web
counter
 

A Dare to Be Unexceptional Situation

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (74)



2730_7477662004.jpg

I wouldn’t recommend doing so, but comparing a movie like Adventureland and Hot Tub Time Machine presents an interesting dynamic in one’s perspective on the 1980s. Greg Mottolla unearthed some very poignant, bittersweet ’80s nostalgia, which brought a lot of us in a particular age demographic back to an emotionally confused, heartsick, romantic time of our lives. Steve Pink’s Hot Tub Time Machine, on the other hand, just reminds us of how embarrassing that decade was. It’s great to think back to the leg warmers, and scrunchies, the moon boots, and the hot pink neon of the Reagan era in our minds, but seeing it on screen, exaggerated to the extent that it is in HTTM didn’t make me nostalgic for the ’80s; it made me glad as hell that I’m no longer stuck in them. Jesus: What a cultural train-wreck of a decade. When John Cusack remarks in interviews that the ’80s were a “dark period” in American history, he wasn’t fucking kidding. If I had a hot tub time machine, and I could do anything I wanted to do with it, I’d use it to avoid the fucking 1980s.

Hot Tub Time Machine is a good movie. It’s not great; it’s not bad. It’s amusing, but not hilarious. It’s like The Hangover or Old School minus all the hyper-fueled antics. It’s dumb, but not so dumb as to offend or annoy. It doesn’t miss the jugular, so much as it never really aims for it. It falls a little flat at times, and the best jokes are in heavy rotation in the trailers. Indeed, it’s a lot like a typical ’80s comedy: Empty, illogical, a little cheesy, and very easy to watch, although it’s much closer to the Steve Holland ’80s comedy than to the John Hughes variety.

John Cusack stars as Adam, a self-involved insurance salesman whose wife has just left him for unexplained reasons. His nephew, Jacob (Clark Duke), lives in the basement, where his existence mostly revolves around his Second Life on the computer. Meanwhile, Nick (Craig Robinson) is a former musician who works in a dog-washing parlor, having apparently given up on life a long time ago. Lou (Rob Corddry) is a divorced, alcoholic loser, living in the Glam Metal past and drinking his life away, almost literally when he nearly kills himself boozing in his idling car inside a closed garage. His near-death experience brings the three estranged best friends back together, and along with Jacob, they return to the ski lodge in which they spent so much of their drug-and-alcohol tinged teens. They jump in a hot tub, drink themselves silly, and wake up 20 years in the past inside their old bodies, where they are given an opportunity to redo a formative weekend in their lives.

The time travel element of Hot Tub Time Machine isn’t very well explored (sorry sci-fi geeks), except that the threesome agrees that they need to duplicate everything they did during their original weekend there in 1986: Fuck a random woman, break up with a girlfriend, play with a band on stage, etc., so that Jacob’s future life isn’t altered or extinguished. The way it all plays out is fairly predictable, but Hot Tub Time Machine is a comfort comedy. It’s not meant to be challenging; it’s meant to make a few ’80s references, play around a little with future knowledge, and defeat the villains, here amusingly characterized by a couple of Commie-hating teenagers straight out of Red Dawn. It succeeds, but it doesn’t overachieve or blow you away with humor. In fact, it wastes the casting of Chevy Chase, who plays a daffy time-travel shamen slash fix-it man. Even Crispin Glover — who is there as an obvious nod to Back to the Future — is not really put to much use, other than to carry a semi-amusing running gag to the finish line.

The weirdest element about Hot Tub Time Machine, however, is Cusack, who obviously came of age in ’80s teenage comedies. Seeing him back there, even now as a 40-something year old guy, is a little unsettling. There are some obvious nods to his old work, including a Lloyd Dobler overcoat, a shout-out to “two dollars,” a small “dare-to-be-great” moment, and even a Curtis Armstrong pep speech before the big showdown. But seeing him now in that era is bittersweet. You want to see Lloyd Dobbler, or Lane Meyer, or Hoops McCann come to life on screen with Diane Franklin and a saxophone, but all you see is an older John Cusack shell parading around a 2010 movie set in 1986.

