The Twelve Chairs (1970)

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

We've all known that Mel Brooks is a Comedy Genius. His crazy movies such as Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein and Spaceballs have earned him his own sub-genre in the world of comedy films. However, before those films, there was this one; his second outing as a Director. I actually never heard of this film until a few years ago. I purchased "The Mel Brooks Collection" which was a collection of nine of his films on Blu-Ray. The Twelve Chairs was the first film in the collection. I was pleasantly surprised when I watched it. The humor is much more subtle than his other films. It's also different in that it's based on an earlier novel instead of coming directly from Mr. Brooks. However, what he did with this film is a testament to his artistic sense. The interaction between characters is very well choreographed. The comedic timing is excellent, especially with Dom Deluise. You're laughing almost immediately after he first appears in the story. A great deal of his story is separate from the other two characters as he makes his own search for the chairs. However, it's still a fine performance and much of what you expect from him for those familiar with his work. The interaction between Ron Moody and Frank Langella is fantastic. Moody does an excellent portrayal of the inept former aristocrat turned clerk and Langella is also excellent as the dashing and intelligent rogue. The two make a great odd couple, yet work very well together. Of course, there are the standard Mel Brooks trademarks such as the director's cameo and doubling as song-writer for the film's soundtrack. As usual he performs both roles very well. Finally what really makes this film a work of art is the cinematography. Mel Brooks certainly knows how to frame a picture and with Russia serving as the backdrop, we are really treated to some great imagery. The travel montage at 1 hour, 17 minutes in is definitely the best as Moody and Langella's characters make a long 3000 mile trek across the Soviet Union and back to Moscow. Highly recommend seeing this film. It's probably best to just do what I did and purchase The Mel Brooks Collection and see for yourself. You won't be disappointed.

For a Mel Brooks movie, far from the best. For a 60-70's comedy, I've definitely seen better. A poor man's Mad Mad Mad Mad World."Was it interesting?" That was the best part. The story is complex, characters were developed with reasonable motivations. It's just the transition to a movie that didn't really do it justice. 1.5 out of 3"Was it entertaining?" The comedy was slightly humorous in parts, but mostly predictable or too drawn out. 1 out of 3"Was it memorable?" The locations were pretty well done, and the acting was better than the dialog. The problem is that pacing was so slow I almost fell asleep 2/3 through and was wanting to fast-forward in the last 5 minutes. 1 out of 31.5+1+1=3.5+1(default 1)=4.5 Round up or down for overall feeling and this feels like a 4. This is not a movie I would want to see and felt like my time was somewhat wasted.

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.

This movie is not even close to the REAL classic 12 Chairs 1971 movie by Leonid Gaiday. The problem is not in the director or actors. Brooks may be a good director, whatever, the facts are that American nation will never understand the classic Russian humor the way it's meant to be.The Russian 1971 version of 12 chairs together with "adventures of Shurik" is widely considered to be simply the best Russian comedy of all time. Watching American 12 chairs version would be the same as forcing Pierre Richard to play a Schwarz's roles. Ridicioulus...I can't believe that people like this movie and have read the novel at the same time, this is hard to understand...Don't watch this movie! Watch classic 1971 and 1976 Russian movies instead!