Austin Movie Reviews

Survivor Series is one of the Big 5 WWF Pay Per View Events (Wrestlemania, Summerslam, King of the Ring, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series). Any PPV is supposed to be special and of a higher quality than the average RAW or Smackdown program, but the Big 5 are of a higher profile than the rest. The first Survivor Series was held in 1987 and it set the tradition of what Survivor Series is. A traditional Survivor Series match is a 4 on 4 or 5 on 5 elimination tag team match where there is no winner until every man from one team is eliminated. Depending on who gets eliminated, this can set up a 5 on 1 match, or any other combination of wrestlers. When Survivor Series debuted, that type of elimination match was the norm for the PPV. As the years have gone by, Survivor Series has featured fewer and fewer traditional elimination matches.

With all of the anticipation that comes before one of the bigger PPV events, the 2000 Survivor Series was somewhat under-whelming. There were a couple of traditional Survivor Series matches. One of them, the match between the Radicalz (Chris Benoit, Perry Saturn, Dean Malenko, Eddie Guererro) vs Billy Gunn, Road Dogg, K-Kwik, and Chyna was one of the better matches of the night. Most of the matches were not very exciting (Bob Holly vs William Regal for the European Championship as an example) and served only to advance the storylines. Advancing the storylines is a good thing, but it is of greater importance to put on good matches. Otherwise, the audience/viewer will not care or pay money to watch the events.

The championship match between Kurt Angle and The Undertaker was decent, much on the strength of Kurt Angle to elevate any superstar he is in the ring with. However, the match ended in another swerve, which is becoming a Survivor Series tradition. The swerve tradition seems to date back to 1997 with the Bret Hart/ Shawn Michaels match in Montreal. An occasional swerve isn't a bad thing as it can heighten interest in the story being told. The problem is that the WWF has used it so much that we come to expect a swerve and the importance of the match, even the championship match, is lessened.

The Main Event was Stone Cold Steve Austin vs Triple H, and this was more of a brawl than a wrestling match. As such, it wasn't a bad match until the end. The ending to this one was more absurd than dramatic. We are expected to believe that one wrestler is in life threatening danger, but we know that he will be back...either the next week or in a month or two. Knowing that so much is staged makes some events absurd.

Overall, this was only an average Pay Per View. Nothing special.

This was the PPV where Rock collided against Rikishi, Undertaker battled Kurt Angle, and Stone Cold Steve Austin destroying Triple H. This wasn't the greatest Survivor Series, but it was much better than Survivor Series 99'. Some of the matches where dull while some where good, my reviews down below.

6-person intergender tag team match
T&A and Trish Stratus vs. Steve Blackman, Crash Holly and Molly Holly
Good opener with the crowd getting into this match, the women kind of ruined this match.

Survivor Series elimination match
Radicalz vs. Billy Gunn, Chyna, Road Dogg and K-Kwik
Fast paced action, but got slow towards the end.

Chris Jericho vs. Kane
Okay match, but a little bit boring. Their match at Armageddon was better.

WWE European title match
William Regal vs. Hardcore Holly
Short match, with a terrible ending.

Rock vs. Rikishi
Great match with a lot of action, pretty short though.

WWE Women's title match
Lita vs. Ivory
Pretty good, but the ending was a DUD.

WWE Championship match
Kurt Angle vs. Undertaker
Long and slow. This was a good match, but Kurt Angle slowed it down too much. Shocking ending though.

Survivor Series elimination match
Hardy Boyz and Dudley Boyz vs. Edge & Christian and Right To Censor
Better than the first elimination match at the beginning of the night with a lot more action and tables!

No Disqualification match
Stone Cold Steve Austin vs. Triple H
I was expecting this match to be real quick and with Austin beating the hell out of HHH, but instead this match turned out to be kind of slow. These two have had better matches and this wasn't it. The ending is pretty crazy.