All I could think was: What the hell happened to Lloyd Dobbler, and how did that guy end up in 2012 or Must Love Dogs? Where did all that time go, and how did we manage to waste so much of it? And that, folks, is why you should never try to be thoughtful about a meaningless, enjoyably escapist comedy. You just end up depressing yourself.









Gerard Butler Career Assessment | News: Fox Pulls the Plug on "24" | The following take place between "smell ya" and "later"













Comments

I'm so fascinated with the concept of time traveling that I'm a sucker for any movie that has or revolves around it. Except The Time Machine. That movie sucked.

Posted by: smasherstein at March 26, 2010 3:16 PM

I want to see this...it makes me irrationally happy to know that someone wants their $2.

I'll be in the seat for this, but in my head it will ALWAYS be Better off Dead 2: Gee, Ricky, Nice to See You and Your Mom on Jerry Springer: Betterer off Deader

Posted by: dammitjanet at March 26, 2010 3:28 PM

What the hell happened to Lloyd Dobbler, and how did that guy end up in 2012 or Must Love Dogs?

I think he's come to say "fuck it" and just be in it for the paycheck and the fun. That said, notice that his name isn't before the title in any trailer. In fact, it's Craig Robinson's face that's mostly associated with this movie.

Posted by: Fredo at March 26, 2010 3:34 PM

It’s not great; it’s not bad. It’s amusing, but not hilarious. It’s dumb, but not so dumb as to offend or annoy. It doesn’t miss the jugular, so much as it never really aims for it. It falls a little flat at times, and the best jokes are in heavy rotation in the trailers.

In other words, an ideal choice for a rental, or on TBS/USA/TNT in six months.

Posted by: Brie at March 26, 2010 3:45 PM

Dustin, that last paragraph stabbed me directly through the heart. I was the perfect Say Anything age; I loved John Cusack; where did all that time go? How did we waste it?

S I G H

At least work is over soon and I can go home and drink.

Posted by: MM at March 26, 2010 3:51 PM

Cusack has just coasted through 99% of his career. He has only once stumbled upon something challenging and succeeded (MALKOVICH!).

Martin Blank and Rob Gordon are essentially the same person, one gets a gun, the other gets Jack Black and a record store. That the material was good enough to carry the movie is overlooked; Cusack was nothing special in comparison.

There are character actors, and then there are actors who just play themselves inserted into different movies, and it seems like Cusack is always Cusack, no matter the material.

Posted by: D-Day at March 26, 2010 3:55 PM

D-Day, I agree whole-heartedly. It just so happens that Cusack is a likeable guy, which makes every role endearing. Long before there was that tubby guy from 40yo virgin running around as the everyman romantic lead, there was Cusack standing in the rain.

I love the guy.

Posted by: superasente at March 26, 2010 4:21 PM

there was Cusack standing in the rain

and we must never forget. I will love that man till the day I die no matter what he does.

Posted by: the_wakeful at March 26, 2010 4:41 PM

You forgot to mention how AMAZING Rob Corddry is in this. His performance is worth the price of admission!

Posted by: Corey at March 26, 2010 4:46 PM

Hey Guys! I've just discovered that after 3 or 4 years of postng under
assorted psuedonyms that I've been pronouncing the site name wrong
when recounting my supposed-insightfulness and your responses to
Mr. Julien! Good thing I've never been one of the Eloquents or I
should fear a vigorous attack of verbal whips and salt. Ya know, if anyone
actually notices as I write posts against the darkness.

At least I was right all those years saying Snuffleupagous. It was a
dark, dark day when someone managed to convince me I had been
saying it wrong.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at March 26, 2010 4:46 PM

Well I may not want to watch this, but I do want to break out my Say Anything DVD. He was way cuter back then.

Posted by: Carrie at March 26, 2010 5:17 PM

"I've just discovered that after 3 or 4 years of postng under
assorted psuedonyms that I've been pronouncing the site name wrong"

It's "puh-JIGH-buh", right? Please tell me I haven't been pronouncing it wrong.

