Best movie of this year hands down!

Boring

Absolutely the worst movie.

Absolutely Brilliant!

In 1920s Soviet Russia, a fallen aristocrat, a priest and a con artist search for a treasure of jewels hidden inside one of twelve dining chairs, lost during the revolution.I honestly don't even know if I heard of this movie before I picked up a copy of Mel Brooks' blu-ray box set. I think I can safely say it is his most obscure full-length feature film. And even more odd, it was based on a novel and has been made in multiple film versions... I was not aware of any of this.That aside, this was actually pretty funny. A bit subtle, but I think it worked that way. And Dom DeLuise. Wow. I never knew he was actually somewhat thin once upon a time (though still bald). He was excellent. And Frank Langella looks so young, too! I'm more used to seeing him as Dracula.

I saw this years ago and it was painfully unfunny. I showed it to some friends because Brooks is usually funny and I wound up being embarrassed. I barely remember what it was about, but what stuck in my mind was that it was laugh free. It has something to do with three losers during the 1920's in Russia looking for some jewels that are hidden in the chairs of a deceased aristocrat They go through various ordeals and at times bored me to tears. Brooks here shows none of the talent he would later display in films like "Blazing Saddles" or "Young Frankenstein." I really hated this film and can't imagine what parts anyone laughed at.

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.

It was hard to expect too much out of this apparently low-budget production filmed in 1970 Yugoslavia. The script is loosely based on a novel in Russian which originally did not center on treasure hunt but rather on the picturesque characters surrounding the three losers who could not fit in the new life.I decided to watch this as the only Mel Brooks film never seen before. Unfortunately I had nearly memorized the novel... and in my eyes the movie only reflected about 2% of the potential laughs, while I believe about 40% could be funny if it could make it in the script. The original material was not without flaws but it was mostly satire and drama, which was totally left out of this film.Seeing Dom DeLuise and Frank Langella 40 years younger was a surprise! They actually account for 50% of the fun, while the remaining half belongs to the brilliant acting by Andréas Voutsinas in the two minutes of screen time! Mel Brooks wrote the title song for the film, and the score is OK, but the scenery is out of place and dress designer had no clue about any Russian clothes.So, it's far from an average Mel Brooks film. Overall, I would still give it 5 out of 10, mostly for Andréas Voutsinas.