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.
如果影片不用插叙交代剧情起因，我会以为自己看了部名侦探柯南。设定上还是挺有脑洞的，感觉还有开发空间。动作戏和配乐可圈可点，合格的商业爽片。
歌还是好听的，就是剧情的各种转折比较刻意尴尬，浅尝辄止。
有一点点看《记忆碎片》《源代码》的感觉，情节看着还好，创新性差些。且科学性差点，毒品怎么可能做到那么稳定，12个小时一到，秒都不差就起效？休闲可看。
剧情的设定是完全站不住脚的，实际上换一个起因会好的多。越来越觉得林智妍长的漂亮了。
故事一般，打戏也一般，竟然看困两次，林智妍演戏真的好没灵魂。
舞台估计比电影效果好。要么还是多出官摄算了，满足没去剧场的我，但改编电影很多时候真的会不一样，电影的叙事语言和舞台还是不同。theater has its own power.
故事比较简单，科幻片的外壳，爱情元素贯穿始终。
这么高端的毒品啊，真能实现灵魂穿越控制他人肉身，太离谱了。
算上音乐剧官摄和现场，这是第三次看Jamie的故事。电影的蒙太奇非常加分，唱到过去窗户里就映出小时候的自己，从学校一个转身就到了舞台中央，drag queen就应该用这种drama的方式呈现！原卡John小可爱也在回忆里作为彩蛋出场，我没有遗憾了😌不过电影版加入的LGBT内涵，有点突然，可以理解但不喜欢。
很好的把舞台上所不能展现的情节展现出来。但感觉故事被改的很奇怪。
我觉得还可以，步步紧逼，就是线索来的有点突兀了
把官摄和这部连看 Hugo的杀人变爱人都还能接受 但是Jamie的裙子不是自己选的 名字不是自己起的 甚至连梦想价值都有了高下之分 想美美的上台就是不如成为斗士这么高尚？ 还有迪恩和父亲形象的也没那么刻薄了 minger一词不出现导致后面美丑的讨论都突兀了 还有最重头戏的第一次变装亮相也不如官摄版那短短几秒惊艳 John McCrea这次扮演的young Loco 虽然戏份都不到五分钟 依然直接kill the game
摸索真相的方式是新颖，问题是这个真相本身就很烂啊。出来也没什么效果…
题材很好，前半部分靠着挺有意思的，后半部分就进入众人救一女的模式，很血腥，我不喜欢，勉强看到结尾，应该是大团圆，逻辑上有点问题，不重要了，感官刺激下就ok了！
删了舞台版几首歌……舞台版的张力更强，电影版到情绪高点总是不上不下，卡住的感觉……
韩国人太自卑了，每次拍电影都要夸张到极致，还硬生生的把每一分钟都塞得满满的，生怕观众不知道大韩是宇宙级的，看朴赞郁看红尚秀也一样，都是极端份子！了色的很啊！
7分吧。题材其实蛮不错，设定也很有趣，结尾“不，只有一个人”又是突如其来的感动。
剥离掉灵魂转移，就是一部标准韩式动作片。开头有点乱。
电影需要更多的细节和真实填满
创意很棒的，节奏也很紧凑！
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