So there you have it, this was an okay Survivor Series with a couple of good matches and some dull matches. Check out Survivor Series 2001.

great ppv! cool ss elim. matches and other matches were either ok or good. but the 4 best matches were defnitely kane vs. jericho,rock vs. rikishi, angle vs. taker, and a awesome match between austin and hh. this ppv was not lackluster at all, BUY NOW

Two jackasses are funded for an otherwise brilliant idea. Problem is, the two chuckleheads, Kaleil (this guy is self-inflated throughout the whole movie) and Tom couldn't run a toaster let alone a business. Not surprisingly, the whole 'empire' comes crashing down on the both of them. The most work I think they ever did in the movie was film themselves and show everyone how important they thought they were.

This is a typical case study of how not to run a business. It is a great behind the scenes of who was running the "new economy". It will be no surprise to you after watching this movie why the bubble burst.

I was very interested in seeing the decline and fall of a dotcom from the inside. Unfortunately, that wasn't what the filmakers thought they were filming. They thought it was going to be an inside look at a buff, young entreprenuer who makes an empire worth billions during the dotcom boom. They didn't seem to care much about showing how the company operated and what it's plan to make money was. It's almost as if during filming they viewed the company's success as a guarantee and what they really just wanted to do a personality piece on Kaleil so in the future others could look back at the life of an industrial giant. In the process, they squandered the opportunity for the real story (which was the fall of the company and why). That makes watching the documentary very frustrating, to be so close to the real story but miss it all. (but they manage to capture some stuff suitable for a Kaleil fitness workout video ... how fascinating).

I give it 2 stars because there are a few interesting bits in there. And the personality of the CEO (or, "co-CEOs") is part of the story I wanted to see, but I was looking for something more. Who were they hiring and why? How were they choosing to spend the VC money? What milestones had they set and did they reach any of them? How were they going to stave off competition? Maybe they just didn't have executive staff meetings, or maybe the camera wasn't interested/invited.

My poor rating speaks more about the filmakers than the subject matter itself. As for Kaleil and Tom, I found both of them loathesome and fake, even worse than I expected. They seemed genuinely clueless about what to do after raising VC money. Almost as if rasing the money was the real success and the rest would just fall into place after that. In all honesty, Kaleil seemed to do his job ... raise money and be a face guy. But who's responsibility was it to make the company work? We never get to see.

In the end, you will laugh remembering the early co-founder who was "bought out" (driven out) for $700,000. Was this the guy who was going to make it all work? What skills did they lose when they played their hand against him? (unfortunately, that is not answered). The other founders thought they were cutting him out, but as it turns out he got the only parachute. Ironic.

STARTUP.COM is a fascinating documentry/ cautionary tale centering around Kaleil Tuzman and Tom Herman, two childhood friends who hit upon the bright idea of establishing a company named govworks.com. The film chronicles 18 months in their lives as the pair strive to make their dream a reality; eventually reaching a level of success uncanny for such a short period, rubbing shoulders with President Clinton (I was disappointed that Bill didn't produce one of his famous cigars and ask Kaleil for a light, all the while wiggling his eyebrows like Groucho Marx) and then ultimately watching it come crashing down around them. Could Tuzman's astronomical ego and jet turbine sized motor-mouth be to blame? Watch this and judge for yourself.
STARTUP.COM is possibly one of the best documentaries I've ever seen, despite the two main protagonists being self- absorbed poindexters gone haywire. Essential viewing for anybody who harbors similar ambitions; this will give you an idea of what NOT to do. It's only Tuzman's arrogance that prevents STARTUP.COM from getting 5 stars; though Herman is equally bad by neglecting his adorable little girl and attractive wife (How is it possible?) in order to become rich and powerful.
Finally, it's interesting to note that throughout the film from shot to shot Herman's face keeps changing: One shot he has a beard, then he's clean shaven, then beard again, then he's trimmed it to a goatee. Directors Jehane Noujaim and Chris Hegedus even go so far as showing a sequence of Herman shaving his beard off. Is this a subtle attempt at demonstrating the "cut-throat" world of entrepeneurship? A case of "hair today, gone tomorrow?" I'm still scratching my noodle at the complexity of it all.
DVD extras include a commentary track, the trailer and profiles for the Directors and Herman and Tuzman.

