。
北京影院2022端午复工后看的第一部电影。还是挺带劲的。反转再反转，虽然猜的到。期待第二部。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
