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.
台湾青春偶像片不是一直是强项吗？现在资源降级成这样？找不到有颜值的男女主也写不出简单动人的故事了吗？
前后两部分割裂得不像是一部电影，我暂时还无法参悟究竟是刻意为之还是确实杂糅了两个剧本。如果说韩寒从自己的前三部长片里学会了什么，那就是保有此前主人公身上讨喜的义气和意气；如果说韩寒有什么地方依然没有吸取教训，那就是不克制的台词和放肆的匠气。
每一帧都是他自己的味道
看之前挺期待，但是看完好像并没有特别大的触动，但是还是可以稍稍磕一下，毕竟这也是真实事例改编的，某些场景拍得还是挺有感觉的
如果因为沈腾去看的 还是别去看了沈腾戏份很少
好愚蠢的县城青年，好架空的虚假感动青春疼痛故事，不会拍电影可以不拍找个班上上吧，别来浪费资源了韩寒
《四海》是韩寒最好的电影，也是最洒脱最哀伤的一部，他或许觉得这个悲剧就是他自己。
是不是有一种可能，这其实是韩寒的一场行为艺术。拍一部傻子才会去看的电影，取一个《Only Fools Rush In只有傻瓜才会进影院看四海》的名字，然后看看到底有多少傻子会去电影院看这部电影。
把春晚大张伟和王勉的脱口秀送给这个电影吧。。。“啊，这。。。”
一连串表白那段看到笑哈哈感情食物链吗这是
②含腾量不高，加在一起二十分钟左右，但笑点很多。
说梦想吧，阿耀也没怎么努力想实现梦想。说爱情吧，两个小年轻在矫情文字里暧昧。说现实吧，收高利贷的和颜悦色，警察也很好糊弄。我宁愿延续前一半的喜剧风格，最后大团圆，而不是处处跳预言家…
还在整年轻时的老一套，不过要是够好也没所谓，一点进步也没有，反而倒退了。不知所谓，如坐针毡！
还不错啦，这部剧里的歌挺好听的，最后男主女主的双向奔赴爱情很不错
剧情虽然有点老套但真的很甜很写实，十几岁的我们缺点勇气，词不达意，要印证很多还要等到末尾才会述说自己的心意呜呜呜
在自己的第四部长片中，韩寒脱去最初的稚拙，也与生产《飞驰人生》的工业流水线告别，成了成熟的，回归的创作者。这是我未曾预想到的。首发预告时我厌弃地以为全员耍酷。没想到他们都是“没本事的人”，在生活逼仄的角落里安放自己。赛摩托车是动了心思的。情怀也很真。也第一次在讲段子与哲学寓言外，把情节交给了悲剧。小岛少年很真，女孩儿很纯。故事很遗憾，很轻描淡写，很痛彻心扉。
看完了，这是一部真正的电影，而不是现在很多现实搭载过剩所堆砌出来的不能称之为故事的故事，男主吴仁耀太亮眼了，韩寒是个有诚意的聪明人。
我算不上低调 但也不喜欢炫耀 却想让每个认识我的人都知道你
是一部，无论中途走出电影院多久，都不影响对影片的理解的片子。完全像是几个文艺片段拼凑出来的。
电影有点失望欸，Dcard的真实故事带来的心动和感动更大。电影为什么把当面坦白改成发短信，学长送手绘本到项微心家门口的信箱这段跟阿亮学长送相册手帐到小水家门口太像了吧……整部电影最感动我的竟然是大鹤告白那段，真的。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