Two jackasses are funded for an otherwise brilliant idea. Problem is, the two chuckleheads, Kaleil (this guy is self-inflated throughout the whole movie) and Tom couldn't run a toaster let alone a business. Not surprisingly, the whole 'empire' comes crashing down on the both of them. The most work I think they ever did in the movie was film themselves and show everyone how important they thought they were.

This is a typical case study of how not to run a business. It is a great behind the scenes of who was running the "new economy". It will be no surprise to you after watching this movie why the bubble burst.

I was very interested in seeing the decline and fall of a dotcom from the inside. Unfortunately, that wasn't what the filmakers thought they were filming. They thought it was going to be an inside look at a buff, young entreprenuer who makes an empire worth billions during the dotcom boom. They didn't seem to care much about showing how the company operated and what it's plan to make money was. It's almost as if during filming they viewed the company's success as a guarantee and what they really just wanted to do a personality piece on Kaleil so in the future others could look back at the life of an industrial giant. In the process, they squandered the opportunity for the real story (which was the fall of the company and why). That makes watching the documentary very frustrating, to be so close to the real story but miss it all. (but they manage to capture some stuff suitable for a Kaleil fitness workout video ... how fascinating).

I give it 2 stars because there are a few interesting bits in there. And the personality of the CEO (or, "co-CEOs") is part of the story I wanted to see, but I was looking for something more. Who were they hiring and why? How were they choosing to spend the VC money? What milestones had they set and did they reach any of them? How were they going to stave off competition? Maybe they just didn't have executive staff meetings, or maybe the camera wasn't interested/invited.

My poor rating speaks more about the filmakers than the subject matter itself. As for Kaleil and Tom, I found both of them loathesome and fake, even worse than I expected. They seemed genuinely clueless about what to do after raising VC money. Almost as if rasing the money was the real success and the rest would just fall into place after that. In all honesty, Kaleil seemed to do his job ... raise money and be a face guy. But who's responsibility was it to make the company work? We never get to see.

In the end, you will laugh remembering the early co-founder who was "bought out" (driven out) for $700,000. Was this the guy who was going to make it all work? What skills did they lose when they played their hand against him? (unfortunately, that is not answered). The other founders thought they were cutting him out, but as it turns out he got the only parachute. Ironic.

STARTUP.COM is a fascinating documentry/ cautionary tale centering around Kaleil Tuzman and Tom Herman, two childhood friends who hit upon the bright idea of establishing a company named govworks.com. The film chronicles 18 months in their lives as the pair strive to make their dream a reality; eventually reaching a level of success uncanny for such a short period, rubbing shoulders with President Clinton (I was disappointed that Bill didn't produce one of his famous cigars and ask Kaleil for a light, all the while wiggling his eyebrows like Groucho Marx) and then ultimately watching it come crashing down around them. Could Tuzman's astronomical ego and jet turbine sized motor-mouth be to blame? Watch this and judge for yourself.
STARTUP.COM is possibly one of the best documentaries I've ever seen, despite the two main protagonists being self- absorbed poindexters gone haywire. Essential viewing for anybody who harbors similar ambitions; this will give you an idea of what NOT to do. It's only Tuzman's arrogance that prevents STARTUP.COM from getting 5 stars; though Herman is equally bad by neglecting his adorable little girl and attractive wife (How is it possible?) in order to become rich and powerful.
Finally, it's interesting to note that throughout the film from shot to shot Herman's face keeps changing: One shot he has a beard, then he's clean shaven, then beard again, then he's trimmed it to a goatee. Directors Jehane Noujaim and Chris Hegedus even go so far as showing a sequence of Herman shaving his beard off. Is this a subtle attempt at demonstrating the "cut-throat" world of entrepeneurship? A case of "hair today, gone tomorrow?" I'm still scratching my noodle at the complexity of it all.
DVD extras include a commentary track, the trailer and profiles for the Directors and Herman and Tuzman.

I just wanted to respond to Michael Crane's review, if you've read it. I don't say this to insult him in any way, but I agree with most but not all of what he says. It could have treated Carver better and he's right about "So Much Water So Close to Home" and "They're Not Your Husband." But "A Small, Good Thing?!" It's not even faithful in letter, as the treatment of "So Much Water So Close to Home" basically is! I found it to be another story completely. If you haven't, read the book! The movie is not bad, but it's so totally different that you don't have a clue of Carver's plots or characters or maybe even general sensibility without the book.

