CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
3.5/10
3.9 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Un director novato llamado Alan Smithee descubre que es un títere del estudio forzado a hacer una película de acción costosa que sabe es pésima. Roba los rollos y busca negociar.Un director novato llamado Alan Smithee descubre que es un títere del estudio forzado a hacer una película de acción costosa que sabe es pésima. Roba los rollos y busca negociar.Un director novato llamado Alan Smithee descubre que es un títere del estudio forzado a hacer una película de acción costosa que sabe es pésima. Roba los rollos y busca negociar.
- Premios
- 6 premios ganados y 8 nominaciones en total
Opiniones destacadas
Why did I buy this movie? Because several (British) friends of mine were discussing it passionately, declaring it a masterpiece satire full of wit and irony that Americans (and Germans) would probably never understand.
And because the cast list looks like a dream collection of funny actors: Jackie Chan, Sylvester Stallone, Whoopi Goldberg, Eric Idle, Ryan O'Neall....
And then this. My friends were right. If there is any humour, I did not get it. The movie tells of film-editor Alan Smithee, who has been given a chance at directing for the first time. An action blockbuster of unseen proportions (and budget). Seeing this movie, I could not help suspecting that it depicts quite accurately what might have happened behind the set of "M:I-2", with a kind director being overrun by his star's and producer's egos.
Unfortunately, the story isn't told linearly, but in flashbacks, and in interviews, and with the trailer for the blockbuster. It wants to be a mockumentary. Like "Bob Roberts".
But it just isn't all that funny. And Eric Idle is wasted, as he only ever gets to run around screaming manically during most of the few scenes he has.
To some it might be a classic. For me it was agonizing....
And because the cast list looks like a dream collection of funny actors: Jackie Chan, Sylvester Stallone, Whoopi Goldberg, Eric Idle, Ryan O'Neall....
And then this. My friends were right. If there is any humour, I did not get it. The movie tells of film-editor Alan Smithee, who has been given a chance at directing for the first time. An action blockbuster of unseen proportions (and budget). Seeing this movie, I could not help suspecting that it depicts quite accurately what might have happened behind the set of "M:I-2", with a kind director being overrun by his star's and producer's egos.
Unfortunately, the story isn't told linearly, but in flashbacks, and in interviews, and with the trailer for the blockbuster. It wants to be a mockumentary. Like "Bob Roberts".
But it just isn't all that funny. And Eric Idle is wasted, as he only ever gets to run around screaming manically during most of the few scenes he has.
To some it might be a classic. For me it was agonizing....
I am willing to bet that when the principle players in the making of AN ALAN SMITHEE FILM: BURN, H0LLYW00D, BURN got together and read the script they probably found it hilarious. But they were probably drunk, stoned or deep into jet lag at the time. But somewhere between that first reading and the film's release, someone surely must have sobered up and noticed just how badly this film fails to deliver.
The film is bad not just because it is bad, but because it coulda/shoulda been pretty good. Joe Eszterhas's script is sophisticated and savage and full of inside jokes. The direction by Arthur Hiller/Alan Smithee cleverly juggles ideas and viewpoints. And most of the cast give credible performances, even the nonprofessionals who contribute cameos. Obviously, everyone thought they were making a pretty good movie. In the end, the film is smart and pointed and even insightful, but it is never, never, never, never even remotely funny.
It is hard to pinpoint just why the film ends up being so depressingly blah, but a good guess would be that it is a matter of attitude. ALAN SMITHEE is just so insultingly smug. Everybody involved is basically making fun of themselves, but not in jovial, lighthearted way. The self-deprecation is condescending: "See," they all seem to be saying, "I called myself a bastard before you had a chance. Nyah, nyah, nyah!!! I beat you to the punch." I mean what is the point of self mockery if it is intended to belittle someone else? Even the most mean-spirited of satires require a degree of innocence; a posture that allows the audience to find the humor and the hypocrisy for themselves, rather than to have it force fed to them. For instance, the film's structure, basically a series of talking head interviews, demands that the interview blurbs seem spontaneous, not preprocessed and rehearsed. Hiller skillful stages these little snatches of interviews as though they are being given on the fly, in different places and at different times, but they still seem canned. Even the characters' insincerity should seem sincerely insincere, not like tossed-off one-liners at a Friars Club roast. Even though everyone involved is obviously in on the joke, they shouldn't appear to be.
