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.
阿婆原文的优雅从容以及背后的诡秘荡然无存，只剩为了悬疑而悬疑的叙事。看完气的想给导演两个大逼兜。
肯尼斯布拉纳的舞台剧作者风格与阿加莎克里斯蒂的密室推理着实不对付。如何改编一部全世界都知道凶手是谁的作品是一个难题，布拉纳的做法是情感冲突去掩盖推理。只要每五分钟提一下“爱情”，就没有人会认为这是悬疑片。
对前部东方快车的好评感到了怀疑，类似人物浮草的剧本杀，开始拖拉再紧赶任务。没什么好拍的就不用再拍这类型了……
请迪士尼速速放弃这个系列like how you gave up X-Men，莫要再当福斯的冤大头接盘侠。
看了很多遍原版，也看过这个演员主演的东方快车谋杀案，我不知道谁给我的信心让我去电影院看这部的，被骗钱
看完了，因为之前的东方快车挺不好看，这个看之前也有好多人打了预防针，但我总觉得有阿婆的原著支撑，魔改也不会特别特别的差，果然还可以，至少觉得比东方快车好看一些。埃及风光迷人，等疫情消停了必须去一次，这个尼罗河邮轮也想搭乘。
看完之后特别想出国去埃及。剧情什么的都是浮云
既然这里面百合情节能过，老友记干嘛要删
时至今日，视觉效果必是比几十年前好了许多，但为何就讲不好一个故事呢？各种人物铺陈得毫无新意，以致没看过原版和小说的我第一眼就猜到谁是凶手。很多情节毫无剧情推动力，比如琳内特扮埃及艳后那段，不知道什么意思，而且从其表演来看，总觉得她有点精分，结果却是个无用的花瓶。还有对波洛蓄胡子的前世今生的描写，实无必要。
角色关系不清晰，节奏和气氛也没到点上，谋杀案就不明不白的开始和结束，全片充满KB自导自演波洛的表面与自负气。
拍得很好，下次不要拍了。谁要看老男人抛却心魔追寻第二春啊？
在电影院里看金字塔和阿布辛贝神庙，还是很逼真，很震撼的…
没看过原著但是不得不说电影的推理过程着实很仓促，突然就分析出来了。。。
看了个开头，场面还不错。#20220504
下水道生物，死者返生，疯狂科学家的机械改造人，吸血鬼，总的感觉没什么特别，平庸
改编后的视听作品出奇的“简洁”，甚至有些不像一部悬疑片了，完全感受不到人物的魅力，不论正反派，那还有什么好说的呢？阿加莎的原作就这么毁了？！要不是为了和上海影城的CINITY厅告别，大概是不会看这片子的。【SFC上海影城】
看得出来肯尼斯布拉纳确实想要在波洛这个角色上做出新的诠释，但是很明显布拉纳的尝试是失败的。就那影片开头的战争戏，那段战争戏毫无意义并且与电影的整体风格不搭。我也看不出来这段戏对于后期有什么作用。
评论区要求有点高啊，这个系列本来就是轻剧情重恐怖效果，故事2、3的表现力已经相当不错了
既然这里面百合情节能过，老友记干嘛要删
书粉、阿婆粉、推理迷千万别去！这部电影就是垃圾，谁能想到波洛会说出“谁没吃过爱情的苦”这种台词，这种ooc程度简直跟老邓跟伏地魔谈恋爱差不多了。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
