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.
漫长旅途的终点，来见证所罗门最后的魔术吧。
片长的影响太大了，制作经费估计也不足吧，声优比较少，从者的宝具场景也很少。大家想看什么，傻子也知道吧，宝具展开都没几个，中间进门前后还有点脱节，最后打BOSS也有点尬，你不如多来点宝具，最后拿盾插，你笑我呐。
同是与《黑天鹅》题材相似，这部片子甩开了之前的《欲望跳台》几条街，童年的梦魇、母亲的影子、无形的压力幻化成人格的分裂
以为女主会在新闻事件真相上做文章
“妈妈是不是没有我会更好”这个主题感觉是当代许多人一生的痛楚，这部作品和《李焕英》从不同角度诠释了这个沉重的母题，两者呈现方式不同，给出的答案却是一样的。
女演员演技真不错 代入感好强 母亲两个字背负了太多
除了悬疑惊悚还在传递关于亲子关系和女性社会压力的幸福吧
特别好看，有激情有热血有感情，我非常喜欢，但是刚刚看了一下评论，感觉大家不太满意啊，我没有玩过游戏，看着还是很喜欢的，就是结局有遗憾啊，罗曼啊啊啊啊，玛修回来了，医生能回来吗😭😭😭
三星半。气氛烘托的很好，中间有些情节不是很合理
粉丝向作品，评分这么低是因为没有达到观众的预期，打戏很少，剧情解说偏多，该燃的地方燃不起来，这些或许是评分低的主要原因，可是要知道，终章是以悲为主，不论是玛修还是医生，我认为达到了以悲为主的目的，所以值得五星。另外一些闪闪厨不理解为什么王只是在摸鱼，最后总结了一下就退场了因为如果闪闪出手 在医生以后一个乖离剑砸下去就可以直接结束了乖离剑太bug
本来以为起码会和跟食物和解有一丢丢关系 没有不影响 但实际也超无聊超俗超做作
怎么都没想过电影改得这么狗血和无聊
who吃了who的早餐，身份錯位案例；杜政哲是端水大師，純愛本不應容納大愛。
我也就是来看看申河均，为什么他这么怨女；第一次看千玗嬉，有时还是觉得幼齿了点。
崩坏的原画，智熄的改编，苍白的独白，精简的声优配置，稳如流水账，稳稳的应付人的流水账，电影表现力还没有文字强，剧场版画质还不如第七章的番剧，这是剧场版电影？讲道理不想做可以不做，不要糟践现成的好剧本，照着原作搬也不会瞎吉尔发挥啥呢，医生的牺牲整的和千里送人头一样，送完盖总还活蹦乱跳的啊，啥玩意啊，经费全花在渲染魔神柱了吗，你哪怕直接放几个宝具语音也比一帮哑巴强啊，导演到底看没看剧本啊，制作组都和冠位有仇，有冠位的地方必定没牌面是吧，懂了，制作组就是人类恶。一星给情怀，不能给0星算豆瓣官方扶持，电影不值得看，建议玩原作。
期待已久的终局特异点。
导演是偶像剧的编剧出身。怪不得这故事偏女性向。
我真是麻了，我沉的这么多船你到底是拍了什么啊
我居然一开始就猜对了整个大概的剧情，失去了点新鲜感，就中规中矩把。
如果看片名你会想到河正宇的《恐怖直播》那就错了，建议去看看余文乐、蔡卓妍的《妄想》，都是讲人格分裂的，运镜、灯光、分镜、剪辑都还不错，为什么故事会感觉很平，逻辑性与层次感着实出了问题，可以下酒看的惊悚悬疑，但是期望值别拉满，唯恐字幕的升起与你的生气同步。QJ
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