Minus the critical acclaim, buzz, influence over films like Magnolia, Short Cuts, on its own, is a mediocre movie. Despite the best efforts of around a dozen talented actors and a director who obviously knows his stuff, Robert Altman, this movie is an exercise in redundancy and misery. Many of the stories fail to make a worthy case as to why they need to be told in a movie.

However, Short Cuts has a few scenes so brilliant and affecting that they are worth the rental (or purchase price) alone.

The intersecting storylines tell a story about a group of fishermen who discover a dead body, a grieving family (Andie MacDowell), a married couple with skeletons in the closet (Julianne Moore and Matthew Modine) a drunkard and his waitress girlfriend (Tom Waits and Lily Tomlin), a depressed cellist (Lori Singer) a philandering cop with a wife and family back home (Tim Robbins and Madeleine Stowe) and a sketchy make-up artist and his girlfriend (Robert Downey Jr. and Lily Taylor).

The incredible number of stories and stars may seem mind-boggling, but it's the least of the film's problems. In fact the strong acting and richness of the collective stories are the film's high point.

All the actors are great in one way or another, but Julianne Moore's performance is stunning. Jack Lemmon is similarly incredible. These two have to be seen to be believed.

However, with so many stories, all of them won't measure up to high quality. Short Cuts main problem is that a whole lot don't measure up.

By the way, there's a lot of nudity in this film, profanity, sex, and overall depressing material.

I really wanted to see this movie because I enjoyed Robert Altman's "The Player,"; a very rare breed of movie making you don't see much anymore. But the main reason I wanted to see this movie was because it is based on the writings of Raymond Carver. I have just recently started to read Carver, and I couldn't get enough of him. As soon as I found out that there was a movie based on some of his stories, I knew I had to see it. I bought the book, "Short Cuts," which has the stories that inspired the movie. I read a bunch of them and really enjoyed them. Then, I finally bought the movie on VHS, because it was not out on DVD yet. I enjoyed the movie, but I was expecting a little more.

I really loved reading the stories, and seeing them on film....well...it sort of took away the originality and realism that I enjoyed in reading the stories. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, but it just wasn't as good as I thought it would be.

Basic storyline of movie: based on the writings of Raymond Carver. Many different storylines going on at the same time, and it would take me forever to try to cover all of them. This is one you'll just have to see for yourself. Sorry.

One of the main stories by Carver that the movie seemed to revolve around the most was "A Small, Good Thing," which was done magnificently. I really enjoyed that portion of the movie, because it stayed true to the story in almost every detail. There were some differences, but nothing that changed the story for me.

Two of the stories that were in this movie that really had me disappointed were "They're Not Your Husband" and "So Much Water so Close to Home." I really loved those stories, and they were very different in the movie. The husband in "They're Not Your Husband," was more of a jerk in the actual story, and as depressing and maybe even unfulfilling as the original ending was to it, it was appropriate. Forget about seeing that resolution in this movie. And "So Much Water so Close to Home" was also very different, and I did not envision Fred Ward playing the husband.

I did like the acting and enjoying the talents from very big names in Holywood. (Too many for me to possibly list.) Robert Altman did a very good job of directing it as well. The camera techniques used were very well planned and thought out. I also found it very interesting how he had the characters from other stories interact with other characters. A very new and different concept that actually enriched the film some.

Two very negative points to the movie, other than the stuff I have already mentioned above, is the movie length and the jumping back and forth to different characters and stories. The movie is very long. A little too long. I don't mind long movies, unless if they're being dragged out longer than they need to be. The movie also jumps around quite a bit, causing confusion and forgetfulness. If you thought "Pulp Fiction" was confusing and aggravating, don't even ATTEMPT to see this one.

Again, I didn't dislike the movie. I liked it and I enjoyed it. It could've been handled much MUCH worse than this. And if I never read the stories by Carver, maybe I would've enjoyed it more. But since I do read Carver and I love his work, that is why I am being so critical. A very good movie, but perhaps it could've been more.

