剧情介绍

  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.

评论:

  • 泷仪文 3小时前 :

    这是虚构的咒语哎;而且大黑佛母设定就是「恶意之神」并且片名和主题都自带“咒”.... 你观看前就应该接受被下咒的准备,可这特么是电影哎!这只是电影哎!相反导演还玩成功了打破第四面墙的“互动”病毒营销手法。关于《困》的主题据说是亲情惊悚,为啥我感觉《咒》才是....

  • 龚密如 4小时前 :

    又是那种自作孽不可活,不过氛围拉满,真的有让人身临其境。

  • 窦运浩 6小时前 :

    感觉很混乱,并不是因为非线性叙述手法,而是一些情节设计缺乏逻辑性。例如女儿从阳台跳下,回来时手里拿着刀,然后走到房间看录像,这些有什么意义?一些元素也无法解释,邪灵的作用到底是催眠还是附身?被诅咒的人有死得快的,也有慢的……这整个就像编剧硬是把七零八碎、毫无关联的东西堆在一块,让人感觉莫名其妙。

  • 雪莲 8小时前 :

    观感不如去年看的同是台湾恐怖电影的《女鬼桥》,给我的最大观感是,女主角长得也太像海清了,给我的感觉是感动的感觉大于恐怖的感觉。民俗的恐怖片,恐怖片中最常出现妈妈和女儿,出访云南,撞头,重复,断续的情绪,带给我一些感受。影院观影非院线片。评分:7.0/10。

  • 源好慕 5小时前 :

    因为胆子实在太小,所以本来没打算看,但是一大波的友邻评论 彻底激发了我的好奇,很想看看「看完了之后很晦气、谁看谁是大冤种」的电影是怎样的。六年前的一次宗教神秘小道的探险,记录探访之行的DV摄像机也成为了一个被诅咒的媒介体,只要看过DV内容的人 都会死于非命。伪纪录片的形式,让整部电影的气氛有一种莫名的真实感。虽然是一部有鬼怪之谈的恐怖片,但是所谓的诅咒咒语也不过只是导演自创的,用闽南话玩了个谐音梗,「火佛修一,心萨呒哞」其实就是「祸福相倚,死生有名」。女主角全片一直在反复的提示观众默念号称是祝福语的「火佛修一,心萨呒哞」最后实际上是愿意共享诅咒、献出姓名,这简直是把伪纪录片和心理学玩出花了呀!最终讲的还是一个母亲守护女儿的故事,看完之后甚至有一丝的感动,让我想到了小时候看的日本恐怖片《鬼水凶灵》。

  • 锟星 4小时前 :

    台湾民俗,没有文化背景不太能代入,但整个故事建立在母爱基础上让最后几分钟看出一点温情感动,恶意吓人的地方也还好,看完甚至觉得感动大于恐怖。全片设计感过重不及《中邪》接地气,但确实比《中邪》会讲故事。

  • 盘明志 8小时前 :

    得多,但我就吃那一套。哪怕本片纯粹是一部"妈妈爱女儿"的催泪片我也能接受。p.s.小女孩很可爱,看到未成年人受苦实在不好受。

  • 歧康复 8小时前 :

    全网期待下一出资源立刻去看了全片,但直到影片播到最后20分钟之前,其实都一直中规中矩,相比处处受到创作掣肘的内地《中邪》,台湾整体自由的创作环境,本片大部分情况都没有超出我的预期,使用的手法几乎没有任何创新,直到最后交代结局前的,视觉影像残留Trick,做了首尾呼应,算是一个非常大的惊喜,不过相比《灵媒》还是差了些水平。

  • 萱沛 0小时前 :

    我喜欢里面的视错觉运用,尤其是结尾翻译经文的时候,利用黑白对比,让咒符在画面消失之后,依然在眼前闪烁。

  • 西门长娟 4小时前 :

    母爱成为最大动作线,但一点都无法认同哎。不过作为听得懂闽南语的观众觉得还是挺渗人的

  • 黄小凝 5小时前 :

    救命,全是烂梗,从头至尾没有一场戏是能让人心跳加速的,伪纪录片玩成这样太丢人了。

  • 机兰梦 7小时前 :

    没有期待中的那样恐怖,太多数氛围还是靠禁忌的东方民俗元素来营造,视觉上则依赖于密集的虫洞恐惧,伪纪录片的拍摄手法早已没有新鲜感,不过倒是很贴合民俗题材,导演在其中还安插祝福到诅咒的观众互动,让许多人反射性的感到不舒服,冒犯的表达甚至被骂上晦气的热搜,但也正因敢于犯禁的拉进电影与观众间的距离,它仍然是今年目前为止最好看的华语恐怖片~

  • 祁玉奎 1小时前 :

    看一半因为觉得既无聊又不恐怖而去翻豆瓣,评论说最后晦气,那就还是不看完了啦

  • 萱淑 2小时前 :

    密集恐惧真的掉san……佛母长得也有点克系,所以这个故事当克苏鲁代餐也行(?)伪dv的形式有利有弊吧,为了保持这种虚假的“真实”,有时候机位的选择就很刻意,人物还得去做一些多余的动作调整镜头,而且作为观众还会下意识质疑这个场景出现摄影机是否合理。这些东西又会反过来削弱真实感。不过恐怖片就是明摆着的“故意”嘛,比如那个黑屏的咒语,字幕就是要在正中一个字一个字蹦,盯着中心看久了会发现周围的符文好像在扭动旋转,虽然是玩视错觉的小聪明,但还是有用心设计的,笑笑完事了。看恐怖片还怕啥晦气啊?

  • 老清俊 7小时前 :

    晦气?恰巧说明影片的成功,多次出现的符号咒语是温水煮蛙式的思想渗透。其中个人最喜欢的巧思: 和尚逐字(此时吸引观者紧盯屏幕)讲解咒语涵义,却附上符咒背景,巧妙运用了对抗色视觉补偿,精准的适时留白,睁眼闭眼躲不过厄运传播!

  • 陀诗双 3小时前 :

    还不错!虽然故事很老梗也很老,但感觉认真,有做恐怖片的信念感(啥(然后那个视错觉的小技俩蛮可爱的!

  • 荆语冰 6小时前 :

    虽然可以称得上是精品

  • 赵谷枫 6小时前 :

    中式恐怖做到这样挺顶的了,要不是我看的心不在焉估计也被吓个半死

  • 潘浩壤 7小时前 :

    首先,一定有很多人会为这个结局打低分。然后,其实这个算是一个伪纪录片形式的恐怖片,以邪教为切入点,讲述诅咒和民俗的怪力乱神。本片的片名是《咒》,再加一个这个参考《午夜凶铃》的包装,以提升沉浸式体验感,很损但还是很奏效,可以想象一堆人黑着脸,或一脸害怕,心里骂骂咧咧地走出影院的场景。但是,这还是近年把亚洲恐怖元素讲得比较好的作品,很难得,也能看到导演的用心。希望亚洲恐怖片,能够再度崛起!

  • 绳嘉熙 0小时前 :

    就是那种营造焦虑让人特别难受头皮发麻的恐怖手法,上学那阵的空手指莲蓬乳什么的,都跟着掺和进来了。

加载中...

Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved