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.
世界上还有比这长的更像妮可基德曼的吗？结果是整容过度变老后的妮可。
纪录片的方式，追述一段冷战时代广播秀的往事。
这部剧很无聊，但妮可绝对贡献了超一线的表演，哈维尔也贡献了超一线的艺术魅力，两个大神也没能挽救这破剧本
在各封控区水深火热的人民可以看看，索德伯格用近乎童稚的视角拍出了对这个时代的不满情绪
7-挺酷的角色，剧情设定简单，但悬疑拍出来了。最后只能说女主惹不起，装修家具好看，家很大。
疫情下科技时代的犯罪电影，切入点很独特新颖，另一方面又体现着个人信息的泄露让你无处遁形。但最重要的是，千万不能小看宅家不出门的人
本来想讲述一个智能化时代的惊悚犯罪故事，但除了智能音箱与网络的互动之外，整个故事设置与叙述方式还是非常老套的，最终还得回到电钉枪杀人的传统上来。女主角的形象与表演，让本来已经很拖沓的剧情更加不吸引人。影片的主旨仍是揭露资本的罪恶，只是为了能够上市，真有人不惜花如此代价，费如此周折，死几条人命，最后让自己锒铛入狱吗？索德伯格真是后劲不足啊。
索德伯格近几年的各种“小片”都有着非常独特的魅力，各种类型的尝试，各种拍摄风格的尝试，各种观点的涉猎，远远强于众多大佬。这是一部精炼的电影，非常公式化的结构，但对节奏和紧张感的把握都是非同凡响的。
没完全看懂，女主是技术人员，从类似小度在家的智能设备的后台录音中听到犯罪信息，然后联系各个人，反正我也不知这些人都是干嘛的，然后也不知道啥原因反正女主就鼓起勇气要出门去跟另一个见面，然后一堆人就抓她，最后她用钉钉子的气枪杀了几个人，我也不知道追杀她的人哪来的，也不知道那个人是怎么知道女主再告发他，总之莫名其妙，乱七八糟。。。看完了又觉得没看懂。
2.5/5
个人风格强烈 形式大于内容 纪录/戏中戏、快速剪辑/闪回
索德伯格已经很多年没有过合格的作品了 不是他本身不够优秀 他的很多镜头有些过时 节奏也偏慢 本片虽然融合了大数据和人工智能的现代元素 女主的造型也十分赛博朋克 但关于女权独立的观点还放在几年前 从《后窗》的视角与床戏姿势还是能看出本片有限的角度
亮点是妮可的演技 但是不如时时刻刻里细致入微
亮点是妮可的演技 但是不如时时刻刻里细致入微
妮可尔基德曼还是好，光彩照人。索金还是不要当导演了……
当年，曾陪家人看了很多集‘ I Love Lucy’。两位主演都很努力，表现得不错。但这部传记片营造的凝重气氛，感觉与’I Love Lucy’的轻松欢快，不大合拍，
尽管针妮脸已经僵硬成这样了，还是很让人共情啊，求求艾伦·索金别再导演了，专心写剧本就可以了！
既然有被提名了奥斯卡，我觉得这应该是一部好电影。可我坚持到一半实在看不下去了，给个3星吧😮💨
这年头还有人信奉以身相许？啧啧啧，真是当代“僵尸”
粉头发比较好看鸭，剧情中规中矩，拍摄手法还可以
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
