Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Nonureva Really Surprised!

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

whale_eyes Russian revolution. Yes. Mel Brooks. Yes. This man is a comedic genius. I laughed throughout most of this film. Dom DeLuise is hilarious. And at times Frank Langella reminded me of Kaa from Jungle Book. Ron Moody gives an outstanding performance that is also rather cringe worthy at times, but portrays the desperation of this era. This is a poignant film that also doesn't take itself seriously. You can't escape the struggle of class, (and if you're like me) will be laughing out loud along the way. This is brilliant, clever, silly humour and I recommend to those with half a brain.

MartinHafer A week ago, I saw the Cuban version of "The Twelve Chairs" and assumed it was the first version of the famous Ilf and Petrov novel. However, I researched a bit and found that there are at least two other versions out there--and possible more. In the 1930s, there was a Czechoslovakian filming of the story (the first) and then a British version as well. I also learned that all of these versions are different and not so bleak as the original story--a story where one of the partners in crime KILLS the other--only to learn that the jewels are not in any of the chairs. I could see how this version would be better for Soviet propaganda--but funny, no way. So the movie versions apparently have a more innocent and funnier slant--a good idea if you ask me.This Mel Brooks version is quite different from the Cuban one--much more slapstick, more cinematic and possessing much more energy. In fact, the lack of energy was my biggest complaint about the Cuban film. For a comedy, it was just too retrained. Here in the 1970 version, however, the opposite is true--at times the story has a bit too much energy and relies a bit too much on slapstick. For example, during a few scenes Brooks does something I HATE--speeds up the camera to indicate it's a funny scene. However, if it's funny, let it be funny on its own merit--don't do cheap camera tricks. Also, while adding a new character to the story was not necessarily a bad idea, Dom DeLuise's priest was, at times, over the top and didn't fit with the mood set by the rest of the film. Eliminating the camera tricks and keeping DeLuise under control would have improved the film immensely. Also, keeping Brooks out of the film completely wouldn't have hurt, either. I loved his writing and directing, but his best films had him barely in them (such as "The Producers" and "Young Frankenstein").Now I have criticized the film quite a bit--but there is a lot to like and I think it's one of Brooks' better films. The most obvious plus in the film was the wild and crazy performance by Ron Moody. Because Moody had many quiet and restrained moments, his crazy scenes worked well. For example, while a generally restrained man, seeing him, out of the blue, climb up the pole to the high wire was hilarious. And, a few other times when he lost control, couldn't help but smile. RESTRAINT and selective craziness was what made him a joy to watch.I also respected the nice location shoot in Yugoslavia. It could have been made in the States but filming in a locale more like the USSR helped--and there was no way the Soviet Union would have allowed the film to be made there considering the state of US-USSR relations at the time. The color cinematography and locations shoots were nice.I was surprised, but Brooks' song "Hope For The Best, Expect The Worst" was also a wonderful song. It was catchy, summed up the film well and I found myself humming it after the movie was over.Finally, I liked the relationship between Moody and Frank Langella--particularly at the end of the movie. Going for a sentimental ending with some pathos was a great idea--and ending it like the novel would have been just awful.Overall, while I am sure many would disagree, I think that apart from "The Producers" and "Young Frankenstein" this was Brooks' best film. There is a likability and subtle (at times) that you just never see in his later films...and I like this and find it endearing. Too bad his films became progressively goofier and self-indulgent.

getlance-1 Ron Moody and Frank Langella are wonderful as the beggar duo and have some tender moments - especially for a Mel Brooks movie. I find their casting perfect and think that they work very well together. Dom DeLuise steals the show, however, as the greedy defrocked priest. His slapstick comedy relief contrasts nicely the more philosophical nature of the film.Granted, it's not true to the original book, but remember that this is a Mel Brook's film! It's a little dated now days, but still worth seeing. It's still the only time that I've ever fallen out of my seat in uncontrollable laughter at a movie theater. Watch out for Dom DeLuise going up a really big hill!

MisterWhiplash The Twelve Chairs is not one of Mel Brooks's funniest comedies, but then again it IS a Russian based comedy, where big laughs are as hard to find as a tropical climate. This film does, however, display the director actually able to really tell a good story, and act as storyteller with characters in a plot to care about. If it is not really as successful as his other films though it is in this- I didn't really have a BIG laugh during the length of the 90 minute running time. I note this not because it is a laugh-less comedy, as I had good chuckles, grins, and smiles at the material presented. But in most of Brooks's films, even when the structure is held on a thread of sketches and bits, they become the funniest in modern movies. This time there is actually a lot of reverence to the early 20th century Russian times, even as there are some moments when the irreverence Brooks is best at pops up. Perhaps if you're die-hard into Russian history it might serve more for the in-jokes and the well-captured reality of the times.The acting is good, and the main cast is well placed, even if too not the best work is turned in. Frank Langella is definitely very good as the straight 'handsome desperado' character to Ron Moody's crazy old man, as he is an actor who maybe pulls out one good joke in the film. Moody meanwhile delivers some of the funniest moments just based on the delirious, if repetitive, bits on his face and in his unwavering dedication to the jewels stuck in the chair. It is Dom De Louise, on the other hand, who comparatively to other work he's done (primarily Brooksfilm work where he's genius in bit parts), as he really has to rely mostly on physical gags more than hysterical dialog. It becomes a running gag as the most desperate quack of the three hunting for the chair, and only intermittently (mostly when he tries to get the chairs from a husband and wife on a wild goose chase) is funny. And possibly some of the most memorable bits come with Brooks himself as the dim, clumsy but well-intentioned servant to Moody. One almost wishes he might pop up unexpectedly later in the film just as a brilliant goof.This is not to say I wasn't glad to finally see the often under-seen film in Brooks's oeuvre. It's certainly a good notch above the worst the director's done (Life Stinks and Dracula Dead and Loving It), where unlike those unfortunate moments he doesn't shoot for jokes and gags and puns that just don't work. Here they do, and they're juxtaposed with a story that allows for some good tongue-in-cheek moments(including a few smart moments when people chase each other in sped-up silent-film comedy style), while with a dramatic adventure story. There's even one or two moments where Brooks reveals a fine cinematic eye for the real locations on the character's travels. At the end, I felt I hadn't seen the great sleeper of a career, but a fun enough romp that has good intentions for something different- and what's more 'different' than a comedy set in Russia.