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.
豆瓣并不算高的评分或许体现了观影的期待偏差。对于哈姆雷特的故事设定从一开始就没打算往叙事方向走，嫁接到北欧的历史环境，自然也不会是史诗的规模，特殊的神话和宗教崇拜体系下，一贯独特的色彩和运镜，最终呈现的，定是满足小众口味的融合菜码而已，我蛮喜欢。
柯南伯格是真的对（被割裂的）人体有着近乎神圣的着迷，而平和稳定摄影则将这种美感与神圣准确传递给了观众（不管是否被接受）至于表达，不能说完全理解了，感受到了一丝现代科技与政治不太光鲜的链接，以及宿命论式的身体进化悲观论。柯南伯格（化身为影片中男主角）先是悲观，然后流着泪接受。
说实话这种欧美古装剧看多了就觉得食之无味弃之可惜，A大的身材还是很好的，全程看肌肉
柯南伯格回归土酷的片子，维护“城里人真会玩”的主题几十年不动摇，可以说观看体验十分快乐了。虽然一帮人冷淡着聊些幼稚的科幻世界观有点炮打蚊子的感觉哈。另外斯图尔特在此片表现我觉得还不错呀，求别尬黑。柯南伯格之前还找过五方合作，怎么回事啊是故意组暮光cp吗
Fantastic! 史诗感，宿命感。只有北欧这种世界尽头才能烘托出神话一样的故事。英雄
人类对快感和与众不同的追求已经达到了神经质的程度，神秘感常常是吸引单纯女性的利器，如同征服欲对于男人的吸引力。
王子复仇记的炒冷饭的又一无聊版。原创已死，只剩冷饭。
整部电影有着和《女巫》截然不同的气质，不再是神秘丛林的阴气重重，取而代之的是极端化的兽性和男性气质，冰岛的辽阔草原和电闪雷鸣为电影提供了最为天然的绝佳舞台，极具地方性色彩且同样低沉嘶吼的配乐带来了更高层次的视听盛宴，油然而生的史诗感和宏大场面让略显单调的故事情节也沉浸感十足
大小谎言还是夫妻 这部成母子了 刺激
一群农民/山贼/海盗之间的持械斗殴厮杀，口口相传成为了另一群没有历史的人祭奠IP。4/5处时，只有WTF萦绕在脑中。大腮帮子的妮可基德曼，终究还是不如花瓶娜奥米沃茨美。平庸就是平庸——果然是灯塔导演。22/05/12
2022-05-14
一个注定要去瓦尔哈拉的王子。
这不是一部好电影，很多场景和场景衔接既生硬又不够简洁。但这是一部艺术品。今年奥斯卡最佳摄影提名名额已占一席。
杜比影院的视听效果太棒了，刺激直接的复仇故事。
身体美学固然好，大片空洞乏力的文本让人根本没耐心看。虽然是新奇的设定，但愣是演出呆板无趣的迷幻世界了...
整体架构讨论关于命运和决心；但其中所填充的剧情连贯度不行，缺少细节上的铺垫
妥了 新食材 新菜谱 我指的是内脏（bushi）
柯南伯格是真的对（被割裂的）人体有着近乎神圣的着迷，而平和稳定摄影则将这种美感与神圣准确传递给了观众（不管是否被接受）至于表达，不能说完全理解了，感受到了一丝现代科技与政治不太光鲜的链接，以及宿命论式的身体进化悲观论。柯南伯格（化身为影片中男主角）先是悲观，然后流着泪接受。
每天的战争场面已经够trauma，没事不要再到电影院受罪了。血腥暴力野蛮，如坐针毡，提前离场。故事无聊透顶。
🍅89%🍿️64%
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
