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.
20220227 5岁小女孩杀人不负刑责，但难免会在心理受到巨大创伤，所以布洛克的选择是不是对呢？
最后的结局没有大胆突破，而是采取了“善有善报”的最安全模式。警长的儿子两次转折有点生硬尤其最后高潮时候的崩溃。也许最后的结尾可以处理的更出色一些。
演技炸裂，我能哭出来一点舒服多了。
1，剧作结构太出彩，2，桑德拉的演技为反转的一刻增添了很厚重的人物悲剧色彩。
烂片，本来就不可饶恕，非要饶恕坏人才算政治正确吗？？？？
理性三星半，但结尾被感动了，加一星。本片最大的看点和情绪都源自于桑德拉•布洛克饰演的女主，从她身上对故事细节的处理，几近感受到那种活着的艰难和死去的悲痛，但就像那句台词：生活还是要继续。救赎完成的前提，是心里还有一个希望。
这样真的对她妹妹好嘛，哪天记忆恢复岂不是全盘皆输。。。布洛克阿姐这情绪代入感很强
我喜欢这种美国底层人民的生活琐碎，有种夹缝中生存的救赎感。
女主的演技真是棒，配角也都不错，优秀的演员让这部电影加了很多分
Life is hard; Life goes on
结尾姐妹相拥，不用铺垫就直接拥抱，姐姐瞬间明白妹妹都记得知道，却安心接受。细思极恐，鸡皮疙瘩一地。
不知何谓的电影 与导演第一部电影相差甚远 搭了一个好莱坞最经典的戏台子 却摆着一副最严肃的脸说事 没有哪一个人物是完整的 甚至桑姐都是拧着一股劲在表演 直到她摔东西骂脏话发疯开始电影也开始了发疯 想想估计这就是导演请指教最喜欢的
Sandra Bullock演技没得说 故事合理性还是有点缺陷 整体还算不错
桑德拉与迈克尔，晚年撞脸，我是如何都回避不了！但戏是好戏，剧情苦涩，加上反转，让女主命运更加曲折！温情之余感叹爱之伟大！
对我而言最有意思的是他作为一个出狱犯的视角。这个世界像一个人的脑袋，然后这一部分人就会承托这个世界的黑暗面，而且黑暗，向他们聚集。
小孩杀人 应该属于过失 应该不会被判刑（个人看法，或者姐姐为了“全面”保护 也未可知） 有些场面很生硬，全靠主角一个人堆砌的剧 肖邦第一叙事曲 很符合这故事
剧情看到这，不合逻辑，如果想看出狱后这样影片，看一下2021年日本电影《美丽新世界》，那才是炸裂式演技。
有点像桑德拉布鲁克的独角戏，还算不错吧，说奥斯卡是不是过了
直到最后才慢慢交代真相，虽然大致也可以猜到。细节刻画的很到位，每个人物都很有特色。回忆的色调是温暖的，这可能是Ruth生命中唯一的一抹亮色。结尾那个拥抱太让人伤感了…
女主演的太好了，那张脸摆在那就特别有故事，可以无限悲伤。但是感觉这个电影镜头很差，特别像劣质美剧🤣
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
