A former aristocrat Ippolit Vorobyaninov leads a miserable life in Soviet Russia. His mother-in-law reveals a secret to him - she hid family diamonds in one of the twelve chairs they once ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A former aristocrat Ippolit Vorobyaninov leads a miserable life in Soviet Russia. His mother-in-law reveals a secret to him - she hid family diamonds in one of the twelve chairs they once ...
You may also like
Twelve Chairs torrent reviews
Todd S (nl) wrote: An inconsistent documentary a tad all-over-the-place in being a historical account or critical celebration of what its audience wouldn't dispute is one of the great horror classics. It's best when spends time with film scholars, who put the film in social context and celebrate exactly what George Romero accomplished.
Jesse O (nl) wrote: You remember that movie Buried? You know, the movie that this one ripped off for its concept. Perhaps ripping off is too harsh of a term. Maybe this film had already been in development for a while, maybe even before Buried. It could've been that Buried's critical success, not commercial success unfortunately, opened the doors up for this film to be financed. The point is that, maybe through no fault of their own, this film will inevitably be compared, unfavorably, to Buried. First things first, Stephen Dorff clearly put himself through hell for this film. I can't imagine how it must be to be trapped in an incredibly confined space for hours on end. I can't really imagine how hot it must've been, though I'm sure they must've had a ventilation system going so as to make sure their lead actor didn't pass out due to heat. For all intents and purposes, Dorff does a great job here. The issues come in when the script, and its story, don't really match up to that performance. Ryan Reynolds gave the performance of his life in Buried, and it was needed in order to believably sell that story, but on top of that you had dialogue that was covered with suspense and tension. They were fighting against the clock in that movie, and the way that movie built, it made that concept work. It really felt like a race against time in order to save this man in this horrible situation. The longer he went, the more his chances to survive diminished. This film doesn't really have that, whether it be budgetary limitations or whatever. This film just doesn't have that same kind desperation, that same kind of 'we're running out of time'...even though one of the film's main visual concepts is the big clock counting down. There's no real hurry or importance to what's going on. Dorff makes it work for the most part because of his performance, and I think he makes the film watchable at best. Of course that's not even touching the ridiculous ending, which I'm DEFINITELY gonna talk about. The film falls victim to wanting to be one step ahead of the audience and I think it comes back to bite them in the ass. The film has two twists. The first twist actually works, in a way. Ok, I'm not even sure how I'm going to talk about this without spoiling it. So fuck it, I'm gonna SPOIL it. Skip ahead if you don't want this ending ruined. Basically, the first twist amounts to everything Jeremy was a part of, was actually a training exercise to see if he would, or could, handle the pressure of the situation and not give up important information about the President's whereabouts during terrorist attacks. It works because, with the government being as secretive as they are, it wouldn't surprise me if these types of exercises already exist. Pushing agents to the limit to see if they can handle the heat. If this had been the REAL ending, it would cheapen everything Jeremy went through...but it somewhat works. The second, and real twist, is the fact that making everything look like it was a training exercise, even down to hiring 'actors' to pretend to be the truck drivers, the 911 operator, the man he sees through the hole in the trunk walking his dog, Henry, and even his own wife, was fake. It was something to throw Henry off his game to, somehow, get him to loosen up and finally reveal the location of Roulette, the bunker the president hides in during terrorist attacks, a location that changes every so often and only a few people are ever aware of its location. Let me get this straight...this group of terrorists went through the trouble of staging this very elaborate hostage situation. Hiring actors to pretend to be people that are helping Henry, the truck driver and the 911 operator, for what exactly? Why would they go to this much trouble? It's absolutely preposterous. I'm not even sure what they were counting on, because for all they know Jeremy, when having gotten out of the trunk, wouldn't have ever given up the location of Roulette. What would they have done then? It's so needlessly, and by extension stupidly, elaborate that you have to wonder what the real purpose of it was. It's not hard for me to believe that the CIA, or whatever government agency you want, would plan these secret training exercises in order to see if one of its agents is up to the incredible demands, or pressures, of the job. That's not hard to believe at all. But when you go one step further and the secret training exercise is just a red herring for the real twist, that's when problems start. The logic of these villains start to fall apart. You realize how much meticulous planning this would actually take. Hoping that, somehow, Jeremy would slip up and reveal the location after he's told it was a training exercise. How can they count on that? The film falls apart because of this. There's no logic, no reasoning behind this. Well other than the fact that the filmmakers can say that they got one "over" on the audience by staying one step ahead. That may very well be so, but to stay one step ahead they had to dumb down what was actually, until that point, a decent movie. Being one step ahead by taking two steps backward isn't really being ahead, but if that's what they want to believe then so be it. Stephen Dorff worked hard, but this film's worst enemy was itself. Watch and you'll see what I'm saying.
kan T (ca) wrote: kendi halinde siradan bir sekilde ilerlerken, birden bire sicti.
Paul D (au) wrote: This was okay, I guess. It just never really grabbed me. I guess it is good in the campy/cheesy kind of fashion. If you like that sort of thing, then you might be able to get into this one.
Suanne S (ag) wrote: Gerard Buler and Emily Mortimer bring this little Scottish movie to life! LOVE this movie!
Trey B (nl) wrote: What would this movie be without Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson? Boring but, fortunately they are in this movie!
(gb) wrote: "LILY SHOU-SHOU MAKE ME SHOCK"- from : mr.player
Devin M (fr) wrote: Animated movie that is actually more of a scattered collection of short, often pretentious, philosophical ideas and lectures weakly tied together into a story of a young man who cannot stop himself from dreaming. This movie is probably the most pretentious and annoying movie I have ever seen. It actually wasn't so much a movie as an series of often farcical philosophical discussions set to a poor, disorienting, and distracting animation technique. I felt like I was briefly sitting in on a bunch of philosophy lectures, many of which just irritated me--either because they were absurd or because they were laced with meaningless intellectual mumbo-jumbo. Granted, some of the ideas were interesting and thought-provoking, but many were not, and regardless of the quality, the presentation of these ideas was too often soaked in academic arrogance and absurdity. There was simply too much unnecessary and useless complex terminology and figurative language that it just put me off more than it made me want to learn. I must stress that while I am not personally intensely interested in the intricacies of philosophy, I do believe that many philosophical ideas are interesting, thought-provoking, and worthy of discussion; however, this was not my experience with this movie. Overall, I felt that in their attempt to make an artsy, educational movie, they ended up with more of a pretentious lecture series that was often deliberately confusing and cryptic. This movie epitomizes my distaste for BS deep philosophical discussions. Its only real merit is that among the sea of crazy ideas it throws at the audience, it does provoke some interesting and novel thoughts on occasion. But on the whole, its almost entire lack of a story, poor attempt to be clever and artsy, and being just plain annoying and dull make this movie memorable only as an example of a failed film concept.
Chris C (nl) wrote: late great...............
James T (us) wrote: interesting but not as good as the first dracula
Shane S (es) wrote: A hilarious movie! It doesn't drag at all. so much fun!
Benjamn S (ag) wrote: Elektra : como no hacer una pelcula de accin competente.Un spin-off que est lleno de clichs, esincreblemente bsica en funcin y donde encima las actuaciones son horribles. Ya manisfet desprecio respecto a la Elektra del Universo Cinematogrfico, pero incluso la sosa interpretacin de Elodie Yung supera a esta cosa.