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.
鸡娃鸡到这份上也只能说真牛逼（没有任何讽刺或者说反话的意思，是真牛逼）But，作为一个已经躺平了的人来说，鸡娃是什么，娃是什么，我过好自己的人生就真的够了啊！
假如威尔史密斯没有上台打人，而是上台表达自己和爱人受到了冒犯，要求对方道歉会不会更成熟更man一点？达到了发泄不满的目的，并且更正式。
还在学习国外快乐教育吗，对于没有背景，没有资源的老百姓，这才是我们该学的
因为从父亲的角度去展开叙述，所以父权确实占篇幅，电影的主题名字也是父亲嘛，所以可以理解为冠军的父亲也不失偏差，与儿女的矛盾，与商业的矛盾，与人种的矛盾，父亲面临的更生动，电影也展现得很全面，是一部中规中矩的片子了。
2小时10分的内容没有最后几分钟真实录像力量大，不太行。
过誉。这部片什么都想说，但都没说得太深。最后的字幕 也更加说明现世用钱用title堆砌的价值观。我想看到类似这样的字幕：他们如何回到康普顿 在当地建立「威廉姆斯网球学校」之云云。但是没有等到，只有Will 匪夷所思的slap。
传说中的鸡娃式教育成功的典范？...看完这电影我更觉得是PUA式教育，放眼全球成功人士有多少人是因为这样的父母成功的？所以看完电影，没有太多认同感，只看到了一个偏执狂的鸡娃父亲，没觉他得伟大，也没觉得电影励志。
挺好看挺平稳的，最近看过的片子感觉都在讲上世纪传奇，不过天才最终能成为天才主要因为最初就是天才，只是没有被毁掉。威尔史密斯值得一个影帝，至少他演谁都挺讨喜。
用成功故事去为梦想背书，没有说服力；树立一个否定自己的人物，让观众又丢掉了着力点。本子逻辑没问题，就是感觉导演没想明白，他从这些素材里想表达的到底是什么。
中规中矩的好莱坞电影。真实人物做背书，看起来品相倒也没那么差，感觉奥斯卡真是一年不如一年，矫枉过正的政治正确，毫无新意毫无进步的电影题材，世界在收紧，自由的国度里电影也在收紧，新十年的好莱坞早早的就已疲态尽现
2、威尔史密斯让你相信这个角色，怀疑这个角色的行为，说明他演进了这个角色；
是啥让Richard能够在成天枪战、吸毒的社区中如此眼亮心明？难道还是因为他是教徒？
所以没有天才，有的只是计划、努力和少许运气
极其平淡地讲述了理查德如何训练大小威成为网球巨星的“虎爸”故事但却算不上上层。体育故事里面缺少了应该有的激情和紧张，育儿经方面又变成了简单的爽片缺少了对“虎爸”更为深层的探讨，家庭情景里面又夹杂了太多的宣言性对白，显得略微寡淡。极其优秀的题材和故事，但是呈现出来的效果却异常平庸，缺少了应有的作者视角或者更为创新的角度引起跟多的思考也丢失了威廉姆斯这个角色本应该有的复杂性......
但只有一个洪尚秀，虽然我不喜欢，觉得是小布尔乔亚和新浪潮的遗腹子，是文青自恋的跪舔
#95thAcademyAwards# 全程都是饱满激昂的情绪…女儿从出生前就被决定的命运，Richard Williams总让我想起水树奈奈的父亲。
“我们很好，虽然我家敏喜不拍其他导演的电影，但轮不到你来可惜。我们的生活就是我们的创作，灵感也许只是一瞬野花的彩色，我们就喜欢在镜头前后相互示爱，随便玩玩结构就拿大奖。勿念。” -洪常秀&金敏喜此致
黑人是敏感的，美国电影发展受制种族，受制政治正确
这么说不是因为他培养出了两个网球女王，而是他在认识到女儿们的天赋在这个世界上的价值的同时，更充分认识到这种天赋之于女儿们人生的极限，所以他固执地坚守着自己的原则，哪怕起初连女儿都无法理解，直到当她们自己需要面对外界时，才明白老父亲教会自己的不仅仅是球技，更是构筑自己生活堡垒的心技。
发了福的威尔斯密斯有种说不出来的奇怪。电影还是很不错的~
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