A BOY [AUSTIN O BRIEN] IS GIVEN A MAGIC TICKET, AND WHILE HE'S WATCHING HIS MOVIE HERO'S LATEST FILM, HE ENDS UP BEING A PART OF THE ACTION. THIS STAR-STUDDED ACTION MOVIE IS OK, TO SAY THE LEAST, BUT FOR REAL, HOW DID AN INGMAR BERGMAN STORY GET INTO THIS MOVIE? ANYWAY, THE MOVIE STARTS OUT GREAT, BUT MOST OF THE SECOND HOUR IS A DISSAPOINTMENT. AS ALWAYS, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER IS FUN TO WATCH AS JACK SLATER, THE MOVIE COP WHO'S THE BOY'S IDOL. CHARLES DANCE IS COOL AS THE VILLAIN WHO MURDERED SLATER'S SECOND COUSIN. THIS MOVIE FEATURES APPEARANCES BY MANY STARS, SUCH AS; JEAN CLAUDE VAN DAMME, LITTLE RICHARD, TINA TURNER, TORU TANAKA, ART CARNEY, AND MANY MORE. FAR FROM ARNOLD'S BEST, BUT IT AIN'T A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY.

This is one of those movies that a lot of people that haven't seen it say, "That movie wasn't really that good, was it?" but those that have seen it, say, "Why wasn't this movie more popular?" Maybe it was bad timing, or as some others suggested, just not correctly billed to the public.

Last Action Hero is hard to describe. It's funny, it's witty, with lots of those one-liners that Arnold became so popular with, and I loved the way he constantly poked fun at his fictional character as well as his "real" self. Some of my favorite dialogue in the movie is when the kid is trying to convince "character Arnold (aka: Jack Slater)" that he's actually just a character in a movie. The kid starts asking about phone numbers and how can they possibly all start with 555- in a city with several million phone numbers, when Jack Slater exasperatedly says, "That's why we have Area Codes..." Priceless. The movie is full of fun stuff like that, and I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is even remotely a Schwarzenegger fan, or who just like campy, yet intelligent, movies. The parody within a parody, and movie within a movie actually worked well in this one.

I thought the movie had a lot of great character performances, and clever scripting, and I think this movie got a bum rap. It's really a great movie, I'm glad I bought the DVD. The transfer is a little sloppy in places on the one I bought, but since it's a "Special Anniversary Edition", I have a feeling that had something to do with it. There's only a fullscreen version on my DVD, no widescreen, and the camera pans are really noticeable in a few places.

and Hamlet is taking out the trash!

Jack Slater (Aronld) is a LA cop who is teamed up with Daniel Muggian. Daniel is from OUR world, via a magical ticket that old Nick gave him. Jack Slater is Daniel's hero. There has been several Jack Slater movies, as we see that this is "Jack Slater IV" that Daniel was watching when he enters the world of movies.
An Underated movie!

A BOY [AUSTIN O BRIEN] IS GIVEN A MAGIC TICKET, AND WHILE HE'S WATCHING HIS MOVIE HERO'S LATEST FILM, HE ENDS UP BEING A PART OF THE ACTION. THIS STAR-STUDDED ACTION MOVIE IS OK, TO SAY THE LEAST, BUT FOR REAL, HOW DID AN INGMAR BERGMAN STORY GET INTO THIS MOVIE? ANYWAY, THE MOVIE STARTS OUT GREAT, BUT MOST OF THE SECOND HOUR IS A DISSAPOINTMENT. AS ALWAYS, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER IS FUN TO WATCH AS JACK SLATER, THE MOVIE COP WHO'S THE BOY'S IDOL. CHARLES DANCE IS COOL AS THE VILLAIN WHO MURDERED SLATER'S SECOND COUSIN. THIS MOVIE FEATURES APPEARANCES BY MANY STARS, SUCH AS; JEAN CLAUDE VAN DAMME, LITTLE RICHARD, TINA TURNER, TORU TANAKA, ART CARNEY, AND MANY MORE. FAR FROM ARNOLD'S BEST, BUT IT AIN'T A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY.

