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.
一個不太出衆的克隆題材，但演員的表演和攝影調色讓整部影片的質感變得非常特別。（其實我以爲後面克隆體是不知道克隆這件事情的，感覺那樣更細思極恐，但畢竟不是驚悚片，最後也基本沒有什麽衝突，男主自己和解了
场景极美，非常舒适，淡淡地透着一点哀伤。很文艺的科幻片，特别暖。
假设苹果拍电影动用了自己的产品设计部、广告部、appletv、apple car、apple music、apple design、“apple future”那么，这就是一部融合的综合宣传片
本来想着可以不抱罪恶感地死去也挺好的，还是看得难受。
男主和医生是近期喜爱的演员。后续展开算有说服力(非剧情，仅心理)虚拟屏质感和连线游戏好评！
洗脑片，为明显存在道德问题的科技应用做意识形态的铺路，看不明白么？
有趣的是，当我看到男女主角有一段时间分房睡的时候，我心中就对男主角有一丝犹疑，果然，他出轨了。男性的基本盘吗？
5. 死去便死去，至少做好告别。余下的，也只能渡过。
近未来电影初始包：钢琴配乐 空旷的建筑还有长得要死的面部特写。拍得太无聊了，80分钟我都嫌长。
即使把家人托付给另外一个“自己”，内心也会一定觉得肯定是哪里出错了的难以释怀。
我们不害怕孤独，我们更害怕被遗忘. 我们不害怕被欺骗，我们更害怕失去.
不知道为什么这么多人给高分，一部家庭剧有什么好看的，披着科幻的幌子，演了一出家庭情感，带点克隆的我是不是我的伦理味，可是剧情和节奏非常之无聊，我要看的是黑镜，无尽，终点站，鹰眼等等这样的纯科幻惊悚片，这么一出家庭剧就不要凑科幻的热闹了，更何况这个题材已经有个低分美剧做过了，剧里克隆人甚至和主体还面谈，毫无科幻吸引力，家庭危机也根本没有剧情张力，垃圾，装逼文艺青年附庸风雅的伪文学爱好者的片子，不要看同志们！
里面的场景非常高级，有种未来的感觉，题材蛮有现实主义的意义，然而故事对我而言太无趣。
是不是一个梦
生命并不只是表象部分，科学也拷贝不了人的“精要”
关注点跑偏，视觉享受系Apple + Scandinavian
剧情的发展不仅跟我原本想象的克隆人代替男主不同，甚至还有点温馨
如果换了iphone se3，现在这部se我一定会珍藏
无论是临终告别还是爱和你能否克隆继续，都是非常喜欢的母题，气氛表演美术都可谓优质极点，但仿佛还是差了点什么，框架和表达多于情感和真挚。
穿越生死是人类梦想，虽然不能穿越生死，但如果有个生死过渡的交接站也不错。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
