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.
前后两部分感觉像两部完全不同的电影。虽然看完之后理解了前半段所有的铺垫，但是还是觉得可以做到再紧凑一些，没必要超过一个小时。
复古精致，视觉的饕餮盛宴！骗中骗、蛇蝎美人、西装革履的斯文败类、一场阴谋以及一段危险关系，能看出陀螺对好莱坞黄金时代的缅怀与执念。也许是“不合时宜”的电影，但也是如今这个充斥着快餐文化的时代所需要的电影。带着五味杂陈的心情写下这段感受，但也许再过几分钟我就只在乎《奇异博士2》《蜘蛛侠》们到底能不能上？！
美术摄影特效都到顶了无可挑剔，可在电影内容上唯有鲁妮·玛拉的部分有点儿费里尼[大路]那意思，马戏团那段少了德尔托罗理应有的恶趣味不是很满足，中间库珀和布兰切特的“连档模子”段落也拍得甚是无趣，就和用的这版《Stardust》一样，离抒情很远，怪味有所展露，却又不尽兴；“But you’re not as hard to read as you think, lady.”
7.0 超长第一幕，陀螺的黑暗风格得以充分展现，剧情简单，节奏慢，头重脚轻，选角失败（男主）。童年创伤，怪人故事。
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。
教科书级的节奏感十足的狗血小品。处理得自在轻盈。丝毫不削弱现实主义意义，得亏用这种表达方式。巴登表演无懈可击。
讨厌的点可太多了，剧作本末倒置，Bradly Cooper也垃圾，陀螺回家继续养小怪物吧。
心中总有缺口
【3.0】从好的方面来讲，有区别于旧好莱坞时代的黑色电影过于实感的新鲜观感，一种华丽的黑童话质感，是一眼就能认出来的独属于陀螺的电影风格。从不好的方面来讲，整个故事讲得有够无聊，电影叙事逻辑存在问题，这个剧本也避免不了审美的时效性限制，翻拍本身显得意义不大。
为啥才6.7？虽然戏剧舞台味道过重但跟传奇色彩还是很契合的啊！拍摄不错，表演也不错。整体故事虽然你大概能悟道and有点长，但都不失为一部好电影呀。
故事背景,还有细节都很有意思. 一点点魔幻的感觉. 只是故事讲的稍微匆忙了点. 再铺垫的扎实点,估计会很不错.
4.5，没看过原作，2.30小时不觉得长，意犹未尽。
看的时候可能觉得平淡无奇。但是过后回想时，它的黑色不在于人性的污点和罪恶，而是那个细思极恐的命运的深渊。
老派重温。以导演的视听审美标准，以及剧本的细节之处，足可以在商业视听上冲击感官。与老版对比后更明显。
电影整体的基调和风格很吸引人，其实故事也不错，只是马戏团的部分明知道作为故事铺垫极其重要但还是觉得冗长，斯坦被贪婪反噬早有预料，捕鸟人终成笼中鸟的结局很棒。
不太喜欢这个片子，不精彩，一个平平淡淡的翻拍片。
可以想象原版应该是部很酷的黑色电影，新版2个半小时真的又臭又长，高潮部分几乎一笔带过，显得莫名其妙，陀螺这回栽了大跟头。
前情有必要交代，但确实不必拖得太长。陀螺可能是想找个机会展示自己的freak show美学——马戏团的帐篷和诡异陈设令人联想到魏玛时期表现主义经典之作《卡里加里博士的小屋》。当陀螺沉迷于此时，批判与猎奇的分野则趋于暧昧模糊。
昨晚，不知多少人和我一样，被「国师」张艺谋「知微见著、去繁化简」的「中国古典」美学和浪漫震撼与感动到。虽与东方传统文化大相径庭，但喜欢钻研「黑科技」的观众也不妨看看西方《梦魇巷》里的「精神现象」学。显然，这是一个吸引「眼球」和争夺「注意力」的时代，导演的工作就是吸引并操纵观众。对于「江湖骗子」来说，导演仅是一个饭碗。然而，男主却是一个有「弑父」意识和包袱，且有「恋母」诉求和冲动的「时空」旅行者。他一面「挣钱」糊口，一面《偷吻》学艺——他的「艺术」启蒙导师是他的母亲，而他的「越界」对象亦是扮演《心灵猎人》角色的「通灵知心」师母。在托罗这部试图运用「基督」文明详解「水火既济」卦相，被「空心病」患者低估的寓言作品里，他的理想观众显然不是那些寻求感官刺激，容易被「江湖杂耍」牵着眼和脑子走的访客。待续
成功靠实力，运气，机会，等等等等，很多东西，失败只靠欲壑难填
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
