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.
点映看的，哭到崩溃。无限接近我们真实的生活。最后的南极科考往回收了收，终于让我缓了一下。高于原作的本土化，这点其实挺难的。
这部电影的定位很准确，就是要来赚你的眼泪的，母女情+绝症+扶弟魔+阿尔兹海默症+不伦之恋……所有最能催泪的题材都让一部电影集齐了，势必要对观众的经历做一个全方位无死角打击。
嗨，好好抱抱妈妈吧。
爱是枷锁，也是束缚
看的点映，虽然整个剧情很好哭，但是明明很有镜头爆发力的几场戏，被张静仪黏黏糊糊的台词跟毫无状态的演技，搞成了不响的哑炮。徐帆的演技也大打折扣……
最后，只有她快要死的时候，身边的亲人才发现她的重要性，才开始真正爱她。
土味煽情大可不必。張婧儀動態有點像早年的邵美琪。
徐帆的表演是风格化的，妈妈的人物小传也是特别的，但是剧本非要往妈妈的共通性共情去靠，观感自然撕裂
支线又多又稀碎 一群人搁这演话剧呢 许亚军给人一种接了烂本的好角色 不愿同流合污的感觉
它就是虽然一些剧情很俗套，但是还是会控制不住的哭。
老实说，我不喜欢这类将妈妈和无私奉献牺牲自己捆绑在一起的剧情，但徐帆演得确实好，娇俏热乎能干坚强，而且现实中也确实有很多像她一样操劳一生的妈妈，这是整个社会长久的绑架，不是这部作品的错。电影依然准确抓住了母爱泪点，只可惜有几个细节还是脱离了现实，比如一个普通家庭居然负担得起一个老人、一场重病还能给女儿在北京买房买车，北京医院空出一张床位居然没有迅速补上新病人，夜晚的住院部居然这么安静等，anyway瑕不掩瑜，煽情细腻就行。
多加一星给演员的演技，这个故事的女性太奉献了我不喜欢这种宣扬。
要为自己活啊，季老师。你死不足一年李文舫事业更上一层，会想你，也会续弦。
全片从头到尾基本都在煽情，没有激烈的高潮和反转，属于细水长流型的催泪。故事有些场景过于真实，比如孩子在家无时无刻的玩手机，从荧幕上看简直令人窒息，值得反思，但有些又挺唐突的，比如女儿随意地考进了南极科考队。所以，好坏参半吧。
推荐带妈妈去看。
推荐带妈妈去看。
我六岁的女儿很喜欢这部电影，不知道GET到了什么，就我个人而言，这部属于值得一看的电影，也有接地气的地方，当然做作的地方也不少~
咋说呢。太用力了。演的也是，音乐也是。过度煽情就会导致一种虚假的极端。我哭不出来。
徐帆老师一人之力、过猛演绎什么叫“我将真心付给了你将悲伤留给我自己、我将青春付给了你将岁月留给我自己。”
比预想中要好处不少，每一个角色都奉献出了精彩的表演，徐帆的温柔的母亲，张婧仪的叛逆小孩，还有许亚军的沉默寡言的父亲，就算是张歆艺饰演的豪爽的川妹子都算得上是立住了形象。有一些能够戳中人的地方，张婧仪的崩溃，许亚军的愧疚，张歆艺的积极，以及徐帆的鼓励。但让人失望的是每一个戳中的地方就好似是精心的安排缺乏了情绪自然而然的迸发。场景设计算得上是演绎到了许多家庭的缩影但是幻灯片式的点到为止失去了很多可以深刻的描述，反倒是戛然而止让人不太舒适。真心希望每一个家庭都不必用绑架的方式去表达爱意.......
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