Now I'm gonna obsess about that all week.

Posted by: Craig at March 26, 2010 5:29 PM

I believe it's suppose to be pronounced "pahj-EYE-ba" but I prefer your way, Craig.

Posted by: the_wakeful at March 26, 2010 5:42 PM

Or wait, maybe that's what you meant. I DON'T KNOW MAN, I'M AN ENGINEER, NOT A FRACKIN ENGLISH MAJOR.

Posted by: the_wakeful at March 26, 2010 5:43 PM

How to say the site's name?? In past threads, it's been suggested that it's
supposed to rhyme with the name for a lady's nether-bits Me, I've always
gone with Puh-jib-lets. Works for me in my little bubble.

Posted by: Ms MoMo at March 26, 2010 6:11 PM

Puh-jee-buh?

Posted by: Brenton at March 26, 2010 6:14 PM

A Numbered List:

1. If I see one more commercial for HTTM, I will kill someone. Doesn't matter, whoever is closest. I think they run 7000 commercials for it every 24 hours. It's GOT to be some sort of record.

2. This review agrees nicely with everything else I've read about it, and I'm a total WHORE for anything about time travel, but somehow it just makes me feel sad. I don't know, maybe because I was a teenager and young adult in the 80s (I'm a smidge younger than Cusack). You can never get the time period exactly right, even if it was only 20-30 years ago (gah!).

3. The one thing I liked that I saw in one of the many commercials was this scene:

Nerdy guy from 2010 is dancing with girl in 1986 and he asks her for her email address, her cell number, is she on Facebook etc (to which she answers "WHAT?" to all) and finally he asks in exasperation how he's going to contact her again and she giggles (while still dancing) and says "just come FIND me!"

Now THAT moment was cool. That is actually what we did, barring "are you in the phonebook?" No email, no one had portable phones, no internet. You're that interested? Find me.

Oh and he looks defeated and says "that just seems like so much WORK."

Ha!

Um but anyway, this is a rental.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at March 26, 2010 6:33 PM

Pah-JIE-bah.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at March 26, 2010 6:35 PM

Oh shoot! I forgot to say I AM really glad to see Craig Robinson with a bigger role in a feature film. Yay, go Craig! (I have a bit of a crush.)

Darryl!

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at March 26, 2010 6:36 PM

"In fact, it wastes the casting of Chevy Chase, who plays a daffy time-travel shamen slash fix-it man."

Meh, since Chase hasn't been funny since the 80's it was probably a wise decision to limit his appearance here. As far as the movie goes, I'll be there if only because I'm TRYING to give Cusak a chance to redeem himself after behaving like a gigantic tool in the last few years (Better Off Dead goodwill goes a long way)

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at March 26, 2010 6:46 PM

Oh, and it's pronounced: pah-JIVE-ass

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at March 26, 2010 6:49 PM

I used to say "Pa-zsee-bah" (like Zsa Zsa Gabor) but these days I say "Pa-hee-bah." Although, given that it's supposed to rhyme with lady parts, it's probably "Pa-jeye-ba."

It doesn't matter what I call it; people still say "What's it called?" when I talk about it. (Not that I would ever lower myself to make conversation about a movie blog. I'm with Kevin Smith; critics are retards -- er' somethin'.)

Posted by: superasente at March 26, 2010 6:49 PM

Question. If their present-day lives suck, why do they want to preserve them so much by not changing anything in the past? Do they have a change of heart and realize that once they get back to the future they'll need to follow their dreams, or something equally lame?

Posted by: SaBrina at March 26, 2010 7:01 PM

SaBrina,
so that Jacob’s future life isn’t altered or extinguished

They appear to be doing this to make sure the nephew's life isn't impacted, disregarding their own tarnished lives. A noble endeavor, indeed. However, a few problems: Apart from the ridiculously loose attention to detail they've apparently given to their tasks (assuming Back to the Future rules here), one would think that Jacob himself would stay in the room as to not affect the past (a la Primer). What if his actions on the dance floor prevented the "fucking of a random woman"? He would, essentially, be cock-blocking his whole life.

