Hollywood - Muito Além das Câmeras

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.

I saw this movie like, three years ago on HBO, or something, and I thought it was awesome. So I decided to see what people on the net had to say about it, and I was shocked. Apparently everyone and there mother hates this film. I don't know why. Sure it's no masterpiece, but only a handful of movies are. When Roger Ebert said it was worst than Showgirls, he went too far. At worst, I expected reviews like 2/5 stars, or 4.5/10 points. Instead I got things like 0 stars, something I didn't even know existed. I could see people didn't like the way the actors looked at the screen (even though it was a mockumentary), or the way you can't care too much for any one character (even though it's a satire, in which society as a whole should look bad). The movie has an odd flow to it (is that bad?), which I found cool. I Don't see why people can praise films like "Memento" (which told a story in an unconventional way, just like "Burn"), or "Spinal Tap" (which has no real plot, just like "Burn"), and not give this movie, and at least average review. If you can find it, watch it and decide for yourself, don't take the word of these flakers and perpetrators.

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....

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.