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.
当笑话看合格，当喜剧看比上不足比下有余，有些人非要当正剧看找合理性就太看得起导演了。
结局有点拉，但是就网大来说整体还是挺不错的
话说刘平安天天健身吗
崔志佳拍的电影当成一个长的小品看一点毛病没有 多一星给伏笔
整体的故事比较完整，笑点也不算尬。佳佳说话没东北味显得和周围人有点割裂，男主对父亲的复杂态度铺垫的略显不足。题材特别好，演员的表演都能达到及格线以上。
哈哈哈哈,稀里糊涂的就猜到结局了,真把人当傻子？
虽然很套路，但是挺有意思，都是这样的网大也挺好玩儿。
剧本是好剧本 换几个演员能上大分 佳佳真不错
一人一部
但是，我相信崔志佳尽力了。
北影节看完一直没标。挺特别的战争片，前20分钟好像老塔及60年代的东欧电影啊
没啥意思，浪费时间，什么时候能真正拍一部东北老百姓的真实故事呢，而不是这几个导演自我陶醉的用所谓的东北腔调进行一些恶俗的，不切实际的所谓搞笑，抹黑东北人的形象
国美就这水平吗？
很好的题材，像一个带着经历的故事，也像一个爱电影人的梦
能看出本片有意對《伊萬的童年》（及《潛行者》）《1917》《他們已不再變老》等前作的摹擬，但相比之下很明顯是形式大於內容、且形式上也別無創見的庸常之作。本片已“不合時宜”地提出了執行上級必死的軍令和違逆軍令以保全下屬和夥伴的生命（即“資產階級人性”）之間的兩難命題，也借人物處置國民黨俘虜——同時也是同操一門方言的浙江同鄉——時的溫情和猶疑的態度，傳達出對於戰爭特別是民族內戰的意義的某種疑慮。但作為以主旋律立項、並藉此收獲諸多體制內贊譽的影片，它對上述問題的處理似乎只能是草率和保守的，主人公仍然執起集體的大旗，“強制”自己和同伴慷慨赴死，給觀者的感受則是價值觀上的些許“彆扭”：影片以刻意營造的詩意外殼所暗自夾帶的“反戰”私貨，是不徹底、不全面、軟弱和妥協的。2022年6月28日22:15於保利中環6號廳。
觉得不差 佳佳的作品 比想象中好太多 想起很多年以前 在寝室 看爱笑会议室的光景 那份快乐 真他妈逗 未来一定好！
喜剧嘛，轻松就好，乐就完了
一部“好像这么拍就很像电影了诶！”的电影。瞎芝麻拍。
挺好的一个故事雏形 再打磨打磨可能就可以很精彩 大部分时间都因为过度的美术手法看得云里雾里 人物虽然比较真实但也没有太立得起来 但鉴于最近“那种电影”越拍越烂的大环境 这部至少有些人性的光辉
东北整活天团
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
