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.
3.0。1.对佛首展开角逐的各方势力交代不清楚，动机也不够明显。2.葛优的插科打诨放在一部冒险类型片中只能是带慢节奏，好处是降低了特效成本。3.推理和悬疑的部分非常露怯，基本想到什么就能来什么，完全不考虑观众的代入感。4.辛芷蕾的美是真美。
原著四部本应拥有着高度适应电影改编的节奏，非要浓缩成一部电影毫无疑问会破坏故事的完整性，整部电影像是在以正常速度播放着二倍速前进的剧情。
这种古董题材带点悬疑还挺新奇的，整体还是比较商业化，特效比较不错。
看过原著忘差不多了，懒得吐槽了，只觉得很多漏洞。许爸不怕把自己儿子给玩死中吗？文物特效很好看。
学了一堆港片的拍法却没有港片的精髓，这么说吧，坏的部分，剧情潦草马虎、快速推进、工具人都学会了，但是好的一点没学到，双雄模式完全没建立，识英雄重英雄，完全没有，小人物如葛优，也构架得完全不对，前后无弧光啊！
情节东一榔头西一棒槌哪哪不挨着 主演就各说各各比划各的（很难说得上是在表演）估计剧本就是长篇小说的万字简介水平 活该不卖
作为亲王粉去看的，虽然剧情改编程度不小，但在具象化书中人物这个任务上是合格的，不过对于没看过原著的观众就太多没解释清楚的了，特别是许一城为啥要送出佛头。。。还是有更好的改编方式的。
中配《寻龙诀》吧。葛大爷太强了，全片百分之九十五的笑点都靠他。
剧情还挺紧凑，就是深究每个人没什么做有点牵强
印象最深的药不然，在4部小说里塑造的相当精彩，当年剧版看的惨不忍睹。影版李现演的居然很不错，算是此片给我最大的惊喜。这票房有机会拍完后几部吗？真的还挺想看。合在一起才是完整版。
还挺流畅的一个文本改编故事 但是确实很难突出原作里真正反转到来时候那种为了守护秘密无奈的心境 奇观集中在解谜上了 不过也还挺有意思
不知道这一圈人是为的啥，出门左拐左拐左拐再左拐就到家了？
全片不功不过，剪了很多线，有点粗略，
谜题的编织很好看，即便看到中间猜到了谜底，结局也依然有一种感动。但人物也是一贯的没魅力（可以说延续了那个谁的作品的特性吧）。对女性角色的塑造可以说是负分了。
还不错，坚持看完了。没有代入感，总出戏，演员太熟了。
这电影就像是你去网红餐厅吃饭，端上来一盘很好看的菜，服务员先问你，您要拍照吗？你说算了，我饿。服务员又说，那您等下，这个要处理一下才能吃。你看他摆弄半天，终于要吃了，服务员又说，您好，我们这边还推出了最新的解谜吃法，您要不要试一试？你被引导着解了半天，饿得不行了，刚要下筷，服务员不紧不慢的说，介于您解谜成功，赠送一段表演请您欣赏，欣赏完表演，你有气无力的问，能吃了吗？服务员说，好的，刚刚都是本店的特色，这就给您上菜，然后端上来一盘酸辣土豆丝。
还行，有些煽情大可不必。李现演的超出预期，为滤镜+半星！
2021.11.26想看，2022.1.17看过。
但还是原谅它 因为看过了门锁
看过原著也完全没有用，这基本上除了玉佛头，其他都是重写的。但特效和演员都还不错，希望有系列续集，但故事好好写。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
