brando647 I purchased a boxed set of Mel Brooks' biggest hits because I'd somehow gone more than thirty years without watching BLAZING SADDLES and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, and among the titles I was unfamiliar with I found THE TWELVE CHAIRS. This movie stands out from the rest because it wasn't the sort of Brooks film I'd come to expect. Brooks is obviously known for his screwball comedies and parodies, but THE TWELVE CHAIRS doesn't fit the bill for either. It's still a comedy but it's not the usual slapstick, meta-humor. It's a very straightforward comedy narrative based on a piece of Russian literature. It tells the tale of a former Russian aristocrat named Ippolit Vorobyaninov (Ron Moody) whose family lost everything with the rise of the Soviet Union. When his mother-in-law dies, she reveals that she'd hid her stash of valuable jewels in the upholstery of one of their twelve dining chairs for safekeeping. Unfortunately those chairs have long since lost to the Soviet government, but that isn't enough to dissuade Vorobyaninov and he returns to their former home to track them down. He's forced to team with a wandering conman named Ostap Bender (a young Frank Langella in his first big screen role) and the two of them race to find the chair before a corrupt priest (Dom DeLuise), who learned of the jewels from the dying mother during her final confession, can find them for his own selfish gains. It's a buddy comedy/road movie through the poverty-stricken post-revolutionary Soviet Union.Honestly, there's nothing truly amazing to make THE TWELVE CHAIRS stand out but it's still a well-constructed, funny movie and perfect viewing for a quiet afternoon when you aren't looking for anything too heavy. It's funny enough to keep the movie solidly entertaining for its breezy ninety minute running time but there aren't really any particular characters or moments that are all that endearing or memorable. Vorobyaninov is our main character and he's somewhat sympathetic as a man trying to regain his former glory but he's also vehemently selfish and borders on psychotic at times. All in good fun, of course. It was never his money to begin with and his former rich life was the result of his wife's family fortune, but he goes full blithering lunatic when the prospect of someone else finding that fortune is threatened. He only accepts the companionship of Ostap, the most identifiable of the characters from the audience perspective, because Ostap threatens to turn the information on the jewels into the government if he's left out. Ostap is certainly looking out for number one but he's also honest (as much as necessary) and trustworthy; he just wants the chance to escape his own meager existence of scrounging to survive. If he has to extort that chance out of Vorobyaninov to do so, he'll do it but he'll also be true to his word. Langella makes Ostap a charming rogue; he's got the air of a swashbuckler and the swagger of James Bond…a strong start for Langella's career.The plot is pretty simple. We travel with Vorobyaninov and Ostap as they track down each of the twelve chairs in search for the one holding the jewels, cheating, stealing, and bribing their way. Hot on their trails is Dom DeLuise as Father Fyodor, who is the more traditionally cartoonish character we expect from a Brooks film. He's never really a threat to their success (since he gets sidetracked on a wild goose chase from nearly the beginning) but he's got some of the funniest scenes. Mel Brooks also pops into the film for a quick in-and-out cameo as Vorobyaninov's drunken, sycophantic former servant Tikon, giving him the chance to steal the spotlight for a moment with his larger-than-life style. I really don't know what else to promote for THE TWELVE CHAIRS because, as I mentioned, it's a pretty straightforward affair carried by fun performances from the three main leads. I suppose people with interest in Russian literature will get that extra kick of seeing the story from Ilya Ilf and Yevgeni Petrov brought to the screen again. I'm not one of them. I'm not familiar with the authors and my knowledge of life in Soviet Russia is pretty limited, but some of the movie's themes (the "joys" of life in the rise of communism, embracing one's station in life and rising to challenges) shine through regardless. I might've preferred my new boxed set include THE PRODUCERS but THE TWELVE CHAIRS was certainly a pleasant surprise as a Brooks fan.

