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.
易烊千玺不错，气质形象优于同期演员，但是灵气差点。
四字演的真不错，文牧野也不容易了，把命题作文拍成这样，还留下了几处蝼蚁的意象，也尽可能用现实主义视角，及格了。
结尾只是理想，现实是残酷的。这种小人物大多是悲剧收场。
工整的先苦后甜大团圆励志剧。
有很多场好看的戏，有笑有泪，单独看没问题，但串连起来并不成立，甚至有复刻《药神》的嫌疑。
大湾区的献片 电影情节我给三星
这种电影太好哭了。觉得自己可以对工作、生活可以再上点心。
致敬平凡而不甘于平凡的人
谁又是容易的呢，生活已经很难了，电影就让他圆满吧！
这种电影太好哭了。觉得自己可以对工作、生活可以再上点心。
文牧野再次从小人物的生活入手，用略带现实主义的手法塑造了一个奇迹。在这个功利至上的社会，每个人的初心尤为珍贵，而更为珍贵的是超越血缘亲情的那份友谊。众人拾柴火焰高，只要齐心协力，我们就可以相信奇迹！
跟同时期的四海都是聚焦于底层小人物的片子，但文牧野的这个角度可比韩寒聪明多了。国家这几年真是大力发展蓝领 《奇迹》这部电影可谓是踩准了“主旋律”的点子上。
意气的打一下五星，齐溪的怒吼：我就是工人。文牧野把点名的献礼片拍成了一个给工人的礼物，应该是有意而为之。
做好电影容易，做好人很难，现实中可遇不到这么多好人。
剧情一切都在期待中，但看到最后，还是挺激动
片中印象最深的是坐过牢的拳击手出手的瞬间。以及片尾BEYOND超燃的曲子，可惜与电影无关。电影的BGM前半个小时有点莫名其妙。整个片都有点让我觉得尴尬癌犯了。一个浮躁的时代的浮躁的电影人的浮躁“作品”。
被“收编”之后的文牧野，极其适合拍这种“道路是曲折的，前途是光明的”城市形象宣传片，可有问《当幸福来敲门》拿版权费？另外，从未露面的本地房东和已功成名就的深一代仿佛立在主人公面前的两座大山，这座平均年龄全国最低的城市，外地人神话还能凑效吗？
这片子贵在“真诚、自然”，还有导演说故事的方式“不卖弄”！
赶药神还是差太多了。演员演技在线，但剧情上还差点意思。
男性气质对男性的规训、压迫、异化，真正的大师杰作！
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
