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.
《论骨灰级影迷的自我修养之如何用实际行动为续作写剧情》
人物塑造太离谱了，男主也太没有魅力了...白期待了。新版劝导就拍成这个鬼样子。要看还是看Sally和Rupert那版吧
很矛盾，我一边在嫌弃女主的无能狂怒，一边又在悲痛女主一家的无助。
后几部的通病，模仿这个动机完全没有说服力，还有一个小女孩力气能大过一个退休警官????
不是一个完全意义上的现代版改编，但在古典的壳子里能看到一些现代精神。简奥斯汀的文本里最迷人的女性情感挣扎放在一个更当下的语境当中无疑是相得益彰的，即便在今天的观众审美中它已经成为“绿茶女”、“婊气”的代言。男主演这样的角色就好像野人强行假扮绅士，和女主站在一起更像是在翻拍《美女与野兽》。
没看过原著。整部电影的古典味很淡，胜在剧情比较轻松，最后也是有情人终成眷属的happy ending。突然想到，单论制作这算不算美国S+古偶？
造孽，一连看了两部恐怖老IP烂片——《惊声尖叫5》和新版《德州电锯杀人狂》，两部还都烂出了喜剧效果，所以看着也没那么无聊，就是单纯的没营养，是那种很适合在你枯燥乏味的一天快要结束后，拿出来荒废时间的电影。
节奏比较慢，但是不狗血。
如果这不算烂片，那我不知道什么才叫烂片了。这剧情也太扯蛋了。主演没一个演技在线的。姐妹二人一个比一个看着招人烦。
造孽，一连看了两部恐怖老IP烂片——《惊声尖叫5》和新版《德州电锯杀人狂》，两部还都烂出了喜剧效果，所以看着也没那么无聊，就是单纯的没营养，是那种很适合在你枯燥乏味的一天快要结束后，拿出来荒废时间的电影。
小说和电影3星，一星加给简奥斯丁，为她创作出伟大的《傲慢与偏见》！高中的时候读了《pride and prejudice》，研二之前读完了奥斯丁全部的6部作品！她的作品时至今日，仍受到影视剧作品的青睐，的确是好看有嚼头！
三星半吧
达妹真的太美了，非常适合简奥斯汀笔下聪慧美貌带有一丝俏皮可爱的女主。除了Mr.Eillot最后竟然… 其他都很好。台词美得想反复阅读。画面以及导演手法也很好。
我不理解爸爸这种赌马赌到倾家荡产的人设为什么可以洗得好像这一切都不是他的错一样
就像是严肃版的惊声尖笑【怎么听起来有点奇怪？】，一边疯狂吐槽，一边疯狂俗套，赢两次是吧。
所谓新素材就是稀烂的剧情、更多的血腥和暴力
总体而言，没有过分落入俗套，却也缺乏新意。算是在平淡时期贡献了一部中规中矩的爆米花恐怖片吧。
如果没有看或者忘记前几集了，会不会觉得这部更无聊了。
當代最好的恐怖片續集作，沒有之一。再者這是貨真價實的續作，而不是將前作推倒重來那種「新」玩法。
可能最近女性主义作家编剧的戏看多了，这种HE结尾就显得俗套，中间男女主的拉扯逃不开傲慢与偏见，选角失败，尤其男演员太不帅了喂，and为了政治正确强行一波非裔亚裔真是倒胃口，btw没看过原著可能失望度要更低些，看到原著党下的评论已经开始暴走了
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
