The Thing Review - Off The Shelf Reviews
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ต.ค. 2018
- This week Gary and Iain review and discuss, The Thing (2011) by Director, Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.. Starring, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton and Ulrich Thomsen.
For more Off The Shelf Reviews:
Follow us on Twitter: / @otsreviews
TH-cam: / hunterscrow
Facebook: / offtheshelfreviews
Support us: / offtheshelfreviews
Twitch: / offtheshelfreviews - บันเทิง
![รวมเพลงลูกทุ่ง 6 หนุ่มไทบ้าน ฮิตติดกระแส ชุดที่ 1 l มนต์แคน ไมค์ ไผ่ เสถียร ไหมไทย พี [Longplay]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD2v1OjMw5I/mqdefault.jpg)
I think what Gary and Iain are trying to say is: Regardless if you like this film or not, John Carpenter's The Thing is STILL the BEST!
ALWAYS! And I agree! : )
I don't think I've seen other film reviewers on TH-cam as consistently enthusiastic as you guys. Great work lads!
I know, right? Their enthusiasm is infectious.
I was just thinking earlier that it's so clear how much Gary and Iain truly love film. You can feel it. It makes their reviews my favorite to watch.
The reviews where you guys disgree and debate are the best.
Great video guys.
The alien 3 one was almost as ww3 as this one lol i can see both sides in both reviews. But i lean in the gary camp on both. 😁
Yep, I really get that Siskel and Ebert vibe.
Rare these days...
The 4th hellraiser review is great well I actually think all of them are great
Hour long review. Hell yes.
I do agree with Gary on the practical effects that they are almost always better than cgi. In The Thing (2011) I was actually surprised how much of it was done with practical effects and its a damn shame it was cut from the movie. I still enjoyed it and while it doesnt hold a candle to the original, I also agree with Iain that it doesnt have to, it just needs to set it up properly.
I love these reviews that you guys do and I enjoy it when you discuss for and against like you do here. Great review!
Like you guys said, the Thing is really good at mimickery, Juliette thing actually seemed terrified by her own transformation, her expression before the Thing took full control was that of shock and terror
@@Andy_Sidaris Both could be the case
Gary is definitely right in a majority of the discussions, I think he knows what he's talking about.
Thanks guys. I was like - Gary are you kidding? Tiny Tim in 1968 went Top Ten with his song "Tiptoe through the Tulips" while playing on a ukulele!!! The ukulele has been around for hundreds of years!
@benjalucian1515
And Arthur Godfrey regularly played the ukulele on tv in the 50's! And Hawaiians played them all the way back to the late 1800's.
Thank you, I had a ukulele when I was a child in the 70s.
Another hour -long review? Awesome! Time to grab a snack and some drinks.
I listen to them in my car. To and from work lol
I love how I always seem to flip flop between which of you guys I end up agreeing with more. In this case, I'm with Gary. This movie is a pale imitation of the Carpenter film.
If it was a remake, then yeah I would totally agree with you that it's a pale imitation of carpenters movie. But considering it's a prequel not a remake it's not a pale imitation , but a story set in the same universe as John carpenter's classic.
Is it as good as John carpenter's movie? No.
Is it a terrible movie? No.
It's good, but it could have been brilliant .
I almost always tend to agree with Gary, but I love hearing both of their thoughts and opinions.
The movie studio got too involved and got rid of the practical effects for cgi. I think it was a good movie suitable prequel.
Do I really have to pick a side? It’s honestly always 50/50 with me.
Love hearing both sides.👍
They also messed up who was who in the helicopter in the original film. The pilot, not the passenger, is the one who speaks Norwegian to the Americans and gets blown away by Garry. When the chopper lands, the rifle changes hands and it's the passenger who blows himself up with thermite while the pilot continues on foot.
I think what makes CG look less "real" than practical effects is the way it moves. The movement of all CG-monsters is always to fluid, and it always looks too polished. The practical effects look better because they move like a physical object that is there; it can be fast or it can be jerky, and the texture always looks authentic.
It’s because of our incredibly high functioning brains. They can always “tell” when something is a CGI vs an actual physical being. Our brains automatically distinguish the 2.
'Only an imitation thing would watch the prequel first' (Gary, 2018).
Ah, it's 2 a.m. here and this is exactly what I need to unwind! Off The Shelf Reviews, saving the day. 😊
I know many will disagree...but I had fun with this prequel. Not the original of course. 7/10
I love this and all of you guys’ reviews. This review is also a great rewatch. Just FYI Gary, the ukulele was developed in the late 19th century.
Was just about to post the same thing.
You know, This wouldn't be so bad if they didn't CGI the hell out of everything and make the thing a mindless monster.
Although I do kinda like the theory that's it's the things first encounter with humans so it kinda dumb 😂
@@Brinz420 maybe not dumb, but underestimates the ability of humans to figure things out and problem solve .
