An Alan Smithee 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 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.

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.

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.

How could this many people hate a film so much? I'm giving it a 10 just so the average will go up a little. If you liked spinal tap and Waiting for Guffman then this movie is a must, but like spinal tap, it's all about dialog, like Stallone's observation of the immaculate conception in the Rocky movies truely great. If you are looking for a great action movie with big stars then the joke is on you. This is maybe the most realist portrail of how the movie business works maybe that's why people don't like this movie because it takes all the "magic" out it and shows how the public is completely "played" by the movie companies (people don't like it when a movie shows how easily the general public is manipulated). Much like another movie everybody hated "the last action hero" cars don't blow up when you shoot them, chances are you'll break your hand trying to punch your way through a windshield etc..

I laughed all the way though this movie from the first 5 seconds till the end (When I realized I had been duped). Maybe americans can't get it but I guess I was lucky. This is Ryan O' Neil's best role in years and Coolio and Chuck D are perfect as the Brother Brothers (Cosacks), Richard Jeni is classic. Its amazing the movie ever got made,,not because it's bad, but because it shows the blatant prostitution of the movie business.

This is a comedy and you are the joke,,,relax and laugh at yourself