Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

elshikh4 This movie had too good intention to present a new dissimilar drama form which aimed at satirizing all of the Hollywood community to declare that the producers in particular with their selfish thinking and avidity for money would do lousy movies had been edited by them not by the directors as it should be (so money is the higher power and the main goal here, not the art !). But this movie itself got the very same disease which it was diagnosing ! Whereas its REAL producer went to wipe off the personality of its REAL director and edited the final cut. Hence, director (Arthur Hiller) denied any connection or whatsoever to that final version because simply it is not what he did or wanted to do ! It's a perfect case of life imitating art imitating life !It's written by (Joe Eszterhas) the one who wrote some of the most famous exciting Hollywood movies (of sex or violence) at the 1990s, and whether they had a smash success like (Basic Instinct - 1992) or a smash in the face like (Show Girls - 1995) ! They're all a commercial movies not high art. Here as a writer for this one, and its co-producer also, it's clear how he's trying to criticize the very system which he worked and had success under its authority, and by its own rules became one of its stars. But is he mocking at the City which made him ?, or exposing negativism that destroyed him?, is he kidding with it or compromising it, or both ?? (Putting in mind that it is his only movie as a writer and producer in 9 years !).Anyhow, the movie suffered from vehement criticism, being described as disassembled, sleazy, boring.. (well, if you want a bigger picture then read the rest of the comments). Though, I think most of these opinions missed the real point. It's obviously not an action, and it's not your usual drama or comedy. Big part of the movie's failure belongs to the stars' names on it (especially Stallone and Chan together), whereas it was totally unpredictable and surely disappointing for some to see these stars in a movie of that kind, so how about them presenting an acrid self-mockery as well ! But despite the wrong way people dealt with it, and despite any mistakes it already made, this movie isn't entirely bad.Along side the unstoppable sarcasm, still the wittiest thing about it is the end's rare nice point of view; it says that all of the violence, shallowness and haphazardness of the Rap culture will balance out with the values that Hollywood's foundation lives by. So it would be the most disciplinary punishment for that gang of bossed producers when they have all of those uncultured gangsters singers as their inheritors. Thus the production of the richest dreams factory ever will be more violent, carnal and flat, with no intellectual awareness at all; it's maybe a prophecy or it's just a warning with too dark sarcasm.(Burn Hollywood Burn) is a satirical mockumentary after all, expresses how Hollywood is not that good, but it has been said in a way which's not that good too. Though its value relies on being originally an attestation about a business from people who knew this business best, showing their experiences with some hard bitterness, and still its highest bitter point, that will make it live long, is being a real or rather the ultimate Alan Smithee Film ever !

Ryan J. Gilmer Burn Hollywood Burn is a terrible movie in every sense of the word and its only redeeming quality is because of an accident that occurred after filming concluded.On concept this high brow yet simple movie of mockery is a thing of genius. I mean make a movie about a guy named Alen Smithee whom is losing control of a big budget movie. However, he cannot disavow the movie because he is the "fake name" he is Alen Smithee. Now thats funny (but maybe only if you know movie history?) Perhaps it is to high brow because nobody went to see this film. OR perhaps it is to English (ie Eric Idle as the leading role). Or perhaps it is just plan terrible.The movie basically, rather than poking fun at Hollywood and the stream of never ending big budget special effect extravaganzas (which Eric Idle's character is making 1 of), pokes fun at itself instead. It jokes about the movie being made is worse than Showgirls (BHB is from the writer of Showgirls), but in reality the movie (BHB) itself is worse than Showgirls.The actors just don't have any fun and are not very good.They are stuck in the middle of hamming it up and actually acting.This is probably because the fake movie is supposed to be bad, but instead that badness overflows into the real movie.Jackie Chan, Sly Stallone, and Whoppie Goldberg cameo as overpaid and past their prime actors demanding huge wages and silly concessions and while some aspects are true, they don't all apply to the actors (Jackie Chan wanting like red M&ms taken out or something?) Anyway, the movie turned out to be directed by Alan Smithee which is almost a saving grace, but it had to be the writers cut which survived to get that moniker and not the directors cut. (the incident occurring after filming wrapped) Perhaps doing as such was a lame attempt to save a lame movie, but this movie about making a bad movie turned out to be just that= aka A BAD movie

curtis martin I think that a good indicator that the makers of this supposed parody of Hollywood didn't have the conviction or skill to pull it off comes pretty early in the film. In the trailer for the film-within-a-film, they have three action heroes turn into the camera with huge guns and deadpan growl, "Don't f*** with me." The first of the three, Stallone, is an obvious choice--he actually was an action star who made a living in the 80s blowing away bad guys. But Jackie Chan was never a cinema "tough guy." He made action films, but he was never the type to be tough, brandish a rocket launcher, and tell bad guys not to f with him. Even worse, whose stupid idea was it to use Whoopi Goldberg as one of the action heroes? Whoopi? WHOOPI? I mean, maybe the inclusion of Goldberg was intended to be a joke, but it didn't play like one. As I alluded to before, the inclusion of Chan and Goldberg as Stallone-like action badasses just reeks of cluelessness. I mean, they could get Stallone, but couldn't get Segal, or VanDamme? Or even a washed up Burt Reynolds? Bronson would have been great. Arnold might have done if for fun. Imagine if it had been Sly, Arnie, and Bronson! Sure, they all would have been a bit long in the tooth, but they were true film badasses! The audience would have been laughing and cheering at the same time, instead of just going "wha? Whoopi? Wha?"

garysjwa "A mockumentary of a mockumentary" is the best term I can think of describe this random, self-conflicted attempt at Hollywood self-parody.Supposedly, a first-time director whose real name is Alan Smithee directs a huge summer blockbuster called Trio. But he thinks his movie stinks, so he steals the film canisters. Cue lots of faux interviews with studio heads, big-budget stars, family members, and random other people who wander in and out of the story.The movie is supposed to be a lampoon of Hollywood. But everyone in this picture acts like they're afraid to reveal too much information about what they're supposed to be lampooning, as if too good a roasting of executive-Hollywood hubris might cost them a future role. Sylvester Stallone and Whoopi Goldberg in particular seem terrified that anyone might find out that A-list movie stars like themselves really ARE as demanding and arrogant as the parody script portrays them. Gasp gasp.So the whole thing has a tone of "let's make fun of the boss but we're not sure if he's watching or if he'll think it's funny so let's tone it down." Compromise comedy never works.On top of that, the real movie Burn Hollywood Burn seems to have suffered all the calamities that the fictional movie Trio did. You've got your petulant cast, a script that's been over-written into a nonsensical blob, and a director who removes his name from the credits. Everything except the master copy being stolen. Unfortunately.As a result of all these conflicting forces, Burn Hollywood Burn becomes a mockumentary of a mockumentary. It's Hollywood making fun of Hollywood making fun of Hollywood. It's self-parody taken to a new extreme of recursiveness.And as final tribute to the complete insincerity of this production, there are outtakes in the final credits. Outtakes, in a movie where everybody plays parody versions of themselves. Shouldn't the outtakes BE the movie?