Thus adapting its strategies towards the end of the thing 2011 (escaping disguised as a dog) and the event of carpenters movie .
Smart enough to drive(ending off this film) and build a flying saucer(Blair in the shed), but it isn't smart enough to hunt using stealth, especially against superior numbers.
I agree 100%
You should consider reviewing Videodrome (1983) !
YES! THIS!
They’ve reviewed far worse films than Videodrome.
@@coyleigh2860 Videodrome is very good imo
I don't think you guys realise how good you are!!!
Or how good this movie is.
Regarding the ending.. The girl was a scientist. She knew she was probably the last one left and she wasn’t sure if she is contagious or not, is she the Thing or not.. In my opinion she knew it’s a great danger to go to any station due to all the events that happened. Suicide maybe?
Um ukulele has been around since early 1900's, and you did get Walkman headphones like that in the 80's (sorry Gary)
The ukulele played in the dance scene is a Fender. This model of ukulele was introduced in the 2000s, so it was not available in 1982. (sorry Linda) - Gary
I was thinking the same thing about the "uk" My grandpa had a ukulele
@@OffTheShelfReviews Ah, you meant that specific model of ukulele, not ukuleles in general
I came to the comments just for this! Yeah George Formby played a banjolele that had the resonator of a banjo on it as far back as the 30s, and Elvis had films set in Hawaii with uke scenes too.
@@OffTheShelfReviews to be honest I was confused when you said that in the video. And to be honest , if you hadn't pointed out that is was a fender brand ukulele , I wouldnt have known, I just thought, oh a ukulele. Maybe the props department should have re painted it to get rid of the fender branding .
The film was going to have all practical effects and the ship was going to be explored with a reveal of the pilot species and their collection of specimens. However the studio decided at the last minute to make everything cg and therefore canning these scenes. However the effects can still be seen on the effects teams TH-cam channel.
Should've linked their youtube channel for people interested.
My Grandfather had a ukulele years ago when my Dad was a kid in the 40's.
What Gary means about the Ukulele is the Make and Model. A Fender with the obvious and unique Telecaster headstock and Fender didn't start making ukuleles until 2009.
Iain: "Watch the 2011 film first if you've never seen either before."
Gary: 'NO, FUCK NO! DON'T DO THAT TO YOURSELF!"
Team Gary all the way.
No. Watch the 1951 version first. Its the first third of the novelette.
Temple of Doom is a good prequel
I don't understand why you guys don't have more subscribers
Neither do I
15k isnt bad. But they deserve more. And the takedowns or strikes is just painfull and silly.
It's because their videos keep getting taken down before people discover them.
Same here! They are brilliant!
I think they should promote their channel more. I don't know how, but this is the best review channel I've seen so far.
Mediocre film with bad CG effects 😬 Sorry Iain, good on you for being easy on the film, but those effects are a slap in the face to Rob Botin and Carpenter 😬😬 I love when y'all debate and disagree, makes for the best videos 👍👍
I agree 100%
That was the studio telling them to do all the cgi last minute
Fault of studio. Not filmmakers.
I want acut of this film where they put back in all the practical effects they did
The Thing was not a plant creature in the short story "Who goes there?", it was in Howard Hawk's film, The Thing from another world.
What? I saw that "Juliet is the thing" coming a mile away.
This movie sucked. It was just a CGI monster chase movie.
Lot of mistakes too making no sense
They got the entire concept wrong. the 1982 thing was a very intelligent creature that plotted its every move. the 2011 thing just attacks people out in the open at random every chance it gets. To watch this as a proper prequel, turn 2011 off at the exact moment we see the thing explode out of the ice block, and then hit play on 1982. Thats the only way it actually works well for me. The cgi is just harry potter garbage. Also just for the record I think he hit the dog multiple times but the metal just goes through or falls out and it heals back up.
If it’s perfectly imitating a dog, it’s also perfectly imitating it’s vulnerability. If the Thing dog was hit with a .308, it would’ve been stopped or slowed it enough to burn it.
you are wrong.. 1982 thing was attacking lots of people we just are not shown.. plus it had to learn..
@@willh1655 key words, we don’t know who it infected and when, and it was learning, scariness +10
Then 2011 thing, we saw exactly who it attacked and when, save (possibly) one character, and it was a generic slasher movie villain, scariness -5
@@willh1655 Shut the fuck up shit stain, It didnt attack people out in the open unless it had to, so sit the fuck down kid.
I've always thought that it made sense for the the thing to have first been a more primal thing, more intuitive and mindless with its attacks. It's only after absorbing some of the prequel characters and learning to begin blending in with the assimilations that it knows to remain stealthy from the very start when it comes across the American base.
