An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn

Many users have said this is a really bad film. A totally rubbish film. But this film is really a brilliantly funny film; it's so full of irony, every line form start to finish. Sadly the US audience doesn't understand irony so the film flopped. But if you're British you will like this film.

Example. The person who plays the director is Eric Idle, From Monty Pythons Flying Cirrus, and an ironic joke in itself. WATCH THIS FILM.

If you are in the feature film industry, what makes this picture so funny is the close parody... some of the characters appear to be modeled on real people. It would not be too far a stretch of the imagination to believe that two of the characters are parodies of Peter Guber and John Peters of Sony Pictures. Read the true story of these two guys' careers, documented in the book, Hit and Run, then watch Burn Hollywood Burn again. You will probably find the film twice as entertaining as the first time you watched it. After having last watched the film 7 years ago, I bought the DVD this week because I wanted to see if I could grab the title track that I liked, and I also clearly remembered (and liked) the graffiti art that was drawn for the movie title. Once I got the DVD in my hands, though, I watched the film all the way through again, and enjoyed it every bit as much as the first time I saw it.

'Burn Hollywood Burn' isn't bad. It's actually entertaining if you have a twisted, shameless enough fascination with the mechanics of the entertainment industry, as I do. The lying, deceiving and stonewalling tactics played out all over the story (such as it is) shows us one comical scenario of Tinseltown. My favorite bits were the cameo scenes by producer Robert Evans. For him to get in front of the camera again after so many years took some cajones. He plays it very cool though, Mr. Blame-It-On-The-Bossa-Nova. I rented the flick for two bucks one night, it was worth the two bucks.

Real life director Alan Smithee is an editor by trade but is signed up to direct the action movie `Trio' starring Whoopi Goldberg, Sly Stallone and Jackie Chan. However when the producer's final cut leaves it, in Alan's opinion, a mess, he steals the master negative and runs. This documentary follows the story of what happens when a director is forced to watch his art turned into a poor money spinner.

I hadn't really read the very negative reviews of this film before I watched it and am a little surprised by the strength of feeling from the majority of the critics. Having said that, I can understand why this film is so hammered – as it really isn't very good. It started well and I thought it had potential – it seemed that people were making fun of themselves and that it would be a good satire on the industry and in particular, studio execs. However after a certain point it doesn't really do very much other than be flabby, repeating, self indulgent and silly. After Alan actually takes his film and seeks refuge with the Brothers Brothers, the film is very messy and not very funny at all. The documentary approach had worked well up till this point but from here it was a strange mix of action and documentary. It gets increasingly silly and increasingly less clever and funny.

It had a few laughs but satire is meant to be funny – not just taking easy pot shots with crude characterisations and jokes. I still maintain it had potential but it is a good idea crying out for a better script and director (I notice it is directed by Smithee – I don't know if that's a joke or if the real director really did disown it). So from a good idea it goes nowhere – the little touches are nice but the total plot is rubbish. In away it is both made worse and more bearable by the actors, who are a mixed bunch.

Eric Idol is awful and he simply doesn't suit the material – watch the scene where he turns his hat sideways and says `cool' and you'll see what I mean. Chuck D should really have known better than to deliver a meaningless performance here – although I totally expect that from Coolio! However, Stallone, Goldberg and Chan are all quite funny and make fun of themselves quite well. O'Neal and colleague as the producers are quite good but are dumbly stretched to extremes for the sake of humour. For the majority of the cast there seems to be a problem gelling – it feels like every single person thinks they are in a cameo and thus add to the feeling of this not being a film so much as a cobbled together affair. The support cast is good for names but the quality of delivery isn't really that high.

Overall I'd stop short of adding to the list of boots that have been put into this film, but I'd be lying if I told you I didn't feel like I'd waste 90 minutes – I do. It started with a good idea but the script was nowhere near sharp enough and the majority of the cast (certainly those required to carry the film and not just be cameos) are just not up to the job. Could have been a fun satire but instead is an unfunny messy affair that doesn't really have anywhere to go beyond taking easy shots at the producers.

I disagree with the people here saying this is one of the worst films ever made. I'm somewhat of a connosieur of bad films, and that just isn't the case. It's competently put together from front to back, but the script definitely could have used another draft or two.

At its worst, it's just unfunny, not mind-bendingly horrible as some would have you to believe. Certainly if you know nothing about the inner workings of Hollywood you won't understand the references and almost none of it will be funny.

I'm sure there were lots of references I didn't understand -- I get the feeling people working in Hollywood would get more out of this movie than the rest of us. One odd reference is the repeated name of "Michael Ovitz" throughout the movie. It appears in the song "I Wanna Be Michael Ovitz" in the soundtrack, there's a "Paging Dr. Ovitz..." in the background in a hospital, etc. It's not quite clear what writer Eszterhas's feelings toward Ovitz are -- does he hate him or look up to him?

Another thing I don't understand is why director Arthur Hiller felt he had to change his credit to "Alan Smithee", except that it's amusingly appropriate. Looking at the film, I can't imagine that it was changed too radically in the editing, except perhaps the ultra-acidic put-downs on the title cards that introduce new characters.