Surely this film must delve into these and other troubling questions associated with time paradoxes.

Posted by: pissant at March 26, 2010 7:24 PM

Here's the thing: if by their actions in the past they are preserving "the present" it is then a forced conclusion that they always traveled, i.e. the present as they know it *IS* because of their actions when they traveled to the past.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at March 26, 2010 7:37 PM

BarbadoSlim,
Take that bullshit elsewhere. The simple fact that Marty McFly's mother (who was hot!) told him that her father hit George, but he then hit Marty post-time travel shows that it is possible for one to affect their own "future" ("present"?) by traveling to the past.

QED

What, are you using Terminator rules?

Posted by: pissant at March 26, 2010 7:49 PM

Oh. If Jacob wasn't there in the past, then his presence in the new-past already alters the past. And when I read the review it seemed like Jacob's life was one with the losers. (Sorry, anybody obsessed with Second Life and living in their uncle's basement.) Maybe they should try to fix his life too?

And if none of them are the parents, why would their actions in the 80s affect the children their siblings have in the (I'm assuming) 90s? Did John Cusack introduce the parents or something? Speaking of, where ARE his parents?

Yeah... I am never going to watch this movie.

Posted by: SaBrina at March 26, 2010 7:58 PM

Oooooooooh God don't bring up Terminator, or I'm gonna have to explain the Terminator Corollary!

Woops, here we go (mostly for my amusement):

The time line in Terminator is bullshit not for the weird way the series plays out, but for the fact that upon closer inspection every act of time travel in the movie creates a sequence of subsequently impossible events. We start by moving to Terminator 1:

In T1, Arnie goes back, and Kyle Reese follows him. However, it is impossible for Kyle Reese to go back because no matter how quickly he follows Arnie into the past, it's inconsequential. Once Arnie goes back, the future timeline is "freezed". You must hit pause at the moment Arnie goes back because now everything unfolds differently after he goes back in time. As soon as Arnie enters the past, he goes and kills Sarah, completely altering everything that follows. In fact, you could even say that once Arnie kills Sarah, it is no longer necessary for him to do so in the future, in which case time just says "I'm confused" and the universe collapses.

In T2, the very second Robert Patrick goes back, you have to "freeze" Arnie from going back after him. The Liquid Terminator goes and kills John (and probably Sarah), meaning that in the future John can't actually send Arnie back in time because he's already friggin dead. Also this means that the Liquid Terminator doesn't have to go back and kill John, and once again time just throws his hands up and says "I give up" and farts everything out of existence.

So what the Terminator Corollary states is that time travel can have 1 of 2 possible outcomes. 1) Time travel is a paradox unto itself; every time you go back you have prevented the sequence of events that led to your time travel in the first place. If you go back in time and kill your dad before you're born, you're never born, you can never go back and kill your dad. 2) The only way to allow time travel to exist as it does in the movies is to account for parallel universes instantly splitting off in infinite dimensions as previous iterations of the universe collapse under uncertainty.

And here's the third point; if you travel backwards in time, and can't go forward, wouldn't you be stuck in an infinite loop? Say you go back, and everything goes the same, but you'd still end up going back in time in the future to make sure the past happened? Or would this lead to infinite copies of yourself going back over and over and over again?

*headdesk*

Posted by: D-Day at March 26, 2010 8:09 PM

p.s. the above only happened because they haven't posted the EE results yet, gorram it!

Posted by: D-Day at March 26, 2010 8:10 PM

What, are you using Terminator rules?

Posted by: pissant at March 26, 2010 7:49 PM

Oh you BETTER believe it, sister.

------------------------------------------------

"no matter how quickly he follows Arnie into the past, it's inconsequential. Once Arnie goes back, the future timeline is "freezed". You must hit pause at the moment Arnie goes back because now everything unfolds differently after he goes back in time. As soon as Arnie enters the past, he goes and kills Sarah..."


