-
视频
视频
资讯
视频
资讯
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.
原来想看首映，结果西安疫情反复没看成，结果现在在电视机顶盒看了。不断利用空白时间段添加新悬疑的套路，几乎所有反转都是建立在观众并没有掌握的信息基础之上的。回溯式叙事，这个形容比较恰当，毕竟它玩非线性叙事和巧合不如《11:14》这种。没有惊喜，但还可以看。本土化处理也说得过去。喜剧是谈不上的，你不能说范伟主演就是喜剧吧。
还可以哦 有bug但是有些地方反转的还是蛮意外的 顺便问一下 推冰块是因为啥？
国产电影越来越狭窄的创作空间只能用不停反转的悬疑来扩大可看的范围。但就像是你布置了一个命题作为，并且规定要在悬疑的基础上写上万字，然后就就开始编啊，动着脑筋的编啊，我们在“编”这个动作上从不含糊，然后在一个看似小范围的框架中编了那么多烧脑的反转。我是不喜欢这种，就如同我对什么剧本杀毫无感觉一样。看得太累，不适合我这种大脑不灵活的傻子。
剧本杀版《疯狂的石头》，全员演技在线，值得一看。
坏人也分两种，一种是迫不得已，一种是深入骨髓。
为了看B站上导演的拉片，去了电影院，很惊喜。
knock knock
小20年过去，国内还是就宁浩一个把盖里奇抄明白了。最离谱的是，结尾甚至抄了《神探》……离谱啊。
不知道是否是错觉，某几个镜头的构图很像「寄生虫」（出现在立交桥前后的镜头，忘了是前面还是后面），可能是我片看得少，也许致敬的是其他片。
涉及拐卖儿童犯罪。可恶的人贩子。
楼下花园和筒子楼的构造以及营造的氛围，想起来，博尔赫斯，小径分岔的花园。
被范伟和张颂文吸引来看的，看完后只想套用片中一句台词评价：“破台词，破镜头，破反转，破表演”。
新人导演处女作长片，算完成的很不错，7分以下的评分有点低了，个人评分7.5，给个四星支持一下。
其实还可以的，就是前些年这种类型的看多了。但怎么着这也是部难得完整的作品吧
被范伟和张颂文吸引来看的，看完后只想套用片中一句台词评价：“破台词，破镜头，破反转，破表演”。
前半环形结构的时候因为有悬念的加持节奏看上去还挺好的，后来就节奏掉下来了，居然看睡着了……封闭空间的空间利用感觉有点差，摄影也有点平，就一直期待能来个大反转，结果就这？
剧本太工整了，工整到缺乏惊喜，结尾又太突兀，同类型片子太多了有点审美疲劳。话说有次在地铁上看见一个人留着半长的头发，花白的胡子，还戴着眼镜，觉得特像范老师，但是跟平时形象不一样又不敢认。盯着他看了好几眼，他注意到了也对我回以微笑。现在想想，大概是拍这个戏期间的造型吧
这不值得一个五星鼓励吗？张颂文好有吸引力，一间没有邻居的老破小来了一波又一波人又好笑又刺激，全程没有什么尿点，有些剧情上的逻辑可以忽略不计，连慢动作也没有那么无趣，范伟老师yyds，窦骁倒是很超乎意料，最后黑化也太帅了歪！
再次感慨：范偉戲可太好了！戲路之逛啊！片子的編劇攝影剪輯都很讚啊 笑點控制得很好 選覺挺棒！無奈片尾竇驍的黑化反轉感覺唐突了 推冰那段感覺很蠢啊⋯
电影本身作为悬疑片有点一般。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
