The majority of you have been severely mislead.

Rating: 4/10 (12 October 2008)

Im shocked at the amount of utterly pompous critics on here who cite this film as a clever satire and flamboyantly chant 'I get it because I'm better than anyone else'.
Ironically, the joke is on them.
I understood all of the references to much better films like 'apocalypse now', 'the deer hunter', 'Platoon' and even 'forest gump' (I never thought i would say that). I even chuckled to myself in a sense of turgid superiority for 'getting' it at the start of the film.
But as the film progressed there was simply nothing there to suggest that the makers of the film were superior to the 'Hollywood' they were satirising. No sharpness or accuracy.
Although they try to cover it up by adding the confusing and detrimental 'film within a film within a film but not really' aspect, its still clear what they've done.
They've made a bad, cliché ridden film and ingeniously called it a satire to cover their tracks. Doing so doesn't make the filmmakers superior to their work or their work superior. Being told that the film was a 'satire' doesn't soften the fact that I've sat through over 90 minutes of typical Hollywood garbage.
It startles me how many people are sucked in by this.
(if you are wondering about why i didn't rate it lower, the acting wasn't to blame, and the film started strongly before descending into madness (hint of apocalypse now there? ahh the irony).