And a major inexplicable problem is the whole black thing the film seems to be doing. This is a satire about a British director and bunch of Beverly Hills/movie studio suits, so why does the film feature rap music, African-American themed title credits and references to black directors? Is black cinema supposed to be the new New Wave or avant-garde? Is it supposed to be like references to beatniks in the fifties and hippies in the sixties, a clumsy attempt to make the squares seem hip and to make the story seem relevant (when ultimately it will only make the film seem quickly dated)? The film can't fake sincerity, why do the filmmakers think they can fake soul?
In the end, ALAN SMITHEE seems to be little more than a home movie, a gag reel to be played at the office Christmas party. If that were the case, I suspect that all involved would still find the material funny. But, what happens at the Christmas party should stay at the Christmas party, otherwise it can just be too embarrassing.
The film is bad not just because it is bad, but because it coulda/shoulda been pretty good. Joe Eszterhas's script is sophisticated and savage and full of inside jokes. The direction by Arthur Hiller/Alan Smithee cleverly juggles ideas and viewpoints. And most of the cast give credible performances, even the nonprofessionals who contribute cameos. Obviously, everyone thought they were making a pretty good movie. In the end, the film is smart and pointed and even insightful, but it is never, never, never, never even remotely funny.
It is hard to pinpoint just why the film ends up being so depressingly blah, but a good guess would be that it is a matter of attitude. ALAN SMITHEE is just so insultingly smug. Everybody involved is basically making fun of themselves, but not in jovial, lighthearted way. The self-deprecation is condescending: "See," they all seem to be saying, "I called myself a bastard before you had a chance. Nyah, nyah, nyah!!! I beat you to the punch." I mean what is the point of self mockery if it is intended to belittle someone else? Even the most mean-spirited of satires require a degree of innocence; a posture that allows the audience to find the humor and the hypocrisy for themselves, rather than to have it force fed to them. For instance, the film's structure, basically a series of talking head interviews, demands that the interview blurbs seem spontaneous, not preprocessed and rehearsed. Hiller skillful stages these little snatches of interviews as though they are being given on the fly, in different places and at different times, but they still seem canned. Even the characters' insincerity should seem sincerely insincere, not like tossed-off one-liners at a Friars Club roast. Even though everyone involved is obviously in on the joke, they shouldn't appear to be.
And a major inexplicable problem is the whole black thing the film seems to be doing. This is a satire about a British director and bunch of Beverly Hills/movie studio suits, so why does the film feature rap music, African-American themed title credits and references to black directors? Is black cinema supposed to be the new New Wave or avant-garde? Is it supposed to be like references to beatniks in the fifties and hippies in the sixties, a clumsy attempt to make the squares seem hip and to make the story seem relevant (when ultimately it will only make the film seem quickly dated)? The film can't fake sincerity, why do the filmmakers think they can fake soul?
In the end, ALAN SMITHEE seems to be little more than a home movie, a gag reel to be played at the office Christmas party. If that were the case, I suspect that all involved would still find the material funny. But, what happens at the Christmas party should stay at the Christmas party, otherwise it can just be too embarrassing.
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.
One the the reviewers said " You can usually forgive and easily dismiss low brow, low-budget comedies that are completely devoid of laughs but this one with several big name stars is particularly insulting. Whoopi Goldberg, Sylvester Stallone, Jackie Chan, Ryan O'Neal? What were they thinking?" Duh that's the joke,,,that's what makes this movie sooo funny . The deplorable characters, ruthless, 2 dimensional completely plastic characters,,welcome to Hollywood. I'm not sure if it's because I love movies and hate Hollywood so much (And I've seen so many movies it's embarrassing) or it's because I've lived in Southern California for all my life but I thought it was great. As bad as they make it out to be,,, the truth is it's so much worse. So sorry for all those who didn't get the joke and gave this movie a low rating, but for me it's one of my favorites, right up there with Spinal Tap and Monty Python.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaAfter Arthur Hiller had his credit changed to Alan Smithee, the Directors Guild of America retired the pseudonym. This is the last film to officially bear it. However, due to the name's infamy, up to the present day, numerous non-DGA and independent films all over the world make unofficial, unauthorized use of it.
- ErroresRyan O'Neal is tearing down the highway in a sports car with the speed gauge standing in flat zero.
- Citas
Sylvester Stallone: Comedy is my life, that's why I'm star-ving!
- Créditos curiososVarious extra scenes and outtakes during the end credits.
- Bandas sonorasHolly Should
Written by Steve Nelson
Performed by Steve Nelson
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- An Alan Smithee Film
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 10,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 45,779
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 28,992
- 1 mar 1998
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 59,921
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 26 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn (1997) officially released in India in English?
Responda