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.
另外替李云龙带个话：程瞎子我告诉你，当年老子教你怎么打枪，现在就教你怎么用刀。
叙事简洁，不着墨于动机，一切归于一个侠字，可说干净利落化繁为简，也可说是找准定位做出取舍，总之是在有限空间发挥合格的电影，不同于通常意义的网大
2022.07.02于南京高科荣境
故事很简单，深藏不露却为路见不平拔刀相助，画面处理的很好，加一颗星。
开场赌场戏其实拉低了预期，盲侠设定已有先例，快意恩仇，手起刀落，没那么多弯弯绕，简单直接，纯粹的武侠回归，反派小人做派暗箭伤人，但是这里面缺点也很明显，以一人之力灭大恶之帮，还能全身而退，法理何在？
虽然是一部网大.
安史之乱之后的时空表达很清晰。楼兰斩、挫骨手，听力，很不错了。6元值。请马伯庸来铺垫故事，就完美了。
不过这个“盲侠”的IP，感觉做成系列剧很不错啊，每一集（季）一个故事，以类似说书人的视角娓娓道来，一个侠义之士的传奇。
古人云：大丈夫行事，论是非，不论利害；论顺逆，不论成败；论万世，不论一生。
不过，导演应该借鉴了很多日本剑戟片的拍摄和叙事风格，所以有些地方会感觉怪怪的。但已经很值得鼓励了，现在顶着武侠的烂片烂剧真的太多了，这样脚踏实地的网大已经算是小小的清流了。
带着对网大的成见而来，结果画面之精巧，风格之凌厉，再简单不过的故事所体现出的极简美学，将武侠江湖之快意恩仇诠释得淋漓尽致，把英雄梦还给武林，把谢苗还给那个时代，瑞思拜
目中无人是因为主角是个瞎子，故事简单至极，喝了人家一坛酒，一路砍砍杀杀，主要就看点动作场面。
还可以诶。这个剧本也太装逼了，还好男主演得很低调。画面也还可以。
3.一些影像的构图十分具有电影美感。反派弑兄时，通过幕布剪影展现了这画面，然后幕布破碎，反派恶狠狠而残忍的眼神出现了。
一点也不像一个完整的作品，像面试的时候在portfolio里显示的一个sample。打斗戏都很好看，故事逻辑也非常简单。但是挺好看的，我觉得刀马的扮演者有了！
年少时痴迷古龙武侠，也曾见识过大陆新武侠的兴盛，谁还没有过年少轻狂心怀热血，妄想行侠仗义替天行道的时候。可以说，本片是我近些年来看过少有喜欢的武侠作品，远胜某些院线大导的圈钱垃圾
不足之处在于，靠一人的蛮横武力做所有的侠义之举，终究不可复制。
像民间故事一样精美，不需要有太多内涵，好好把故事讲完就很棒了。
放在网大维度考量算是精品了。它也是如今难得的能做出武侠风范的国产片。动作场面有氛围上的铺陈，场景、构图、打光都有雕琢感；具体到武打设计，走的是偏写实的硬派路子，尤其是错骨手，招式起落都见细节，断骨一幕好评。成瞎子为了一壶好酒和一个公道，便毅然踏上了锄强扶弱之路，不问生死，不求功名。侠义之心，因其质朴才显珍贵。在国产武侠式微的当下，这样的作品太值得鼓励了。
叙事简洁，不着墨于动机，一切归于一个侠字，可说干净利落化繁为简，也可说是找准定位做出取舍，总之是在有限空间发挥合格的电影，不同于通常意义的网大
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
