i undertand that the movie was way over budget and it doesn't have the most coherent plot but i still think hoffman and beatty and even charles grodin are really funny in this movie and as a screwball comedy i think it deserves more recognition than it recieves
shareI loved the movie, so I don't understand why anyone actually hates it. Of corse when i tell people this they shun me.
sharethey shouldnt shun us for understanding the slapstick and utterly pointless funt the big name actors have in this flick.
shareA box office bomb for sure, but more funny thatn most comedies, successful or not.
shareBox office has nothing to do with whether a movie is good or not. I have not seen it, so I don't know. But now my curiousity is peaked, so I might try to find it.
share>>> Box office has nothing to do with whether a movie is good or not
I wouldn't go that far.
It should be against the law to use "LOL" unless you really did LOL!
[deleted]
piqued, not peaked.
shareThe NAME.
It conjures images the generations back then found offensive.
Ticks Ticks thousands of ticks, and not one blessed TOCK among them!
testing one two three
shareI loved this movie :) Wish I could find it on DVD around here :S
shareI know your post is years old... but you can get it on Region 2. I bought it on Ebay by accident, kept it figuring I'd get it converted some day. Tonight I discovered my computer will play Region 2 DVDs!
Falling off the bed. "This action is no longer covert."
I refuse to be outwitted by a 2-dimensional character in a cheap romantic thriller!
I agree. I think this movie got a really bad rap that it didn't deserve. At the time Hoffman and Beatty were both associated with Oscar-level films so when they made this light, screwball comedy the critics tore it a new one and everyone jumped on the bandwagon. It's not a great movie but it's pretty funny.
shareFact is that these "esteemed" critics did not get the point at all. I mean, I read reviews in which they blew their casket on the "miscasting" of Hoffman as the ladies man and Beatty as the guy who couldn't get a date!!!!! Talk about missing the point of the in-joke!!!!!!!!
I thought it was and is a hilarious movie and what makes it even more delightful is the obvious fun the two leads have doing their parts. Beatty is absolutely hilarious as the borderline retarded sweet Lyle who lets himself be bullied by self important schmuck Chuck (Hoffman). They're hilarious and I wish they'd made a few more movies as these two totally talentless guys Rogers and Clarke :)
A couple of years ago my DVD player broke, and while it was being fixed I had to rely on my rarly used VHS player. I went to the Hollywood video store and for some unknown reason started renting old 80's flicks, mostly action, like Rambo, Missing In action, ect. I also rented some comedy's and thought this would be funny, as it had Dustin hoffman in it. But I can truly say it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I thought it was going to be a spoof on all thoes "Road to..." movies by Bob Hope and that other guy. But it just really stunk. I never found out what the map that was sappose to "Inflame the Middle East" said, and Hoffman and that other guy just sucked in nothing rolls that had no character development. The only thing I enjoyed about this film was the short battle between Hoffman, the girl, and that other guy and the Bo-105 and Bell 222 Helicopters. And that only lasted about two minutes. This movie is for massicust only!
Our last message to you is, "Live as You please!"-Dessert
[deleted]
I guess I'm a "massicust" then. This movie, although not brilliant, is very enjoyable. Beatty and Hoffman are perfect as two clueless songwriters in way over their head. I dare to the say the more modern and popular film Zoolander was inspired by this classic.
haha i agree with you jhaselbauer. it's an enjoyable movie!
as for that other poster, its tough to take an opinion seriously when the person hasn't done enough reading to properly spell masochist. isn't it funny how idiots just kind of "out" themselves on here?
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=29663098
Massicust? Obviously, anyone can post here, including people who cannot spell or think. If you wanted to rent movies like "Rambo" and "Missing in Action", why would you expect to understand a subtle movie like "Ishtar"? I'll bet you hated the button-down mind of Bob Newhart, too.
Our last message to you is, "sheesh".
I'm with you here. Hoffman is a top-notch actor. Though overrated in my book, Beatty also has quite a reputation. To see them clowning around in this very funny movie, going AGAINST their types, could have disturbed the nose-in-the-air critics. They really don't appreciate movies that aren't trying to be artistic. Think of CADDYSHACK, FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, STRIPES, DUMB AND DUMBER, Rob Schneider's films: these are hilariously funny, often cleverly so, but you think some film critic will admit it??? No, no, none of the aforementioned movies is "art house," or based on some obscure German novel, or made up of a cast starring some 87-year-old former stage actress from England!
History repeats itself. I'm a major Marlon Brando fan, and I remember his career going through something similar. In the Fifties he starred in several very excellent films, gave some historic performances, and was nominated for Oscars several years in a row! Came the Sixties and he played leads in a variety of films that were more run-of-the-mill, and sometimes not so great. He acted well but didn't inspire awe. Of course the critics panned Marlon left and right for not being at the marvelous level of his past work in movies.
It really isn't that bad. The plot is convoluted but you're not meant to take it seriously to begin with. Yeah, it would have been better with genuine comedians in the title roles, and Warren Beatty was particularly bad [did he want to be in this movie?] but Hoffman was excellent, and well, I just don't get such a low rating for it. I've seen a LOT worse, maybe if it had a 'name' director to it...
shareI agree. I remember when it was released that the critics trashed it. I don't know if it is true, but I read that the "Hollywood establishment" was unhappy with Beatty at the time and that had something to do with it. Yes, it was way over budget, but that didn't impair my enjoyment of the movie. Despite the expensive cinematography, it isn't an epic, but it is at least as good as most (better than some) of the Hope/Crosby "Road Movies," which is the most comparable genre. It seems to me that some just don't care for this type of humor, and it isn't funny to everyone. To those who "get" the humor, it is really hysterically funny. I loved seeing Beatty play a moron - refreshing! The fact that Beatty, Hoffman & Grodin were obviously enjoying themselves added to the entertainment. I do wish it were available on DVD! My VHS copy is about worn out & it isn't shown on cable nearly often enough.
shareWow, do you really think that this movie was as good as even the very worst Hope/Crosby "Road" picture?
Everybody's allowed to like what they like, and I won't take potshots at someone else's enjoyments, but I have to say that I can't compare ISHTAR to the "Road" films in any remotely positive way. Steve.
I think I laughed at a few instances when I saw it in the theatres, but on the whole, the plot was a mess, the story implausible, and dialogue pretty bad and Beatty and Hoffman completely unconvincing.
I remember my friends and I just shaking our heads when we left, thinking "what the hell was that piece of crap?"
Life is too short to drink bad wine.
The great Elaine May never did create comedy for children or their ilk. The "death lady" wrote for the likes of Sid Caesar not Jerry Lewis. She also knew the meaning of, reveled in and could spell the word subtlety.
shareI saw this movie when it came out in theatres. Since then, when people ask me to name the worst movie I've ever seen, I say "Ishtar" without hesitation. I'm not 100% sure, but I think my husband and I even walked out and didn't see the entire thing. I found it incredibly tedious and boring.
That being said, I think I would like to watch it again, to see if the film improves with age (mine and/or the film's). I also hated Blazing Saddles when I saw it. BS was my first R-rated movie, and a friend snuck us in at the age of 12 or so. I totally did not get it. So perhaps I'll make it a point to watch both of these films again to see if I still find them pointless.
I totally relate to this comment. I saw it in the theatre when I was around 17, and I think my friend and I walked out. I don't remember anything about the movie, but reading a little about it, I have a feeling I would appreciate it more now. Maybe. Who knows.
share