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.
技法还是有学习之处，《凶线》互联网版，桌上电影关于大数据化的音频展示类型片，但不该让女主冲出室外，而应该完全玩一个抓凶手的封闭密室戏，那么直接可以给4星。
刚开始看到片名是个AI以为是个科幻片，看到一半以为是个girl helps girl片，搞得我期待值很高，结果后面都是啥，打斗场面真的很无聊，浪费我一个半小时，最后那么好看的蓝发还给染粉了，这不行.jpg
故事设定还行，算是有趣，完成度也还可以。不过叙事的清晰度上差一些，故事略显凌乱，同时整体有些中规中矩，没有什么太亮眼的点，也就动作戏还不错。总体，别报太大希望，没事随便看看消遣一下还行。
没啥意思，唯一有印象的就是漏点了，付出这么大就拍个这？划不来啊
智能家居带来的隐私泄露和后台程序漏洞带来的犯罪隐患 题材选得挺好 故事讲得一般
融入了现实科技背景的悬疑惊悚 最后的结局也大快人心 不错
很疫情關懷，plus data + privacy + metoo.
下午才看完跟帕丁森搭档的猫女 就刷到这一部 女主长的是真好看
导演可惜了，能拍出这么无聊扯淡的片子。20分钟弃
细节充实故事骨架：比如沟通楼上装修噪音(铺垫了钉枪) 和家人的日常视讯(同样铺垫结局虽然结果论而言关系不大?) 没有授权的视网膜扫描(太写实) 路边被绑抗议人群搭救 未见其人的检察官
概念有的，前面节奏还算紧凑，后面剧本又糟糕，把控能力也全面坍塌
整体质感比现在电视剧还低成本，真的电视电影那感觉...但表演和导演做得还算可以了。毕竟典型的set up和play off做得到位的片。但也仅此而已
2.“被窥视的生活”；
犯罪片里的小清新，女主最后显额头有点大，之前的装扮好看。杀手🥷先强后弱
整场的拖沓被装修工具干净利落的5分钟搞定。
在后疫情背景下，用AI“kimi”的概念讲述了一个媒介焦虑、女性焦虑的故事，剧本、拍摄和表达很流畅，出门不出门成为女主的改变，而第一次出门的契机成为核心主题——女性互助与媒介反叛，是一部与时代同轨又反扣经典的好作品。
偷窥狂
当她在大街上被恶人强行绑架时，是周围群众不顾一切救了她。希望这种正义之光能照耀到地球上的每个黑暗角落。
🎬《Kimi》🌟🌟
最惊悚的大概就是即便像女主一样谨小慎微地在意隐私不出家门 大数据时代人肉一个人也是如此轻而易举 比起透过望远镜和窗户的偷窥 无孔不入的数据窥视让隐私变得无处遁形
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