fedor8 Even someone totally unfamiliar with the novel should be able to pick up the obvious hints that this story had sprung out from the corrupt loins of the Soviet propaganda machine. The greedy priest and the selfish nobleman, for one thing; these serve as not only main protagonists but as symbols of everything "that was wrong" with pre-revolutionary Russia. The Orthodox Church and nobility were the main enemies of the Bolsheviks, hence why these two characters are portrayed as greedy, selfish, pathetic creatures to be laughed at and despised.Secondly, the ending. The jewels and diamonds found in the chair were used by the Communist Party to build a club (or something or other) for the people - a rather fanciful and laughable approach, in stark contarst to actual harsh realities of 20s Soviet Russia. Plus the fact that pre-Stalinist Russia ("pre" as in merely months before his arrival) isn't shown as destitute but as prosperous even. Dom deLuise's visit to Siberia is merely cold; Brooks doesn't even throw a hint that it is a place where millions of political prisoners are dying (and about to die) in ultra-inhumane conditions, there isn't even a speck of a joke regarding gulags. So much for yet another "bleedin'-heart liberal" who cares for his fellow man; Mel Brooks is a grinning scumbag of the worst kind. A hypocritical left-winger who amasses a fortune while supposedly "caring for the poor". Thumbs up for anyone daft enough to fall for this transparent con-job.Mel Brooks, by being fairly faithful to the book, became a willing tool of Soviet propaganda, and this little "Red gesture" didn't go unnoticed in Hollywood, which gave him several awards for being so pro-Soviet. Comedies very rarely get recognized by any juries, so this was quite telling, especially given the fact that this was by no means a brilliant movie. (Except perhaps by Brooks's own rather low standards.) Brooks could have easily written in another character: a corrupt, greedy Party member as an additional seeker of fortune. This would have been a perfect way to cancel out the blatant pro-Communist leanings of the story. Or he could have re-written Langhela's part to that effect, but he chose not to. He didn't want to make this an intelligent, politically neutral tale, because that isn't what he believes in.12C is a decent comedy, there are some laughs here and there, but that peculiar Mel Brooks "touch" always gets in the way from turning it into a very good comedy. He made several mistakes. Aside from including the usual barrage of cheap, unfunny melo-brooksian jokes, he also terribly miscast Frank Langhella. Langhella is neither funny nor has he got the kind of easy charm that is required for that type of role. His face is stern, and his voice serious. And yet we see much more of him than Dom DeLuise, who is fairly funny as the increasingly insane priest but a bit of a side-character.

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.

bkoganbing By the Nineties what you expected from a Mel Brooks movie was a satire of film genres, whether it was horror, western, science fiction, the backstage show business story, the fertile mind of Mel Brooks somehow skewered them all. He did one remake of a classic comedy from the studio era with To Be Or Not To Be. But most of his work was his own original take on a film genre. The Twelve Chairs stands out as an odd fish among his work.Although it has some very funny moments it doesn't quite come off as well as The Producers or Blazing Saddles or Young Frankenstein. Perhaps it was because Brooks was not creating his own original work, but was filming a play from another source, a novel The Twelve Chairs by Soviet Union authors Ilyiu and Petrova.Former aristocrat Ron Moody who was quite lucky to be alive after the Russian Revolution hears a death bed confession from his mother that the family fortune is in jewels that the Bolesheviks didn't get, but was hidden in one of twelve parlor chairs the family owned. The Soviets confiscated the furniture and sold it to benefit the new government.Moody teams up with young gentleman thief Frank Langella to try and find the one chair with the loot. They have a rival in fake Russian Orthodox priest Dom DeLuise also looking for the chair with the swag.Moody steals the show in this one, thinking about the lost life he once had and that the chair will gain it back for him in some measure, he becomes positively more manic as the film continues. His performance is a whole lot like Zero Mostel's in The Producers.Still The Twelve Chairs is not what I've come to expect from Mel Brooks. He'd do so much better in his next film, Blazing Saddles.