Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

PopcornLover38 Hilarious, Hilarious,Hilarious...Eric Idle in this film plays a great narcissistic self condemning writer;but with some great attitude-hahahahahaha...I so loved it. Its so true to real life; with what i am sure, script writers go through in there daily routines. However, Eric Idle takes it even one step further in laughs and comedy for this film in self preservation. :) It is so funny! The film shows you the realism of Hollywood,as well as what regular people and artists are thinking in Hollywood. Such a great and hilarious comedy. I was rooting for Alan Smithee all the way/lol. Watch it, it really is a great film.It also has some great A listed supporting actors and comedians. I would give it a 12 out of 10,if i could...Hope you enjoy it.

curtis martin I think that a good indicator that the makers of this supposed parody of Hollywood didn't have the conviction or skill to pull it off comes pretty early in the film. In the trailer for the film-within-a-film, they have three action heroes turn into the camera with huge guns and deadpan growl, "Don't f*** with me." The first of the three, Stallone, is an obvious choice--he actually was an action star who made a living in the 80s blowing away bad guys. But Jackie Chan was never a cinema "tough guy." He made action films, but he was never the type to be tough, brandish a rocket launcher, and tell bad guys not to f with him. Even worse, whose stupid idea was it to use Whoopi Goldberg as one of the action heroes? Whoopi? WHOOPI? I mean, maybe the inclusion of Goldberg was intended to be a joke, but it didn't play like one. As I alluded to before, the inclusion of Chan and Goldberg as Stallone-like action badasses just reeks of cluelessness. I mean, they could get Stallone, but couldn't get Segal, or VanDamme? Or even a washed up Burt Reynolds? Bronson would have been great. Arnold might have done if for fun. Imagine if it had been Sly, Arnie, and Bronson! Sure, they all would have been a bit long in the tooth, but they were true film badasses! The audience would have been laughing and cheering at the same time, instead of just going "wha? Whoopi? Wha?"

bubbahotep4u 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.

TheOtherFool Hollywood spoofing itself? I'd want to see that! But surely not in the way 'Burn Hollywood Burn' does it.The story resolves about a missing, big budget, big stars picture of which the director (Monty Python's Eric Idle) wasn't satisfied, so he took the only copy and ran off. This much to the dislike of the producers, as one can imagine.The movie tells the story documentary-like, which becomes incredibly annoying after 20 minutes or so. The characters are overdone (and not in a 'fun' way) and although the original thought of the movie is a cool one, Burn Hollywood Burn fails miserably, as it's boring, unfocused, annoying and messy.3/10.