You must have watched Terminator in some alternate timeline ARE YOU OUT YOUR FUCKING MIND!?
That's the whole point, Arnie DID NOT get the Sarah as soon as he got there, man. It took him days Reese was following right behind in fact he went in almost simultaneously. The resistance knew what Skynet was planning and they avoided your scenario(of course I see your point, in fact, it would have been better if Reese arrived first).

Same goes for

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at March 26, 2010 8:17 PM

I've been saying "PAH-jih-bah", Long-short-short. Huh. Pah-jeye-bah? Really? Allrighty then.

Posted by: malechai at March 26, 2010 8:29 PM

No no no slim you're missing the point.

Everything, I mean EVERYTHING, happens in the past first. When Arnie goes back in time, he's gone back before Kyle has gone back.

Let's say I put a bomb in the time machine and send it back. It doesn't matter if you go through the time machine a millisecond after me, or ten years after, the bomb has already gone off and changed what happens in the future.

The only chance you have of stopping me is that everything in the future plays out so that you can still go back in the time machine. This means that I somehow haven't screwed up how time travel is invented, and how all the events of your life lead you and me into a position to go back in time. BUT, by blowing up that bomb in the past, if I alter the future in any way (which obviously happens) I have in fact 99.9% probably stopped myself from sending the bomb back. I could've killed myself inadvertently, killed the inventor of time travel, all these possibilities. This doesn't even begin to discuss that if I've already done something in the past, why do I have to repeat it in the future?

So in terms of Terminators (and movies of that ilk), time travel is only possible if you don't consider the logical fallacies and outright impossibilities that time travel doesn't completely fuck the world up. Time moves in a line, even if it's cyclical it has a beginning, present and end. As soon as a Terminator goes back he has changed the direction of the line, preventing not just Reese from going back, but preventing the very reason he was supposed to go back.

The movie just ignores all of this stuff. So do you get it, or are we gonna duke it out all night like we have once or twice before?

Posted by: D-Day at March 26, 2010 8:32 PM

I'm a Pah-JEE-Bah (short long short) guy ma'self. I already say Fajita "Fa-JYE-Tah" (short long short) so I don't need more words to confuse with female genitalia.

Posted by: D-Day at March 26, 2010 8:34 PM

OMG NEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDS

Posted by: Jerce at March 26, 2010 9:05 PM

Hmmmmmmmm....

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at March 26, 2010 10:14 PM

I dislike hot tubs.

Posted by: sheshakes at March 26, 2010 10:28 PM

I'm fond of Pa-jee-ba myself, but only because it allows me to refer to its denizens as Pa-he-bans and Pa-she-bans.

Posted by: Jessica at March 26, 2010 11:33 PM

Christ, look what has begun. I tire of dealing with paradoxes.

What if you go back in time and kill your mother before you were born?

"You couldn't do that because then you'd never be born to go back and do it!"

But ya did. I'm convinced the only answer is alternate realities. Or whatever, I just prefer a universe where the Back to the Future trilogy exists.

Posted by: pissant at March 27, 2010 8:24 AM

Time moves in a line, even if it's cyclical it has a beginning,

On a more serious note: I feel this discussion is futile in that we, as three-dimensional beings, don't really understand time. At best we approximate time.

The best explanation of our ignorance I've ever seen assumed a two-dimensional world (it was the TV). Basically, if we lived in a two-dimensional world, it could be represented by a piece of paper. Take a three-dimensional being, a paperclip in this instance. It is not of this world and can insert itself (poke through the paper) wherever it likes. Now, to the two-dimensional people of that world, this is inconceivable, essentially magic. It can enter the world at one point, remove itself, and enter at another point at will, completely mind-fucking the residents of 2D Land. Not only that, but the paperclip could bend in such a way (or bend the world, depending on your perspective) and insert itself into two or more locations in 2D Land at the same time.