This is one of those movies that a lot of people that haven't seen it say, "That movie wasn't really that good, was it?" but those that have seen it, say, "Why wasn't this movie more popular?" Maybe it was bad timing, or as some others suggested, just not correctly billed to the public.

Last Action Hero is hard to describe. It's funny, it's witty, with lots of those one-liners that Arnold became so popular with, and I loved the way he constantly poked fun at his fictional character as well as his "real" self. Some of my favorite dialogue in the movie is when the kid is trying to convince "character Arnold (aka: Jack Slater)" that he's actually just a character in a movie. The kid starts asking about phone numbers and how can they possibly all start with 555- in a city with several million phone numbers, when Jack Slater exasperatedly says, "That's why we have Area Codes..." Priceless. The movie is full of fun stuff like that, and I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is even remotely a Schwarzenegger fan, or who just like campy, yet intelligent, movies. The parody within a parody, and movie within a movie actually worked well in this one.

I thought the movie had a lot of great character performances, and clever scripting, and I think this movie got a bum rap. It's really a great movie, I'm glad I bought the DVD. The transfer is a little sloppy in places on the one I bought, but since it's a "Special Anniversary Edition", I have a feeling that had something to do with it. There's only a fullscreen version on my DVD, no widescreen, and the camera pans are really noticeable in a few places.

and Hamlet is taking out the trash!

Jack Slater (Aronld) is a LA cop who is teamed up with Daniel Muggian. Daniel is from OUR world, via a magical ticket that old Nick gave him. Jack Slater is Daniel's hero. There has been several Jack Slater movies, as we see that this is "Jack Slater IV" that Daniel was watching when he enters the world of movies.
An Underated movie!

This is one unintentionally hilarious vanity project. But what I want to say is that one of the other viewers wondered what became of the boom mike he saw hanging in several scenes when he saw the movie in a theater. Well, just about all movie prints have mikes in them. It's the projectionist's job to position the film properly in the projector to keep the "extras" out of sight. If the viewer had seen the movie in another theater, he might have seen that no mike was visible. Anyway, there's no mike in the DVD, but maybe it would have helped to have one.

Barbra Streisand did a great job on this movie. As it's been mentioned in many other reviews "This isn't your typical ugly duckling story" Barbra always manages to add a little twist to her projects that make them more unique and intersting, and this fine movie is no exception! Highly recomended!

What I like in this movie is the idea of love _ the psychological factors. (I won't like it if I watched it 10 years ago.) Although there are several places with exaggeration in this movie, the two main charactors Rose and Greg are still very fascinating. This is a serious movie, but also a comedy. That's Streisand's brilliance.
If you don't like this movie, what's so good about A Beautiful Mind?! I think Striensand did a better job here.

Also, this movie is not about who is more beautiful. So, it's no need to compare Striesand with some other beautiful women. It tells the psychological changes in lovers. With Greg, Rose becomes more confident. The last part of the story is the only consequence of a true love.

Jiff Bridges played very well in this movie. What I don't agree is that he got so mad at students after Rose left.

Definitely, the best match on here was the Chris Benoit vs. Kurt Angle Submission match. This match prooved the fact that an audience could be entertained by real technical wrestling, and 30 minutes of it. A great 5 star match and one of 2001's 5 best matches. Also worth viewing was the Rhyno vs. Raven Hardcore match. The match was almost perfect for a hardcore match, even though that's not my type of wrestling. This match showed just how a shopping cart can be hardcore. Now what about that Frankenstein doll...

WWE Backlash 2001 had a couple of good matches but the other matches pretty much stunk. The Hardcore Championship match between Rhino and Raven was a really good one. The Last Man Standing match between Shane McMahon and The Bigshow was also a classic, especially the ending where Shane drops an elbow from the top of a 40ft. steel structure! The rest of the PPV is a bit lame and boring. Rent this PPV, but don't buy it. It's not worth the buy.

