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.
感觉团队就是随便找了剧本秀活儿来的，如果剧本也好一些就更好了。期待这个团队后续的作品
武打扎实得可怕，太太太太好看了。期待第二季。
画工也并不细腻
讲故事的水平我觉得有进步，悬念和人物出场的时机还比较吸引人。制作来讲打戏没得说，尤其是一开始的几场，介绍体现了不同拳法的特点，就挺吸引人的。最后的大战有点太长不太需要。制作上的硬伤在于人物表情，全都像面瘫一样，很难有代入感。最后整体故事的立意我觉得是想要说一个有点深度的话题的，但没有说出来，就有点莫名其妙，觉得so what
江湖武侠世界，打斗真的太好看了，每个人都很立体，我都有点站西门仁了，侠以武犯禁，成大道不拘小节～多一颗星，是给主创的鼓励
这部电影版为何会比TV版评分低？不理解……TO热评：结尾西门仁的门徒切换得快，喊万岁才是最精彩的讽刺~这个好结尾甚至让我想给五星
江渊小可爱，爱了爱了
过于牛逼了！！！！！剧情节奏流畅不拖泥带水，动作设计顶级中的顶级，人设更是优秀中的优秀。罗通、红娘、罗顺人设是传统的英雄人设，江渊、西门仁是反传统的人设，江渊或许还可以在以往的武侠作品中窥得一二，西门仁怕是前无古人了吧。这个片子线上上映属实可惜，这不比《刺客伍六七》那种沽名钓誉之徒优秀的多！
技术更丝滑了，但武戏整体的呈现效果还是可以做得更相称的，一招一式太平常，动作设计大部分时候都缺少想象力，所以虽然从头打到尾，但观赏性并没有层层叠加。至于文戏，还是比较平庸的，而且一些台词隐约透出的是矫揉造作感。
之所以会去看还是因为来自哔哩哔哩up主的自来水安利，逐帧分析打戏的动作套路招式兵器，才让我有了想要看的欲望。
“梨花枪啊梨花枪，有朝一日，我要让临清，只有梨花，再无刀枪”。打戏也太燃太好看了！
故事和创意都很好，可惜节奏慢，演员年龄太大减分。
就是要行侠仗义！
剧情，特效，动漫，国风，都很不错，点赞。 缺点是有点像初中玩的小游戏画风。
动作戏满分国漫动作天花板，为啥罗通没跟红娘在一起，非得干那个所谓的漕运帮主
来这世上一遭，
看了第一季动漫，没想到还有剧场版，音乐美工配音，水准都很在线。这么大的布局，期待更多展开，千万别烂尾就行。推荐。
很纯正的武侠片，玄幻修仙啥的对波真的看腻了。还是这种肉搏打斗过瘾，让我想起了火影初期体术肉搏很精彩，后期的对波也是崩坏。
应该可以说是看过最精彩的动画打戏。如果经费管够，估计会更加给力。
编剧是80年代香港武打片的水平，导演还安排里面的人不其烦地说些自以为是却不合逻辑的大道理，胜在武打设计够燃
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
