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.
新瓶装旧酒，换汤不换药。寡淡而俗套，总的来说就是——平庸。更令人郁闷的是，连起伏和历程都不甚明了，编剧在芬奇的都做得如此模糊，怎么又能希冀在杰夫身上做得很好呢？
m（21.11.21.13:28）看了半天看见弹幕我才认出男主是汤姆汉克斯😓 唉 要是小杜和芬奇都在就好了
当人与人没了沟通，对陌生人就会产生天然的不信任。
画面氛围还不错，7分
末日科幻公路片，本片中的杰夫让我想起了Marv1s，那份细腻和温情，人类的情感在机器人身上得到了延续，而新的生命才刚刚开始……
追念“American Pie”金曲，湯姆·漢克斯的個人獨角戲……另一種情懷
因为Human Contradiction吗
“当一条狗被杀死时，人们会去抗议，但当一个人被杀死时，连狗都不会有反应，这种信念从何而来？让提出问题的人闭嘴的政治，让指责的人戴上手铐的政治，但无论你如何试图让他们闭嘴，无论你把他们关进哪座监狱，都会有人提出问题，而且必须有人回答。”
老汤一人撑起一部戏了不起，一人一狗一机器全程没有尿点也很牛逼，就是设定有点扯淡，为了故事而故事，特别是AI都有了，还在听卡带和CD，还不能自己研发点二氧化碳生成淀粉之类的技术？
狗片和鸡汤永远都是锁死的。汤姆·汉克斯这不就是把《荒岛余生》又演了一遍。
四星+。社恐者看了无比舒适，孤独的最高境界。热爱生命，热爱生活，唯独讨厌人类。
汉克斯最套路的那类角色，几乎完美无瑕的美式英雄，故事的呈现也比简介还要来的没创意。
比我是传奇更好connect 属于人类对于末世中AI立场的遐想偏乐观的那一面
太浪漫了，故事完整，how to build relationship with robot and dog? Be patient and trust. The same way with human being
毫无意外的
汤姆汉克斯的表演给影片注入了太多灵魂，以一人之力拉高了整个电影的层次。在久违地沐浴到阳光时、看到蝴蝶飞到手上时，他所表现出的那种由衷的喜悦完全地感染了我，是仿佛真的可以使人全身心地喜他所喜、悲他所悲。片子结构简单，一边很平淡一边又很浓烈，结束得好像也是这样。看完还是很有回味。
从一开篇就沉浸到设定中，跟随Finch感受他最后的人生。它撼动我的心，我给它五星。
评分太高了，其实比较一般，可说是一部“为赋新词强说愁”的作品。老米喜欢搞这种末世感的东西，弄个动物，弄个机器人什么，来点小情调，体现一下对弱者与动物的关怀。这么牛逼的末世科技，汽车怎么不是无人驾驶？还要人工操作，太落伍了！当然，汤姆汉克斯的表演还是挺稳，机器人神神叨叨也有意思，但整体也并无太多出奇之处。
工整的套路整活 完整的自说自话 正反废话文学 成也细节败也细节
这每次世界末日都是主角和狗，那些cat person会不会觉得被冒犯到，从来没见跟猫子survive from the end of the world.. 而且这片子老让我想起Joey拍的那个Mac & Cheese, Finch & Jeff
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
