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.
演技很好，但是没有什么感情。也许演员演戏久了，就会自然而然有这样的毛病？
虽然我也只在television history课看过几集I Love Lucy，但是巴登和Desi Arnaz真的完全不像，反而看之前无法想象的Nicole Kidman在化妆加持下还有点Lucille的影子（声音模仿也有努力）这部和同为传记片的乔布斯模式比较相似，截取短短几天时间辅以大量闪回，不过闪回处理得不好（不如不闪）结尾给了个分量很足的Oscar moment
3.5 “i navigate male egos for a living, bud”
竟然有种在看肥皂剧里面拍肥皂剧的感觉，没有表现出人物的重点个性，叙事上过于平凡了
工整剧本下是高饱和度的台词和海量的信息。但影片要表达的关键词又在几个重要场景中呼之欲出。妮可·基德曼贡献了又一个鲜明且与众不同的银幕形象，结尾的那场戏四两拨千斤，喜剧表象下的暮色与沉重就仿如最后化身黑白的镜头，令人慨叹唏嘘。
以小见大，还是有当代视角的，所以索金才会对准这段往事，你要说可看性那比漫威的电视剧还是强多了
索金想再一次借古讽今，共产主义、种族主义、女权主义，面面俱到。可惜流水账里，一大个肥皂泡泡。妮可的化妆问题，实在也败好感。
如果你爱一个人，送个小度吧，如果你恨一个人，也送个小度吧…
新瓶装旧酒？实际上装的是鸡尾酒。片名里的kimi智能助手，对剧情的推进并不大，把kimi除去，实际上是一个有点老套的后窗、blow out或the conversation式的故事。而导演拍的也挺复古，配乐也是如此。和之前那些片子不同的是，故事着眼点是有心灵创伤的女主战胜自己的广场恐惧症，所以短短八十几分钟电影，半小时处剧情才开始，之前一直在表现独居女主的生活和她的人群恐惧，而过程中导演也尽量减少了悬疑因素，包括听录音时直接用画面就把凶案表现出来，从而把重心放在女主身上。尤其是从办公室出逃到被捉这段，各种角度俯冲向女主的镜头搭配古典乐，营造了强烈的紧张和不安感。几个坏蛋也被淡化，甚至有一种笨拙的喜感，以至于只持续一分多钟的轻松反杀，让人觉得合情合理，面包车里被游行队伍救出那段更是神来之笔。
To Zo.我不该在蝙蝠侠里说你演的不好，看来看去你还是在零下44°俱乐部工作最好
这片子不行啊，女主再酷也不行。人物不够丰满，故事节奏不好。而且作为一个从业者看这个电影，我很难想象一个AI平台深度学习系统的数据标注员能住这么好的房子，工作这么随意扯淡一样。
索德伯格近几年的各种“小片”都有着非常独特的魅力，各种类型的尝试，各种拍摄风格的尝试，各种观点的涉猎，远远强于众多大佬。这是一部精炼的电影，非常公式化的结构，但对节奏和紧张感的把握都是非同凡响的。
7.4(3⃣️)，疫情背景下互联网时代特殊的后窗偷窥者，以精简的有效的方式呈现于密闭空间中，用声音营造恐惧，再展开一场猫鼠游戏一样的噩梦博弈。晃动的手持镜头和倾斜视角将恐惧感通过画面投射至我们身处的大数据围剿中，而影片巧妙又毫不费力地呈现了一个酣畅又骇人的故事——对抗自我，对抗权力和体系，对抗真实的恶
索德伯格拍这片子应该没费力，除了走在路上的倾斜仰拍镜头比较吸引人，全片粗糙的质感就是个网大（黑客敲键盘太随意了一看就是假的…）。故事本身是非常当代的，虽然没有深意但还算有趣：大数据时代的隐私泄露与后窗时代的偷窥者并置；新冠时期的禁足与女主自己的抑郁社恐并置。简直是当代社会问题大全：metoo时代被侵犯被起诉的竟然是自己；无用的男友和无谓的感情；互联网一线民工的大公寓中产生活；ins上全是假资料秀幸福。大厂在逃避道德义务，而一个z时代青年还有正义感（是否是借帮助他人转移自己的压力？）。人工智能音箱竟然真的靠人工分析未识别语音信息，人给机器打工的时代来了！女主在街上似乎挨了一针几秒钟就晕了，搁咱们这儿又该辟谣了。
妮可刚出来的时候脸好僵…黑白的地方比较像。感情戏和事业线拍出来总感觉不对味。还行吧
Nicole最后那里的失神很妙。影片整体时间线有点混乱，把过去和现在能区别得更明显点儿就好了。
真是为妮可基德曼才硬撑着看完，实在太长了……不过最后结尾还是有点动人的，祈祷好处的“忘词”
我去扒评论了
相由心生。四十岁以前的相貌是父母给的，四十岁以后的相貌是自己修的。这一点在同期出道的妮可•基德曼和娜奥米•沃茨脸上看的清清楚楚。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