Anywho, all this to say that we aren't fit to negate time travel scenarios as we don't really understand time. I do, however, support the discussion of time/time travel.

But Terminator is totally possible*.

* - Possibly. See previous paragraph(s).

Posted by: pissant at March 27, 2010 8:40 AM

Eh whatever, good nerd off.

I will finish my convoluted, unnecessary way of thinking that time travel may just mean that when you go back, you can do anything and still just be there, sort of applying the law of conservation of mass; you can't just undo yourself.

My problem with the Terminator stuff is that someone has to go back in time AFTER someone else, when the first person is negating the future. Alternate/parallel realities allow for this kind of stuff to happen, but it's a whole other bag of theoretical bullshit.

Does anyone remember how they explained time travel in the book Timeline? In the back of my head I remember (or may be imagining) that quantum physics posited that there are infinite universes that are 1 second (or whatever unit of time) behind and ahead of this one. So when they "time travel" they're moving to a different universe that is 1,000 years behind the Big Bang? I can't remember.

Posted by: D-Day at March 27, 2010 9:16 AM

Oh man, I missed the best thread EVER. I thrive on this bullshit.

My late 2 cents (which nobody is around to collect, so I will take it with me when I go):

According to quantum theory, the forth dimension encompases both time and space, ergo the forth dimension is everything forever. The fifth dimension signifies one alternative timeline. The sixth is ALL alternative timelines (once you start getting into the seventh and on up, you're dealing with alternatives to the Big Bang, which doesn't just signify the begining of space, but time as well. There was no "before" the Big Bang, and the seventh dimension posits that there could be some unknown alternative).

So, if you went back in time and killed your father, according to quantum theory, you would just be standing there with a bloody knife (or gun, or rubber hose or whatever) after the deed is done. You wouldn't create a time paradox. You would have created a splinter reality in which your father is dead and you are never born -- and in which you now exist. You would have left your own timeline and permanently embeded yourself in another.

The reason for this is that time-travel isn't acheived by traveling through the forth dimension (time and space) it is done by traveling through the FIFTH and probably the SIXTH dimension. If you were to travel through the forth dimension ONLY you wouldn't even be capable of killing your own father before you are born, as evidenced by your existence. Within the confines of just one timeline, you already exist. What's done is done. You would fail at any attempt to change things. And really, what's the point if you're just altering some other guy's timeline?

One would hope that futuristic, war-mongering, time-travelling robots would understand this -- but what the fuck do I know? They captured Kyle Reese in the last movie and DIDN'T kill him, despite the knowledge that killing him NOW would prevent him from time-travelling LATER (when he fathers John Connor). So yeah, I guess they're retards.

Posted by: superasente at March 27, 2010 10:49 AM

This is quite the literally the most intelligent conversation anyone have or will ever have about Hot Tub Time Machine.

Posted by: D-Day at March 27, 2010 2:40 PM

So what you're kind of saying Supes is that no matter what you go back and do in terms of time travel, it only really affects yourself, right?

If the timeline splinters off every time you do something you can only screw with the specific reality you are in.

So if I went back in time and killed Hitler, I could go back and do it and feel jim dandy about myself, but there's still a reality where he lived and did all those naughty things, right?

p.s. Has anyone read anything interesting about the big bang recently? I had one of those stoner moments of clarity where I thought that the universe, which is constantly expanding, eventually hits a terminal point or a black hole just sucks everything up. As this happens and all matter, light, space, and that fun stuff condenses into one point, into one infinitely small and dense particle, it hits a point where it explodes and ta-da, big bang. So while we can see back to the big bang, there has really been infinite universes before and after, and the big bang is a sort of recycling point.

I'm sure someone has had this or a better idea, so post a link or something.

Posted by: D-Day at March 27, 2010 2:49 PM

Why would universe expansion hit a 'terminal point'?
When you drop a colored liquid into another liquid, do you sit and wait for the expanding liquid to get sucked back into itself?

