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.
白胡子老爷爷比较好看。这电影只能找老汤大爷演
补标 一人一机一狗 人机相托 心光助前行
明明是平淡的故事，我却感受到了浓烈的孤独。
背景设定不够严谨，故事是好的。从《荒岛余生》到《芬奇》，汤姆·汉克斯这次不再是一个人。jeff问：什么叫信任？芬奇回答不出来。jeff说：我相信芬奇。芬奇却说：我是个懦夫，不值得相信。而最终，芬奇只能把希望寄托在jeff身上，而jeff用行动证明，他会成长为一个值得信任的伙伴。
豆瓣给8.4，似乎有点过于慷慨。。。这片子比较小清新，当然也比较白左，我觉得排除那些政治因素，片子本身应该是7分的水平
Jeff演技真的好好。比很多真人演员都好啊，怎么办到的。//就是杜威走得太突然了，啊不会说话但是一直默默做事还贡献了自己眼睛的杜威啊。
疫情之下断断续续看汤姆•汉克斯《芬奇》，这是他本人《荒岛余生》的世界末日版，同样是一个人支撑了一部电影。世界只剩一人，支撑一个人活下去的是求生的本能、希望、责任感和爱，人类对小狗的爱，机器人对小狗的爱（对动物的爱，机器的爱映射的其实是人间的爱），世界终究还是有美好，阳光空气和自由都很好。伤感的是美好刚刚到来，人生有未竟之愿，遗憾之事，芬奇就离开了世界，如同一句歌词：我在刚开始的瞬间毁灭。毕竟意难平。
【B－】好就好在几乎彻底排除「其他人」的存在，让影片保留了一分还算可贵的纯粹；差也差在几乎彻底排除「其他人」的存在，否定了更多的可能性。或许创作者们「无所求」的态度本身也是一种追求，毕竟这种拍过无数次的题材和设定以这样一种简单的姿态呈现给观众时，也能带来些许新鲜感。
LOVED BY GOODYEAR AND JEFF.”This is living."又浪漫又伤心 呜呜呜o(╥﹏╥)o
人类充满了矛盾。
与吱吱观影no.4
看多了人与人的感情之后
3.5，正宗好莱坞工业味儿。片名又译《末日求生：我和我的机器人儿子》、《极客老处男的逆袭之我和我自己生了一个儿子》、《阿宅日记：死都不社交》、《未来社会观察：人不如狗》，以及Kevin Kelly下本书的灵感《科技要什么2：情感篇》。
唯一的刺激点就是那家诡异的医院，和恶心的钳子。
虽然无法参透，但无聊地联想到了我们仿佛就是 finch 制造的 jef，一生下来就必须坚持 finch 的领导，不能动摇 finch 的领导，还得坚决保护他免于伤害，更不能质疑 finch。我们还得模仿finch 的举动和口号，紧密围绕在 finch 的周围，finch 不在了，我们还要沿着他的道路走下去。。。
2022.7.3
剧情基本没有什么槽点，很汉克斯的风格，没有过于激烈的剧情冲突，稳健地讲述出了一场人，机器人，狗的公路旅行。
只有我觉得这个机器人很油腻嘛…人物和背景设定都很单薄无力，刻意煽情，完全无法和WallE比
这是一个关于世界末日无聊的故事，但里面又因为有宠物有些感人。
唯一的刺激点就是那家诡异的医院，和恶心的钳子。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
