StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

jadflack-22130 The second film that Mel Brooks directed after " The Producers" (1968)and this is loved by some and scorned by others. Put me in the line of scorners.There are laughs here, but there is a long gap between them,and film just seems to run out of ideas.Cast can't save it and just resort in the end to shouting and making other stupid noises. A poor comedy, at least better things were to follow.

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.

getlance-1 Ron Moody and Frank Langella are wonderful as the beggar duo and have some tender moments - especially for a Mel Brooks movie. I find their casting perfect and think that they work very well together. Dom DeLuise steals the show, however, as the greedy defrocked priest. His slapstick comedy relief contrasts nicely the more philosophical nature of the film.Granted, it's not true to the original book, but remember that this is a Mel Brook's film! It's a little dated now days, but still worth seeing. It's still the only time that I've ever fallen out of my seat in uncontrollable laughter at a movie theater. Watch out for Dom DeLuise going up a really big hill!

smoore-18 Although many have never seen this film; Washington,DC was lucky enough, in the 60's - 70's, to have a theater (The Circle Theater) that played new, smaller films. I saw this in 1970 when it first came out and have remembered it, and love it, ever since.Ron Moody, Dom and Frank each gave top notch performances both in comedy and action. I know I went back and saw it at least ten times just so I could drool over Langella, and I haven't stopped yet, some 38 years later.It has always been one of my top ten films (it's a very long list of top 100).