Matialth
Good concept, poorly executed.
Lachlan Coulson
This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.
Logan
By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.
DMSpencer
I don't speak Russian (though Russia accounts for 100% of my ancestry) but I've had occasion to get familiar with those works of Ilf & Petrov that have been translated into English. I've read and own every translation and while I was at it, decided to acquire as many of the cinematic adaptations as I could, which wound up being most of them, through various online sources.12 CHAIRS has given rise to 15 available video versions (some for TV, one the recording of a stage musical) with one from India yet to follow. Some just use the basic plot as a springboard, eight are relatively faithful to the novel and differ primarily in tone and approach. If you know the novel well, they're easy to follow, even without Russian fluency. This miniseries being among them.While I agree with the posters who believe the 1971 Gaidi feature film is superior -- it may be the iconic adaptation of the story, plus it's simply brilliant filmmaking -- this 1977 miniseries has its advantages and charms. It seems clear that director Mark Zakharov was very interested in channeling the spirit of the 20s in which it is set, and in doing so by emulating styles of performance, comedy, music and cinema of the period. He doesn't emulate them so much as put them through a filter to form a coherent contemporary film with an old school sensibility. The controversy (in these IMDb reviews) about Andrey Miranov's interpretation of Ostap Bender stems from (what seems to me) the fact that he's fulfilling Zakharov's 1920-esque vision. The look and the style are very consciously reminiscent of high-style, yet somewhat cool, romantic leading men like Valentino (in fact I'm willing to bet that Valentino was a conscious model). And I think whether or not you dig the miniseries will depend on whether or not you sign on for the particular ride the director wants to take you on. I was happy to go along.My caveat is that despite the brilliance of individual sections, over the long haul the pacing seems slow-ish. (The '71 Gaidi film is perfectly paced, by contrast.) But it's still a fascinating miniseries, for its cultural perspective alone.Also highly recommended for followers of Ostap are the two Russian adaptations of his second adventure, THE (LITTLE) GOLDEN CALF. Check out the stunningly brilliant 1968 film starring Sergei Yursky, and the periodically brilliant but always very good (and wonderfully cast) 2005 miniseries starring my favorite Ostap of all, Oleg Menshikov.
alffastar
This my first time writing a review on IMDb, but I could not resist 'cause this movie is a brilliant, exceptional masterpiece. It is larger-than-life (or at least as close to it as only possible)! It is extremely funny, sad and philosophically loaded at the same time. About how many things could one say that!? The tandem Mironov-Papanov here is one of the best in the history of cinema.Many years ago I saw an American movie (do not remember which one) where the character was explaining that if there was a fire and he could save either the last copy of a Shakespeare play or a human life he would save the Shakespeare copy. Although I completely disagree with this attitude, one of the things I would ALMOST choose to save in such a situation instead of a human life would be the '12 chairs' with Mironov-Papanov...
kapudanpasha
The supporting cast and locations are good, the music delightful, but I was disappointed by Mironov and Papanov. Mironov is surprisingly wooden and humorless, without the sparkle that characterizes Ostap Bender. The film suffers for it. Papanov takes his cue from Mironov's performance, plodding through the film without contributing much. They were capable of far better things. Lenoid Gaidai's version is not perfect, but on the whole, it conveys the feel of the book better. On the plus side, this version retained many of the minor characters dropped from the earlier film, but if you haven't read the book, they won't be missed one way or another.
Galina
It was supposed to be the best screen version of the beloved book and had everything going for it: brilliant Mark Zakharov - one of the best and most talented Soviet stage directors ("Til'", Yunona i Avos'" and "Zvezda i smert Khoakina Muryety" on the stage of Moscow Lenkom Theatre.) He has made the best TV movies I can think of: " An Ordinary Miracle" (1978), "That Munchhausen " (1979), "Formula lyubvi" (1984) and the terrific adaptation of "To Kill a Dragon" (1988), his only film for big screen. Unique Andrei Mironov is Ostap; Zinoviy Gerdt narrates the sparkling text; Rollan Bykov, Anatoly Papanov, and Oleg Tabakov (to name just a few great actors) star. Gennadiy Gladkov, the musical genius who wrote the scores and the songs for all Zakharov's films and for "Gentlemeny udachy" (1972), "Bremenskie muzykanty" (1969) and for "Malysh i Karlson" (1970), created the beautiful and stylish as usual score but the movie did not work. It is slow, boring, and pretentious. I really wanted to love it, I was so ready to love it but I could not. Why or why did Zakharov decide to repeat some of the scenes over and over again? Why or why did Mironov play Ostap as a walking zombie with the mascara on his eyes? Why or why the immortal jokes that had been narrated to us did not work as well as they did when we read them? The movie is not a complete failure but with all the talent involved, it could have been much better.5/10
