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.
看这部电影，我最大的疑惑是，为什么机器人会有演技啊？我能get到他所有的情绪，开心或悲伤、迷茫或坚定。他演得比流量们强太多了！
他俩在阳光底下爆米花的场景，是我近年来看过最浪漫的场景之一。
要有希望啊～～～～～～～
美术1星，九连的音乐1星，舞狮1星，剩下段子大合集，毫无创作和反思，甚至是一场催眠
值得全国非遗界的学者观摩的影片，怎么把一项学术的事业，变成一种艺术。把非遗的核心指向人，只有人带入情感，有心理化作用，它才成为作品。
情节发展很容易猜到，但就算猜到也一样能把你看哭，怎么做到的，实在太厉害了。
75/100
吐槽一句，这种科幻公路片难道不比《无依之地》看着舒服？
当看到他要去跳那个擎天柱的时候，是那个女孩第一个站出来给他打的鼓，我就泪奔了。她不一定知道他是为了自己而去跳的，她也知道他跳了就可能摔下来，她不一定真的相信奇迹，可是她知道如果她不第一个站出来支持他成就自我，他就永远不是他心中的雄狮少年。
首先这片子配乐简直是灾难。更别说人物设计了，相比某尼某斯的做工更是丑的一批，人物做成这样也难免会带来负面猜想（事实如此）看看日漫，有过一个正派人物不好看的吗？有过一个恶人长的美的吗？导演为了迎合外人刻意丑化我方英雄，这点小心思为何不用在正道上？
要有爱和光啊～～～～～～
杰夫也是个宝宝啊，唉穷人的孩子早当家，每次被爸爸痛心疾首地训而他一副蔫头耷脑的模样真就惹人疼，爸爸死了以后他坏了谁给他修理，狗子寿终正寝他的机生使命完成后该怎么办，要是机器狗杜威没挂还能给他做个伴，只能希望他把宅男爸爸学了个全日后能给自己造出一个伙伴吧，也没准还会收养一只流浪狗子然后带着它四处走天天给它讲故事，once upon a time……
满纸荒唐言，一把伤心泪。
一个老人、一只狗和一个最后懂得生命、与人性意义的机器人的简单公路片。虽然有个末日生存作为背景，但整体平淡舒缓、故事娓娓道来，却从头到尾没觉得枯燥无味。就是很暖，一种在寒夜里递给你一杯热咖啡的暖意，还是被狠狠地治愈和温暖到了！结尾一个很人性化的机器人和一只狗继续开展他们新的旅程，仿佛另一部新电影的开头。
如果可能，汤姆汉克斯，再来一座小金人
技术是可以学习的，但讲故事可能真的需要一些天赋。
（眼睛再大，眼界不大，又有何用？）
很棒的科幻小品，拍得精致又温情，但设定确实不够严谨，尽管只有一个人，也得考虑资源问题吧，还有Jeff和车的能源从哪来，片里几乎没涉及，而且担心的“人”的危机，也只有简单一场戏带过，桥段难免落俗。狗狗死后，jeff就会失去意义，世界也不会变好
终于 国产动画电影脱离了神话题材也能交出很好的答卷！电影当然也有这样那样的问题 但质感是上乘的 你可以说它增加了许多不必要的流行配乐 许多地方都不够好 甚至可以说它在迎合单一的以阳刚为主的男性审美 但我看到的比较离谱的是 因为男主角眼睛小眼距宽说电影是在迎合西方对中国人的刻板印象哈哈哈 我可去nmd的吧
还不错唉，磕到了少年和佛的cp............
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
