Les douze heures

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.

The best comedy I have seen. The script is based on exceptionally observant novel by Ilf and Petrov and is translated to screen flawlessly. But wait, not only dialog is clever, this film is one of the best (or the best) physical comedies I know. My friend who does not speak Russian enjoyed simply watching acting by superb ensemble of actors. There is not a single false note through entire three hour run. I watch it again and again. Beautiful and smart! 10/10.

Gaidai's adaption of Ilf and Petrov's book is better than the 1977 version. Mironov is a good actor, but Archil Gomashvilli is better, though it is not his voice in the movie. Gaidai disliked his voice and asked another actor to do Gomashvilli's lines. That was met with great protest from Gomashvilli and they fought with Gaidai, thus starting a many year mute dispute. Pugovkin (father Fyodor) is also interesting in this role as the "compition" as Ostap calls him. This film is a must-see as here Gaidai once again shows off his talent for light comedy. And by the way, did you know that Karapeinikov (the person from whom Ostap bought the orders for the chairs) is actually Gaidai himself! Almost all Soviet viewers did not know and many still are not aware of this, that it is Gaidai himself there. A great movie!

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