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.
另类恐怖片，只是没太大意思。比起其中的杀戮，真正恐怖的是衰老。至少是这个视角下的衰老。
3.5分向上取整，总体没有想象中的那么惊喜，但片中不乏一些突出的精彩段落，几处剪辑还算精妙，没有沉溺于复古之中，各种伏笔的回收也很有诚意，而米娅·高斯这一次的演出也和以往迥然不同。
点子虽好但成色欠佳，节奏太慢看得人兴致缺缺，导演表达和虐杀情节一度无法兼容。以及《闪灵》的N+1次用法。如果偏老年人看了绝对火冒三丈，本来老年性生活的话题已经被忽视了太久，你可倒好，直接放到恐怖片里。
【4月【🟢】【➊】】【2022 ▲ 183】【≈ 106分钟】【原版 ★ 中文字幕】【⭐】◀▶【⭐⭐⭐】
剪辑:★★★
女主28岁了，依然少女感十足；题材也很有新意，虽然不怎么恐怖。
不知道想表达啥 讲ageism 又妖魔化老年人惊悚片都爱拿老年人的性做文章 （同故事的故事）彩蛋比正片好 建议安排
我是唯一一个发现有结尾彩蛋的吗 回到了老太婆年轻的时候 解释了湖水里车的来历
节奏不好。不过能把对人老珠黄的恐惧表现得如此恶心瘆人，也算完成制造“恐怖”的任务了吧……导演对老人充满恶意的调侃，看出股喜剧片的味道。
色情部分可以，男女主角拼命的不穿衣服，可在真正大胆展现时，又犹犹豫豫的，血腥部分恶心，恐怖片的血腥可以再高级一点，对老年人的画面不太好直视……
荒郊野外出变态，群体开趴低智商，一切都是老套路
想要找一部恐怖片来释放一下心情。
前半截色情片，后半截恐怖片——不惊悚只惊吓。老年人青春不在心不甘比较特别
结尾有首歌好听——Qui Qui Marie
2022.04.19
A24的slasher果然不一般 可以把这么一般的剧本拍得还算吸引人 有几个镜头是惊艳的 但整体还是平了些 尤其是结尾就这么顺利地结束了 我竟不知道我在期待些什么 果然不能让老人当boss 身体是真的不行哈哈哈 不过女主的表演还是很精彩的 当我知道和老太太是一个演员的时候 带来的惊吓已经超过了这部电影
点子虽好但成色欠佳，节奏太慢看得人兴致缺缺，导演表达和虐杀情节一度无法兼容。以及《闪灵》的N+1次用法。如果偏老年人看了绝对火冒三丈，本来老年性生活的话题已经被忽视了太久，你可倒好，直接放到恐怖片里。
这应该是近些年看到最猎奇的恐怖片了，弗洛伊德说性和攻击性是人的基本动力，被这片完美诠释了（不是
无论如何，应当在Slasher中接受受害者的“傻逼”，这样观众才会享受加害者屠杀的快感。喜剧与恐惧交织才是独属于优秀Slasher电影的特质。Ti West则把霍珀的方法论完全搞反，只有局部比较诙谐幽默。
拍一部有剧情的恐怖片就像拍一部有剧情的X片。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
