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.
完成度还算可以，故事情节也算跌宕起伏，还挺有回味空间。
要素过多，看着还行吧，虽然连昆池岩都不如。就是那个鬼动机很无聊
如《昆池岩》般的尿性看完即忘偶有的新鲜点便是采用多线并行外加时空交错的叙事方式 故事内核则是关于解离性人格障碍但不管影片玩的再怎么复杂都只是故弄玄虚而已实质老套无趣
氛围感挺好，剪辑也能看懂（为什么有人说乱），总体还不错，但跟优秀还是差一口气，也许剧本再好好打磨打磨就好了。
太暗了看的老费眼了ಥ_ಥ所以妹妹最后也进了大楼？
纯靠声音营造恐怖气氛，怎么还带穿越和空间交错的
筑进水泥墙需要莫大的勇气来面对这一切～又能发展成昆池岩那样的旅游景点了。
半小时直接弃，浪费时间，现在鬼片都拍的什么玩意
因为创意可以，勉强给三星合格。后面有剧透。由于总体很闷，没看认真，细节可能有错。本来是集时空交错，多重人格，鬼打墙死循环于一身，拍得好是一部精品。但这片几条时间线交错得乱七八糟，伏笔不够后面圆不了就强行跳过，重要情节交待不明。吓人的手法老土，连气氛都懒得营造，密逃风格黑暗中时不时跳出来一下，可以说毫不恐怖。结局算拍得可以。但男主明明去超渡地缚灵的，为什么不留下消灭全部恶灵才自渡？妈妈没进去不存在地缚灵吧，他进去干嘛的？还有到最后也没说杀人的主人格是谁。
不是所有乌漆麻黑都能制造恐怖氛围！看都看不清，吓个鬼啊！并且拍得乱七八糟！多来点怪奇宅这样的吧！
看完了满心只觉得就这？？这么大宏伟的标志性建筑，结果背后的故事就是这些吗？连个纪录片的边都搭不上。明明可以说的更好但是感觉就像一部狗血爱情剧。女主是性爱自修室的女主，很明显她不太适合这个装扮。不过身材是真的顶啊
【D-】低级惊吓桥段合辑，故弄玄虚的叙事更是惨不忍睹。
偶然找到的,准备来下饭,整体氛围还不错,这种废弃大楼一定会用到的梗就是困在其中无限循环,这部也就是这么回事
@法文；全部换成铆钉，临时变永恒；工地和工厂里的埃菲尔好像源泉里的霍华德(not a fan)；上红棕色的时候差点以为是防锈漆
智商不够没看懂，只知道为母报仇没成功，那张母亲撕下来的纸也没起到关键作用啊
感觉最后男主并没有出去，而是也死在了那座楼里！！！
而影片着重的爱情线，在拍摄手法上的确非常抢眼，插叙的手法将爱情和事业的起伏融合得恰到好处。演员的演技让本来普通的故事线依然动人。尤其是男女主最后庆功会上含泪遥望的表情转折，非常有感染力。但无法否认的是，这条故事线剧情上亮点不多，还是有些仓促。爆发点略显无力。
在看完《只看得见我吗》和《CCTV》后，这部绝对可以打个三星。时间线很重要，理清后故事设定还是有点小精彩，氛围感营造的也不错（除了某些前段的鬼做的效果略2b……）。另一星单独给金康宇，希望叔能去拍一下《M》第二季。
片中没有正常人，人人都是叙事道具，故事却相当无趣。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
