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.
没想到有一天我会说出这样的话：蠢萌蠢萌的鲨鱼怪可爱的……
温情的剧情伦理片，算是为2022开了个好头，当技术已经成熟，克隆所面临的就是情感维系问题，如何能通过副本和母体的认知匹配度测试，影片给了一个可供实现的方案。
整个电影节奏其实切个比较明显，用一小小段的故事把它切分开，有点儿电视连续剧的感觉。
雖然有無數探討克隆人的電影，但這麼純粹的探討電影真是不多見，幾次以為機構會有陰謀但沒有，致力于幫助男主與克隆人順利交接，節奏偏緩也沒有什麼新主張理念討論出現
如果真的有这样的project，首先会被用在宠物身上，如果家人们都互相隐瞒着做了同样的事，那么渐渐地一家人也就都不再是原来的一家人，但是也许这些都不那么重要，皮行尸的脆弱世界里，唯有爱是一宗永恒的价值认定。
7.5 制作稳定的软科幻，当我爱你的时候，是我的记忆还是我的肉身还是我们在一起的感觉让我确定我爱你
3.6分。
人类在1996年成功克隆出了第一个哺乳动物——绵羊多莉，随后这项生物技术引发了公众的广泛关注，和对克隆人出现的担忧。
鲨鱼人纳纳威确实可爱啊🤤
和平使者真是个美国笑话哈哈哈。
让生命得以延续为的是保护生者 更多的表现即将离开的人的不舍与痛苦 本该是不可代替的个体 其实他们更怕的是被人忘记
不应该如实的死去吗
跟以往DC的电影不同，毕竟换了导演风格也有点像漫威。
这次DC总算对味了：Floating, staring at the stars.
也许我们惧怕的从来都不是死亡本身 而是怕当下所拥有的一切都变成虚无 怕再也不能够真实地和爱的人相拥 说不上是死者的自私还是善意的谎言 爱到底能不能因此而延续谁也不知道 但最起码此刻你看着我的眼睛说的“I love u”是真实存在
Cameron流着眼泪微笑
哈哈哈，我和我妈一起看的，我妈的反应太能代表对这部电影的评价了：一边爆笑，一边说太恶心了，什么玩意。沙雕也是一种才华，一种颠覆预判，创造反差的想象力，哈哈哈。电影一直在讽刺美国，不知道美国观众看后作何感想。疯批美人的人设太有魅力了。想不到在一群有心理阴影的超级英雄里也有正邪之分，最后还能讴歌出捕鼠者感人的父女之情、弱小的老鼠团结打败派大星的正能量来，佩服佩服！
看了简介才去看的，设定很新颖，但拍得却很俗气。正确的拍法应该是让观众跟随克隆人的视角，最起码要以克隆人为主角，讲述本体死后，克隆人替代本体生活的故事，而不是让观众看本体临死前的各种麻烦事儿，搞的像部家庭肥皂剧，白白浪费了观众宝贵的周六晚间时光。
反套路血浆超级英雄电影，结尾拉垮了，一泻千里，三星半
克隆人的技术都那么成熟了，为什么不能将本人完全复制粘贴过去呢？只是重新造了一个拥有自己记忆和所有生物特征的人，那这个技术又有什么意义呢？还是不能达到“永生”，只是找了一个自己的替代品，这种事情给人带来的冲击感和孤独感太难让人接受了，就好像让一个机器人或者陌生人来代替自己继续和家人生活一样。影片在伦理和个人情绪的描绘上做的不错。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