There's no reason why the universe would suck back in on itself unless the center black hole got too large. I think this theory, which I've heard people say before, merely expresses peoples' desire to see closure or completion.

Entropy is entropy. Inertia is inertia. Neither reverse themselves.

Posted by: Protoguy at March 27, 2010 7:10 PM

"one infinitely small and dense particle, it hits a point where it explodes and ta-da, big bang."

You just described a black hole, which does the opposite of "ta-da".

Posted by: Protoguy at March 27, 2010 7:12 PM

I'm not a physicist, but what about Lost rules? I.e., one-timeline, in which the time travel is already factored in? You try to kill Hitler, and you will fail, because Hitler didn't die. This obviously denies the many worlds interpretation, but it's a still a (seemingly?) paradox-free way of looking at time travel.

Also, from what I recall from astronomy class, the Big Cruch (D-Day's theoretical anti-Big Bang) is almost certainly not going to happen, because the rate in which the universe expands isn't slow enough to get caught in the gravity of the centre. Like, with our solar system, every time the Earth rotates, it drags on the turns and slows down a little bit, and is subesquently pulled closer to the Sun; we will plummet into the Sun before it expands. The cosmic version of this would be, essentially, the Big Cruch; the rate of expansion is slow enough that the gravity from the centre can grab it and slow it down just a bit, until finally it slows it down to the point where it's pulled rapibly and inexorably back together. However, the universe isn't slowing down, so it won't be pulled inwards, and everything will fizzle out and die in a fabulous display of entropy.

Again, though, that's just what I recall from astronomy. If it's inaccurate, please, by all means, correct me.

Posted by: kyle at March 27, 2010 8:08 PM

The center black hole was what I was mostly referring to; I know I may have certainly used some less than technical lingo.

It's tough to keep up with astronomy and astrophysics, I remember the Big Crunch but was just thinking about looking into some more technical aspects.

Juuuuuuuuust throwing out the ideas fellas.

Posted by: D-Day at March 27, 2010 8:41 PM

Re Hot Tub: Does the trip to the past require resurrecting ugly gay jokes as a running gag? I'm out.

Re The Site: Pah-jee-bah, unless you're Dustin, who thinks he gets a vote, like he was the unfortunate capital of Saskatchewan or something.

Posted by: Corvus at March 28, 2010 12:27 AM

I guess if I really like this post, I felt the need to say something! I've never even thought about commenting till now.

Posted by: Cindy Edwards at March 28, 2010 4:18 AM

So, if you went back in time and killed your father, according to quantum theory, you would just be standing there with a bloody knife (or gun, or rubber hose or whatever) after the deed is done. You wouldn't create a time paradox. You would have created a splinter reality in which your father is dead and you are never born -- and in which you now exist. You would have left your own timeline and permanently embeded yourself in another.

See, I reject this because this explanation creates a reality where the plot of Back to the Future doesn't make sense. I have devoted too much time to that series* to allow that to happen.

* - The NES video game? Are you fuckin' kidding me?

Posted by: pissant at March 28, 2010 11:46 AM

I wouldn’t recommend doing so, but comparing a movie like Adventureland and Hot Tub Time Machine..

Now I'm going to go and see it. It couldn't possibly be worse than that trite POS.

Posted by: admin at March 28, 2010 1:13 PM

I'm probably going to see this sometime this week and all I can say is let's not shit on John Cusack ok? He has earned a lifetime free pass from me for Say Anything, The Sure Thing and High Fidelity not to mention some of the better rom coms he did like Serendipity/

So shut up!!

Posted by: grace b at March 28, 2010 11:16 PM

Dustin, that last paragraph stabbed me directly through the heart. I was the perfect Say Anything age; I loved John Cusack; where did all that time go? How did we waste it?

S I G H

At least work is over soon and I can go home and drink. - MM

I am right there with you MM, I'll buy the first round of shots...How the fuck did I get to be 40?

