Very best movie i ever watch

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

I found out that both Siskel and Ebert voted this as the worst movie of 1987. It was on a list of movies considered the worst ever. I have in fact seen worse, but this is still quite bad. This movie features two bad singers who go to Morocco to try to become successful. What really sinks this movie is how dull it is. It just shows these two going around everywhere and nothing happening. Everything just seems so pointless. There's this one woman who is actually treated pretty badly in this movie. The subplot with her and the pointless romance is never even resolved! I had a hard time even believing that this was supposed to be a comedy. The jokes were so dull and lifeless. Dustin Hoffman's a good actor, but this isn't his best work. *1/2

I've seen worse movies, but it is easy enough to see why Ishar is worthy of being called the worst Hollywood movie of all time.A story of two hapless New Yorkers trying to make it as a Simon and Garfunkel-type pop duo, but after they get booked to a gig in Morocco, they become involved in the Federal Bureau and a massive Civil War.The opening scenes are about emphasizing how terrible Hoffman and Beatty are as musicians. The lyrics are funny but when they perform, they are so deliberately void of talent that the gimmick is less funny than it is depressing. Even bad music needs to palatable and even entertaining (like Steve Martin's early SNL work), otherwise the audience will disown the characters. The biggest problem with Ishtar is that Hoffman and Beatty take themselves too seriously for a movie that is doing everything in the world to ridicule them. It makes you yearn for the delicious double takes of Bob Hope in the "Road to" movies that inspired this fiasco.Not even veteran DP Vilmos Szigmund (Close Encounters, Heaven's Gate) can bring anything to the movie. There are a few nice wide shots in the Sahara, but the overall picture is visually bland, with static camera work, under lit interiors, and no sense of depth or scope. As far as humour goes, most of it fall flat, but there are a couple of good laughs to be had. Hoffman pretends to be a weapons dealer at one point and his fake Arabic is a scream (if you don't mind the political offence). The story line is shapeless to the point of feeling improvised, and the ending feels rushed, although ironically that becomes a positive when considering how hard Ishtar is to sit through.

You could be forgiven for believing Elaine May's "Ishtar" was one of the five biggest financial disasters in Hollywood – the others being Michael Cimino's "Heaven's Gate", "Waterworld" with Kevin Costner, "Gigli" with Ben Affleck and "The Bonfire Of The Vanities" with Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis and others.But you would be WRONG. These five films are merely the most FAMOUS fiscal flops (alliteration!)There are DOZENS that equal and even surpass them. Ever heard of "Mars Needs Moms"? Precisely.Released (or more properly – escaped) just three years ago, THAT box-office bomb barely clawed back twenty of the one hundred and fifty big ones it cost to make.And back in the days of the Studio System, the number of films that are considered to be classics today – is equalled by those that just DISAPPEARED.The studios figured that releasing them would cost more in DAMAGE to their studio and stars than the bombs would net – so cut as much usable material (like battle scenes which could be used as stock footage) from them as possible and BURNED the rest.However now that the Studio System is long gone, EVERYTHING gets SOME sort of release.Thus "Ishtar", which cost $55M to make (a big budget in 1987) was eventually released, netting just $7M at the US box office.But this does not tell the whole story. The worldwide figures are unavailable – then you have to factor in video, TV and latterly, DVD rights. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that overall, the movie is still a long way short of covering its production costs.These were worsened by the studio's insistence on giving the film high production values. The reason being that having heavyweights like Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty (who had championed Elaine May in the first place) on board, they were not about to scrimp it.Which is the film's first problem. Elaine had envisioned it as a "Road To…" movie (although it comes across more like those Sixties Bond spoofs – like "Danger Route" and "Our Man In Marrakesh") with a modest budget, shot locally – not an epic, part-made in Morocco.Furthermore, the studio insisted on paying both its lead actors a fortune – while both would have been happy with far less.To make things worse, the political situation in North Africa at the time was TENSE.Then to cap it all, just as the film was nearing completion, David Puttnam (now LORD Puttnam) was brought in as the studio's new head of production. He hated Beatty, Hoffman and production cost waste in equal measure – and publicly condemned the movie on the basis of all three.And all along the way, there had been a plethora of problems and fallouts too numerous to mention here – all of which conspired to CAPSIZE the film before it had a chance.So what is "Ishtar" actually LIKE? Well, most of those who decried it never even SAW it. It is actually not that bad.Beatty and Hoffman's chemistry is pretty good, Charles Grodin is as funny as ever – and the "blind" camel steals every scene he is in (the camel originally "signed" for the part got eaten instead).Plus Paul Williams' songs are realistically awful (Beatty and Hoffman play bad singer-songwriters) Dave Grusin's score is fine, May's script and direction is okay (although after "Ishtar", she never got to direct another movie) and altogether the film lopes along agreeably, never becoming boring (which is more than can be said for the other four films listed above).So if you find this piece in your DVD hire shop or it turns up on your TV schedules – give it a try. It may not be in my All Time Top Ten Movie list – or even my top hundred – but it is NOT as bad as many would have you believe.On its original release, it was well received at its three premieres, hit Number One at the box office during its opening week – and almost all of IMDb's 121 reviews (written by actual PEOPLE) are POSITIVE.And it is now available on Blu-Ray.I finally saw it a few days ago on DiggerMovie HD and LOLed many times (particularly during the scenes involving that camel). And as Elaine herself once said, "If all of the people who hate "Ishtar" had SEEN it – I would be a rich woman today."

Ishtar suffers from an inability to live up to expectations. The movie casts Oscar winners in a film that is basically a "remake" of the Bing Crosby/Bob Hope road films. Unfortunately, the actors are cast in a story that is not as brilliant as the performers, and when the film was released, it failed to live up to its hype. It became "easy fodder" for the critics, who seemed to revel in trashing the film in their reviews. At the time of its release, it became fun to make fun of Ishtar, which has become it's undeserved legacy.Actually, Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty are brilliant actors, and their performance as bungling and untalented show business performers really carries this film. The two characters are complete buffoons, and Hoffman and Beatty are quite believable as idiots. Unfortunately, the film suffers from its writing. The story is basically a remake of the Bing Crosby/Bob Hope "road movies," and the stories in these films is now a cliché. The use of cliché is worsened by the use of Arab stereotypes and stereotypes of CIA agents, which litter the film. As a result, it is a little on the "long" side. But is it a bad film? No. It is quite watchable, and actually very funny. I give it a "6" out of 10. It's in the upper half of comedy films - but just barely.