Not even halfway through.
I tried to watch for a long time, so the events in the film were forgotten, but the emotion of some misunderstanding remained until now.
Perhaps it is the translation, although the translation seemed to be from a professional studio, and the comments on the translation did not seem to argue. Anyway, I didn't understand anything at all.
Dialogue is often a set of incoherent phrases. He often tried to pause and think about what he had just heard, and if he was not sure, then reconsider, suddenly misheard, subtitles with another translation included. It did not help, in general, coherence and logic often did not catch. It feels like every character is talking to themselves.
The events that are happening are also strange. Specific examples are difficult to give from memory, and you do not want to revise for the sake of a comment. The described episode is not from the film, but fictional, just as an illustration of the illogicality and incoherence inherent in the film: The man is very, very poor, and it is assumed that the cold and hunger ahead, but he buys an expensive car and goes to trade. Where is the money on the car, where is the trading skills – you can not specify, but just show two events after each other.
Lots of pathos.
I honestly tried to understand what the film is praised for, as if the efforts were invested in the shooting, it is obvious, but nevertheless I could not understand and perceive it.
Deafly silent films Chaplin and then much more understandable and interesting in comparison with almost the “greatest” film of all time.
At least Chaplin sometimes wants to reconsider, and remember some episodes with a smile, and about Kane forgot and did not worry, until in the “Kinonavigator” he accidentally came across.
