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.
60/100 看得出肯尼斯·布拉纳还是在努力地为原作注入自己的东西，并试图深化爱情这一主题。结果是，案件本身除内置角色种族的改动（和对称构图上的舒适），其余并无亮眼创新之处，反倒是开头和结尾波洛罗曼史的多余存在。
老版的逻辑更好，这部硬加上黑色角色和女同，唉，真是zz正确 都要放在剧情之上。
抄写都不及格，改编也不会！虽然故事还是那个故事，但导演为什么偏要去其精华！人物都没刻画好！影片中途一度睡过去了…
原本以为开头的那段是想告诉大家波洛其实心思细腻能够共情爱情 后来发现不是 只是想告诉我们这剧里的波洛单纯有病罢了（
没看完就来评分了，因为这版改编真的是个“惨案”。
纽约赘婿好丑 难以想象社交网络里的他和现在的他是同一个人 梅芙和加朵为什么不在一起 美女就应该贴贴 加多一个人在里面操着一口美音
没有对比就没有伤害，被78版全面碾压，碾成渣。一个多么神采飞扬的故事，被讲得如此无趣。肯尼斯布拉纳，求放过阿婆吧！
为什么呢？
开场以为误入1917，波洛前史基本另开了同人小说，最大的亮点可能是追风筝的人？多条爱情线有些过于泛滥，反而失去了阿婆出其不意的深情浪漫，可能导演本来也无意展开推理过程，加入了不少喜剧冒险元素，每次搬运尸体的女童子军和最后的木乃伊终极cos都有点诡异的恶趣味。
比大多数院线片好看，虽然剧情平平，但演员都比较自然，两场狭窄空间的动作戏很刺激。
依旧是群戏，东方快车波洛是大把胡须，这部里就没胡子了。开篇黑白片说一战，逝去的世界和旧时繁华，没看过原著，服化道还行吧。
IMAX看埃及景色赛高，放风筝和埃及艳后两处很有视觉效果，尼罗河上橙色暖调落日余晖胶片感十足。开头一战还以为是打开了《1917》。好久不见艾米汉莫，油了不少。
谢苗有头发了太帅了，打戏肯定还是重点，但就是喜欢谢苗的打戏，没有办法，就是给力，打的激烈。东北确实是个黑暗的地方，但大部分人还是好的。
原著摆在那里，想要拍的有新意很难，毕竟的观众见多识广严格的很。为了重温埃及美景去看的，结果大场面全是CG，人像各个带着“毛边”…..并不觉得这位大导演导戏功力好，很多细节太明显了，有点刻意。但服化造型很加分，加朵太美了，连眼角的细纹也好美…
阿加莎的原著本来就不是重本格推理的，剧情平铺直叙的还算能看吧，但和埃及的实际风景出入较大，不要当风景宣传片。几首布鲁斯插曲倒是挺好听的。打算去补一下78年原版。
节奏有点失调。
5.最后掐了头去了尾还能看不错，期间就好无聊，搞得像舞台剧似的。
很大胆的改编，加入了有色人种与性别议题，而人物背景设定又没有过大的更改，且通过给波罗加戏，更加突出了爱情这一主题。相比老版，更现代的剪辑与镜头，呈现出更加商业院线的气质，但表演以及推理上的槽点也确实不少。原著党肯定是不满意的了，估计也难以作为波罗系列的“正统”，但去电影院消遣的话还是可以的
原版剧情忘得一干二净，所以认真看了推理部分和特效版尼罗河风光。无论如何IMAX包场还是挺开心的…
五颗星是为了鼓励本土的动作片。继续努力！！！
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