Posted by: DaveKan at March 29, 2010 6:41 PM

so I've been reading this site for years and here's what I do. when i click on a review i don't look at the author and then try to figure it out based on writing style, a couple paragraphs down.

usually i get it right and wish there was someone next to me to high-five, but really no one understands my love for pajiba

sometimes "the new kid" throws me for a loop, but after a couple reviews I know them

I often read an especially hilarious part of a review outloud to my husband or anyone nearby, but still, no one understands the true amazingness... you can't be TOLD what Pajiba is.. you have to see it for yourself...

having said all that - i had no idea it was pronounced "pa-JIE-ba" i have been pronouncing it "my-favorite-review-site"

Posted by: kam at March 30, 2010 8:36 AM

This is for certain a brilliant bit of information, I currently have acquited quite a chunk of browsing throughout your blog, and shortly said, I am impressed. I've been blogging for a while, but can't equate my progress to yours.

Posted by: pinball on ice at July 19, 2010 7:43 PM

I cant believe the NHL is going to risk losing one of the best players in his prime to the KHL

Posted by: nhl jerseys at October 23, 2010 7:52 AM

Im not really sure how I feel about this topic. I could go one way or the other way but mostly I feel unsure. I think i need to sit on it.

Posted by: Deloris Pickell at October 24, 2010 6:11 PM

Hey omg man awesome article. This stuff totally blew my mind, this is so overly sweet wicked good stuff bro.

Posted by: Aline Ligons at October 24, 2010 8:23 PM

Not so sure I am quick to be in agreement. On one hand, I totally disagree with your arguement and on the other hand I slightly get you. Is there anything else you would to give to us?

Posted by: Elton Siverson at October 31, 2010 11:41 AM

What a waste of time. You're poor english made this article hard to read. Learn to write.

Posted by: Sindy Tavana at November 2, 2010 10:29 AM

Uhm... that was quite interesting :)

Posted by: lavoro da casa at November 18, 2010 11:33 AM

This is one of the most truthful blogs I have ever browsed. Nothing beats good first hand knowledge on subjects. You are appreciated for being sincere about this.

Posted by: Kerry Carse at December 5, 2010 2:12 PM

cqwecqw

Posted by: Harry Potter D. at December 7, 2010 6:36 PM

Great, thanks for sharing this article post.Much thanks again. Will read on…

Posted by: Timberland Boots at December 19, 2010 7:01 AM

Nice blog subject. thanks for letting me add something!

Posted by: lady gaga headphones at December 23, 2010 7:01 AM

Some problems with the code of this page?

Posted by: forex signals at January 12, 2011 4:27 PM

Uhm... I don't really know what to think... though I have a question I'd like to ask you in private, ideally by email. How can I reach you?

Posted by: forex signal at January 16, 2011 4:29 PM

Uhm... I don't really know what to think... but I have a question I'd like to ask you in private, ideally by email. How can I reach you?

Posted by: forex trading system at January 18, 2011 9:59 PM

Uhm... I don't really know what to think... but I have a question I'd like to ask you in private, ideally by email. How can I reach you?

Posted by: forex trading system at January 19, 2011 3:47 AM

What I want to know is why I should care? I mean, not to say that what youve got to say isnt important, but I mean, its so generic. Everyones talking about this man. Give us something more, something that we can get behind so we can feel as passionately about it as you do.

Posted by: Cheap Levaquin at January 28, 2011 2:15 PM

yeah bookmaking this wasn't a bad determination great post! .

Posted by: Maryam Bradfield at February 9, 2011 2:04 AM

Wow this really hit the spot know I know everything that i needed to know thank you now I can go and do things my own way

Posted by: Lon Gutta at February 25, 2011 7:59 PM

Between me and my husband we've owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I've settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.

Posted by: Tyson F. Gautreaux at March 3, 2011 4:20 AM

I just now wanted to inform you about how much my partner and i appreciate anything you've provided to help improve lives of folks in this theme. Through your current articles, we've gone via just a beginner to an expert in the area. It can be truly a homage to your endeavours. Thanks

Posted by: zero friction marketing at March 15, 2011 9:54 PM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time