WWE Backlash was great. This was the second best WWE pay-per-view event of 2001(just behind Wrestlemania 17). It's one of the best pay-per-view events ever in WWE history. With that said, I've made a list of my top 3 favorite matches of WWE Backlash 2001: Number 3: Undertaker and Kane v.s. Stone Cold and Triple H(Tag Team title and WWE title on the line)- The main event of WWE Backlash featured the two 7 foot monsters Undertaker and Kane taking on Stone Cold and Triple H (Who battled each other in No Way Out 2001 but now were teaming up). This making was full of intense action and excitement.
Number 2: Raven v.s. Rhyno(Harecore title on the line)-This match was Hardcore and featured lots of blood bashing weapons such as chairs, trash can lids, shopping carts,and a whole lot more. Great hardcore match.
Number 1: Big Show v.s Shane McMahon- By far the best match of WWE Backlash and the best match of 2001. What made this match my favorite was when Shane McMahon climbed up on top of the stage about 40 feet high in the air and just jumped right off of the stage and landed right on the 7'2'', 500 pound Big Show.

This movie is fantastic and is a must own for everyone.

I really enjoyed this movie. Unlike The Wedding Singer, the humor was a bit more locker room gross-out, but like the Wedding Singer, it was filled with sentiment and heart. An angry Scrooge-like Jewish man learns to grieve, let go, and love the holidays again. No, it's not for small kids. That's why it's rated PG-13. Sandler shows tremendous talent and versatility as the voices of Davy, Eleanor and Whitey, the latter two being annoying elderly fraternal twins whom Davy grows to love despite their freakishness. Rob Schneider, Jon Lovitz, Kevin Nieland add their talent, as well as cameos by Tyra Banks and rock singer Ann Wilson as Davy's mom. Alison Krauss lends her sweetness as the singing voice of Jennifer, Davy's childhood love, now a single mom. The music is the most outstanding part of this film. The lyrics are silly and goofy, but also clever, and the song structures are dynamic and hooky, and will stay with you afterward. If you go into this movie realizing it's not a white-washed Disney flick for the kids, but it's a funny, sometimes gross, but sensitive Christmas story that tackles somewhat-adult issues, like why some people hate the holidays, I think you'll enjoy it almost as much as I did. It's also loaded with special features that are worthwhile, too.

You have to realize two things to enjoy this movie.
PG-13 films are typically not for children. Parents seem to think just because its animated means "hey take the kids." Well how about we think a little BEFORE we go running to the theatre? Complains about that are just unfounded. The rating says it all, PAY ATTENTION.

The second thing you must realize is that this is an ADAM SANDLER movie, like his earlier films. Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, all crude and rude, get over it. That was his style and he brought it back to make one of the funniest adult animated movies ever. The jokes here are classic, from whiteys seizures to him doing the robot in the middle of a basketball game. His sister eleanor has the cutest voice which I've been imitating ever since I saw the movie. The townsfolk are a scream, with rob schneider as an asian waiter. and jon lovitz as a man with a hook for a hand. This is a very unconventional Hannukah movie for the holidays. Sure it's gross, but if your offended than go rent the Ya Ya Sisterhood or some crap like that.This one is for the guys, not for parents or children. Next time read the rating before you complain. Don't believe all the crap, this movie was HILARIOUS. If you like Kevin Smith movies or Adam sandler movies than see this and bust a gut laughing. (hopefully not literally)

Holy crap, all you people who say this movie is too crude are stupid pussies. Yeah its crude, its Adam Sandler what do you expect? If your to square to laugh at this movie than you should go home. End of story.
This movie is great. Its classic adam sandler.
Buy it, its worth it

I thought the video would've been better if they would've shown more wrestling than talking. I wanted to see some wrestling. Over all the video was stunk!

Despite the fact that it says the best, this video fails to include such matches as Ricky "the Dragon" Steamboat against Randy "Macho Man" Savage or even Bret Hart against Owen Hart. This video recognizes the Ladder match as well as the Iron Man match but most of this video is tiresome and boring. Not recommendable.

But only SOME of the best of Wrestlemania I-XIV. There are great matches on here, but there are a lot more NOT on here. Regardless, it is an excellent tape.