There's enough of a shameful cloud hanging over "Burn Hollywood Burn", but you just have to see it to know exactly why. And it's almost awe-inspiring how badly this has been put together. It's a long 86 minutes, never funny, and it totally squanders its roster of name actors. Among them, Ryan O'Neal fares the worst, while Richard Jeni and non-actor Harvey Weinstein emerge unscathed. Somewhere in all of this is a film industry satire, but there's no consistency in the cutting and the parade of talking heads gets old very quickly. The irony in the title (that Arthur Hiller himself became the Alan Smithee gimmick that this is skewering) is the funniest thing about this movie.I can't recommend this to anyone.3/10

For those who don't know, Alan Smithee is not a real man, rather, a fake name for Hollywood filmmakers to choose if they are not happy with the end result of whatever movie they're making. Generally, these films will be films that were either destroyed by the studio, or were crafted together in an uncaring and unconcerned fashion. Some films that are "directed" by Alan Smithee include HELLRAISER: BLOODLINE(a movie I liked), THE BIRDS 2(which I thought was okay), GUNHED(which I loathed), and SUPERNOVA(which wasn't that bad in my opinion). BURN Hollywood BURN is a film by Alan Smithee. Yep, the director of BURN Hollywood BURN was so ashamed of the result of his movie about Alan Smithee that he chose the Alan Smithee alias as the director of the film. Um... Yeah. Cool? Not really. This film apparently is intentionally bad, but it really takes talent to make something this bad. I wonder what would have happened if instead of Hollywood wasting such fine talent as Eric Idle,Coolio, and Jackie Chan on a half-assed project like this, they decide to quit at the screenplay stage, if there is a screenplay, and pack up, go home, and then continue putting out their usual crap and occasional gems. That would've been cool. If they had done that instead, we wouldn't have gotten this boring, cheap, confusing mess of a picture. Sure, it has it's followings, and sure, people undoubtedly will forever love it for it's energy, wit, talent, and uniqueness, but in the long run, it was a film that never should have been made and will most likely be forgotten about.

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.

"Burn, Hollywood, Burn" is not an altogether successful satire. It's shapeless, it's talky, it's self-conscious, it has essentially no plot and it wastes Eric Idle's talents badly. However, giving it "zero stars" or labeling it "one of the worst movies ever made", as so many reviewers have done, suggests that there is nothing worthwhile to be found here at all, which is pretty inaccurate. There are, in fact, some big laughs in this movie, especially when Stallone (explaining why the "Rocky" pictures are deeply religious) and Jackie Chan (demonstrating how he feels about any director who tries to "control" him) are parodying their screen images. There are also some biting satirical remarks about the role of the director in a big Hollywood blockbuster and the marketing strategies the studios are prepared to use to get the audiences where they want them. At one point, a producer says: "We don't have a movie. So what? We have a 30-second trailer. We can release that to theaters and charge full price!" How far do you suppose this way of thinking is removed from reality? (**1/2)