It's a terrible film. It's as boring as can be, I have no words, i almost have no words. If you're not a Russian spectator, then it may be OK with you but any of us who knows soviet or Russian actors can notice their absence in this adaptation - except of Oleg Menschikov. It seems that such cast was intended, to avoid rivals who could steal a scene ,or i don't know - anyway ,it seems strange. These second-plan characters are so very neutral and faceless, and they all play as if they have no inspiration and wish and even weren't promised money. The book's characters are all bright and memorable, but here it seems that only Bender deserves attention - and Menschikov plays him so feebly, at least I imagined Ostap Bender to be absolutely different. He plays carelessly and lazily, which is a shame. He promised not to play in bad movies, which can make you think that "Zolotoy telenok" is good - but it's awful, really awful.
3 Reviews
Delightful, Faithful and Recommended
With a Few Cautions
DMSpencer12 November 2011
I'm not a Russian speaker, though I love the Ilf & Petrov novels (THE TWELVE CHAIRS and THE {LITTLE} GOLDEN CALF); and I'm a relative newcomer to seeing their works translated to film
though by now I've seen a good number, most not known in the West, thus very few with subtitles. And this miniseries is among those without.
I don't agree with the previous reviewers about the miniseries' quality -- I'm quite fond of it -- but this much is indeed true: It would be hard-to-impossible to know what's going on if you haven't read the book, while it's easy if you know it (easier still if it's fresh in your memory). And indeed, the 1968 black & white film version is a masterpiece (and one for which you can find an online version with excellent subtitles {primarily drawn from the 1932 Charles Malamuth translation}, which can be viewed online or grabbed off the net, subtitles and all, in two AVI files).
This miniseries may not quite be a masterpiece, but I'm loath to compare it to the '68 version in that context, because each was created for a different medium, venue and purpose. While the '68 version's mandate was to coherently compress the novel into a feature film (albeit a long one; split into two parts), the miniseries' mandate is clearly to dramatize the entire novel, in fine detail. It moves at the occasionally measured pace of an extended miniseries, which may be why other reviewers are failing to find it dynamic, but I'm about halfway through it and finding it terribly interesting and very satisfying. True, it doesn't quite have the hard, satirical edge of the Ilf/Petrov prose -- but then again, it can't, because sans actual narration, that conspiracy-with-the-reader/viewer tone won't sustain over a long haul without becoming exhausting and precious. So the creative team here are instead delivering an illusion of "faithful realism": a kitchen-sink approach, but one in which the characters are absolutely accurately drawn; it's handled with a light touch but comedy and drama maintain a balance throughout. (Though there *are* flashes of pointed satirical "commentary": occasional cameo animated sequences that assume some of the back-story and sidebar information. It's a wonderful concept, handled playfully.) As to the casting: I'm finding it to be excellent. There's not an actor or an interpretation that doesn't sit well with my impression of acceptable representation.
It bears to keep in mind that for Russians and those who speak the language fluidly, the novels of Ilf & Petrov are (deservingly) iconic and cherished; and that regard can engender, in some, a proprietary feeling about how the stories and characters are recreated/interpreted on film and on stage. But I think if you're open to a new millennium sensibility in the filmmaking and performance, you may find this CALF to be well golden
I don't agree with the previous reviewers about the miniseries' quality -- I'm quite fond of it -- but this much is indeed true: It would be hard-to-impossible to know what's going on if you haven't read the book, while it's easy if you know it (easier still if it's fresh in your memory). And indeed, the 1968 black & white film version is a masterpiece (and one for which you can find an online version with excellent subtitles {primarily drawn from the 1932 Charles Malamuth translation}, which can be viewed online or grabbed off the net, subtitles and all, in two AVI files).
This miniseries may not quite be a masterpiece, but I'm loath to compare it to the '68 version in that context, because each was created for a different medium, venue and purpose. While the '68 version's mandate was to coherently compress the novel into a feature film (albeit a long one; split into two parts), the miniseries' mandate is clearly to dramatize the entire novel, in fine detail. It moves at the occasionally measured pace of an extended miniseries, which may be why other reviewers are failing to find it dynamic, but I'm about halfway through it and finding it terribly interesting and very satisfying. True, it doesn't quite have the hard, satirical edge of the Ilf/Petrov prose -- but then again, it can't, because sans actual narration, that conspiracy-with-the-reader/viewer tone won't sustain over a long haul without becoming exhausting and precious. So the creative team here are instead delivering an illusion of "faithful realism": a kitchen-sink approach, but one in which the characters are absolutely accurately drawn; it's handled with a light touch but comedy and drama maintain a balance throughout. (Though there *are* flashes of pointed satirical "commentary": occasional cameo animated sequences that assume some of the back-story and sidebar information. It's a wonderful concept, handled playfully.) As to the casting: I'm finding it to be excellent. There's not an actor or an interpretation that doesn't sit well with my impression of acceptable representation.
It bears to keep in mind that for Russians and those who speak the language fluidly, the novels of Ilf & Petrov are (deservingly) iconic and cherished; and that regard can engender, in some, a proprietary feeling about how the stories and characters are recreated/interpreted on film and on stage. But I think if you're open to a new millennium sensibility in the filmmaking and performance, you may find this CALF to be well golden
Farcical
Tonino1012 January 2024
Well, if only this could be as great as the book... The Yursky film proved that there can be a proper adaptation of this novel. In fact, it was very watchable. But this dud is overly long and plain boring. Also, there are too many actors who can't act. Menshikov, being a decent actor, is an exception, but even he overacts more often than not. It doesn't seem like he wants to be in this movie. The others, though, are much, much worse. And the director is most at fault, as she turned this yarn into an unfunny attempt at farce. I don't know who is so patient that he can sit through all these episodes. I definitely wasn't.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
