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.
真好看！不知道为什么一个童话作品，而且是没看过的书，却看得流了好几次泪。
鲁西西有一条完美的人物弧光，皮皮鲁自始至终没有成长，有些遗憾
大人的意识形态需求与小人的当下所需艰苦斗争。
电影的主旨我能理解，最后主题的升华我觉得也非常好。可是这电影的ppt感和塑料感也太强了。
尬得我手足无措，不知所以然。21世纪都过了20年了，还有这么让人无语的玩意儿。
完全尊重原著，但是拍的节奏有点一言难尽，前面的情节太快了，原著很多有意思的情节都没有展示出来，比如说晚上鲁西西给小人们做衣服，用针给上尉做剑，从冰箱里偷食物给小人吃，给小人做房子，红沙发乐队等等，都没有拍出来，但是完全抓住了故事主线，完全还原了90年代的郑渊洁，但是表演及特效…也是90年代的水平。
意外的觉得还挺好看的，年代感也很容易引起共鸣。
“也不知道怎么道别，书里也没有讲过。” PS：花絮里的道具和拍摄可比现在的某些电视剧用心不止一点点啊。
上座率不高，不过仅有的几个小朋友看的很开心，跟着笑，遇到刺激有吸气声。
鲁西西说的一些话还是挺有道理的 无实物表演演技还可以就是有点认真到刻板 只有翻译官演的自然一些
（不过本来也没有什么好办法）
另外这部剧第一标签居然是喜剧真是搞不懂，从头到尾我只在阴暗中感到悲哀。
（不过本来也没有什么好办法）
当然现实确实是老师、校长们会歧视差生（这里的差生不仅仅是学习不好、纪律不好，还有家庭成分不好——贫穷之类等）。
片尾是呈现这部影片的部分拍摄情景，觉得挺好的，能看看拍摄手法和一些特效是怎么弄出来的，而且也能感受到导演的用心
除了后面火灾的改编有点夸张以外，真的是满分！还原童年幻想，期待魔方大厦
上学时挺喜欢看郑渊洁童话，不知为啥，电影就觉得没有书有意思了
原著经典，台词有趣，老少皆宜，还带点思考的电影。情节有修改不过能说得通，小人的打光有些融不进去，后期一般。希望有一天能在大荧幕上看见莱克。
…看了十多分钟，演员挺平面的，没法入戏…放弃了
如果不是因为特别喜欢郑渊洁，这真是不及格的电影。拍成电影，让我感到浓厚的历史气息，老郑的作品怎么会过时呢……罐头小人让真人来演，真是毁童年啊！真的接受不了！
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
