Too many fans seem to be blown away

That was an excellent one.

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

OK, so we all know that Alan Smithee is the name that directors use when they want to disassociate themselves from their bad movies, and that Joe Eszterhas is one of the people most associated with such movies. But in this case, a real director named Alan Smithee (Eric Idle) makes a movie so downright God-awful - it stars Whoopi Goldberg, Jackie Chan, and Sylvester Stallone as kick-ass mother****ers - that he destroys it. The rest of the movie portrays interviews with insiders putting in their two cents about the whole ordeal.This is certainly a devastating look at Hollywood, and they pull no punches here. I think that when "An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn" came out, some critics said that it was as bad as the movie portrayed. But I thought that they did a good job. A particularly funny scene...well, I'll just tell you that it's associated with Keith Moon.So why is it that Hollywood likes to make fun of itself so much?

well, re: the first comment, I can't imagine what either Purple Rose of Cairo or Last Action Hero have to do with Burn Hollywood Burn, or with each other, or with ANYthing... but anyway..."IF YOU LIKE FLY-FISHING, AND ENJOY THE CRISP, TART TASTE OF STRAWBERRY-RHUBARB PIE, YOU'LL LOVE THIS NEXT USER COMMENT..."It's a fairly funny movie. It's always good to see Eric Idle working. Of course, now with "Spamalot" a huge hit, he's set like Mel Brooks.Honest to god, maybe this movie is meant more as an "inside joke", but I feel like it was one that I got - Joe's point is that he was coerced into making a movie ("Showgirls") that was so bad, he wished he could've done anything to prevent them from putting it out - because when they did, and it bombed, he couldn't help but take the blame.Also, you get to see Jackie Chan stoking' some honeys, and Stallone flexing his ego. and the Alan Smithee gag ran for quite awhile. I got the feeling the industry really HATED Ester-H. Where is he now, I wonder ? And why is this movie in the Bottom 100 ?

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.

.... Indeed they can sir , same as anyone can put a crap movie on the screen too , but to be able to a film as gut wrenchingly bad as BURN HOLLYWOOD BURN onto the screen must have been the work of an insane genius . Think about the premise for a moment - It`s a mockumentary featuring director Alan Smithee , it`s a mockumentary , a mock documentary , so why bother to cast well known faces like Eric Idle and Ryan O Neal etc in roles ? The reason SPINAL TAP worked so well is because the audience believed they were watching a real documentary about a real heavy metal band from Britain , no one is going to be fooled by this movie which seems pointless