ChikPapa Very disappointed :(

Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

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.

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

henrihs I am not wondering that this movie has such a low rating in imdb. As you can see from the current valuation of this movie, it has a very high average mark, more then movies from top 10 of imdb. It is understandable, because this is the best comedy ever made. I have seen almost all movies from top 250 of imdb and I don't hesitate to admit that this movie is the best. The reason why this movie is so underestimated is a poor marketing of this movie. I am even convinced that it is not translated to any language. Although, if someone can't enjoy this movie in original, a lot would be lost. So, it is even worth to learn Russian to watch this masterpiece. This movie has the best script, the best actors and the best director. The previous make of Soviet Union movie industry was not so brilliant as this one. The reasons of failure of previous product are a not enough elaborated script and the choice of not appropriate actors. I am forced to acknowledge that some Russian actors and one director are better then anyone in Hollywood or Western Europe. I am not a Russian and I even don't like Russians' mentality and traits and features of character of "an average Russian". I hope the Russian movie industry will redeem this error by a far better marketing of this Zakharov's masterwork. However, I doubt about it. This movie should be in top 10 of imdb!

pilot_67 For someone who knows about Sovjet Union history and a lit bit about Russian culture then this film will be understandable. Actually everyone who wants to know about russian culture then I'll recommend to see this film. And not to forget in this film you can see the best actors of russian/Sovjet Union history.