12 stulev

The tag line suggests this movie was made because the Soviet Union "couldn't stand the unauthentic version." They should have quit while they were ahead. The Mel Brooks version is light, funny, upbeat and short--compared to this monstrosity that takes almost 3 hours to view. It is true, Brooks changed the ending while this version is true to the Ilf and Petrov version, but that only improves the story. This is a plodding, un-funny, self-conscious and dreary movie, most of which should have been left on the cutting-room floor--in other words, a typical product of what passed for art in the Soviet Union. Worth seeing only so you can appreciate how much better the American Version is.

Incidentally, there is also a Cuban version of the story, set in post-Castro Cuba, which is also totally unwatchable. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055915/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_4

not a surprise. the novel remains a classic of Soviet literature. but that fact does its adaptation special. the genius of Gayday who builds a charming comedy in a splendid, precise manner.each scene is a gem. and the acting is at high level. the risks to mistake are many but that danger does the film a magnificent adventure. a film about a search who becomes portrait of society. a trip in Soviet Union for a treasure. the trip is reflection of the people's real image. and good occasion for create not exactly a good comedy but a spectacular adventure of a society who is hostage out of normality. it reminds many comedies from the same period. but its real gift is to remain unique. maybe not the best but surely memorable. the last scenes are the best argument. because, the spirit of a well known novel has the best support in the inspired science of detail and wise use of irony of a very interesting director.

As a big fan of Ilf and Petrov's masterpieces I couldn't watch this version. It contains quite simple Gaidai's humor but not sharp and intelligent humor of authors. Zakharov's version is much closer to book and embodies original jokes. And, of course, genius Mironov is No2 Ostap Bender after Yurski. Though actors are great in both versions, 77's did the best. The very important part of Ilf & Petrov's literature is the author's voice, which was masterfully implemented in 1977 (by the way the one who worked as author's voice was famous Rolan Bykov, who played Panikovsky in 1968 Zolotoy Telenok (Golden Taurus)) but Gaidai didn't use such feature and lost the majority of book's spirit.

After seeing Andrei Mironov i Zakharov's "12 stulyev" (1977), it hard to imagine a better actor for the part of Ostap.

In general, this Gaidai's film is weak. The acting is too eccentric and unnatural, the sets and the music are too simplistic. Showing a "modern" Soviet Moscow at the end is completely out of place. Even such brilliant actors as Yuri Nikulin and Georgi Vitsin cannot save this film. My rating: 5/10.

If you want to see a much better films by Gaidai, look for "Ivan Vasilyevich" (1973) and especially "Kavkazskaya plennitsa" (1966).

As for "12 stulyev", try to see the film by Mark Zakharov.

This videofilm is not only the comedy. This film depicts many various aspects of the human life not only in the USSR but also on the whole planet Earth. This film was actual in the past time, is actual now and seems that it will be actual in the future.

The film shows the internal life of the people's society: from the ordinary janitor to the figures of the governmental level. It shows, in a form of a comedy, those sides of the human kind which they themselves will never tell you about.

One of the best films ever made on this planet!