Great review guys. Even before the cut alien backstory was revealed by the filmmakers, I always had this idea that the thing was a non-aggressive creature that was stumbled on by a Star Trek like alien crew. I feel the thing just does what it does, has no morals, until it starts absorbing/changing those that have a sense of morality, which could create a nice cautionary warning about free will
8:30 the effects were awesome up untill the producers F ed it all up by adding CGi over all of them , and horribly too. Rob Bottin's Effects in 82 will always be so much better and seemingly unbeatable.
What's really sad about this movie is that originally they had an incredible special effects company make up some of the best practical effects I've ever seen, and the studio decided to replace it all with CGI. Fucking disgraceful. This movie could have been something great if the studio had stayed out of it.
Can't beat Thursday reviews with the lads! Keep up the great work!
My biggest complaint is the flawed sound design--that is the real continuity error. The sound The Thing makes in Carpenter's original kennel scene with the cicada buzzing is the signature sound that really sold the illusion. The oversight of that major continuity flaw is so glaring yet overlooked by everyone in lieu of the visual effects elements. Carpenter was, at the time, the master of his craft who understood the importance of sound and foley design. The audio experience is very poor in this film and just highlights the fact that it was a rushed production.
Responding to something Iain said, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly isn't explicitly a prequel to A Fistful of Dollars and A Few Dollars More. Yes, the three films are loosely considered a trilogy, with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly being the earliest in the timeline. And yes, all three films feature what can be viewed as the same character (played by Clint Eastwood), unofficially known as The Man With No Name. But it isn't officially the same character. They look and act the same in many ways, but there are slight differences, and there's no clear continuity between the three films, except for the trademark poncho. You can't definitively prove that they're not the same character, but equally, you can't definitively prove that they are either, and I personally don't think they were intended to be literally the same man.
As for The Thing prequel, I thought it was okay. I appreciate the lengths they went to to match things up with Carpenter's film, and they succeeded in some respects, but the film missed the mark in other ways, and Iain and Gary pointed out. I agree with Iain that it was nice to see a more mobile version of the Thing, and the CGI was serviceable in some of the shots, but a little ropey in others. It is a shame that the FX guys weren't given more time to make the practical FX work, and that more time wasn't spent weaving additional clues into the plot, as Gary alluded to. As it is, this film doesn't feel anywhere near as multi-layered as Carpenter's 1982 classic, and for that reason among others, doesn't lend itself to as many repeat viewings.
Just found the channel - this is the best episode so far, mainly cos you two disagree on the practical vs CGI effects, the discussion is good fun - Sorry Iain, Gary is right :) the practical FX ADI made were brilliant and i wish the execs had had the confidence and trust in them, and in their audience to go with them.
enjoying the channel - keep it up men! :)
1879
The first ukulele is said to have been built in 1879; however, it is not clear who invented this instrument. Renowned astronaut Neil Armstrong had a great passion for playing the ukulele. C. F. Martin Guitars manufactured ukulele in the 1920s, and the sales of this instrument were on par with that of guitars.Nov 22, 2019
The real reason this movie is a pale comparison to Carpenters movie is not the CGI (i can say they did overuse it though),but the directing.
Look at that scene when Adebisi (i know he has a name in this movie,i don't care) sees the ice block and the Thing just jumps out.
Carpenter would film that very differently.
Adebisi would see the Things eye move in the ice block,he would try to go and tell the others,while he was in the hallway he would hear a loud crash from the room he just came from.
Curiosity would make him go back,the light would flicker in hallway as he approached the door,while he slowly opens the door the creepy music stops,he turns around,runs and screams for help.
The camera pans from the door to the ice block to reveal that it's empty.
I think you're right, but I'd say it's much more simple. The scary part of the story isnt that some alien will eat you and therefore let's make him CGI scary or whatever. The true "fear driver" is that you're trapped somewhere and you can't trust any of the people with you. That's a terrifying "thought".
He'd hear a crash and go back to investigate? That sounds like very poor directing.
The reason the practical effects wouldn't fly in the prequel was because they didn't have a brilliant cinematographer like Cundy and modern cameras were used rather than film.
Gary is spot on. Hell, just those small clips showing the practical effects are 100% better than that shitty CGI they used. Such a shame. Just another example of a studio ruining what could have been a good movie. Correction. I should say the Studio turned what could have been an excellent movie into just an "ok" movie.
Just like aliens 3. It sucks thinking about what we could’ve potentially had as the end product. A wooden planet with tech deprived monks sounds very intriguing but idk how they could’ve pulled it off with the budget.
Fantastic! I've been waiting for you guys to review this! Thanks guys!
Personally, I side more with Ian on "The Thing" prequel. Unfortunately the studio involvement ruined whatever potential it could have had, and gave into the CGI crap quality - which the makers DIDN'T want to do. BTW, kudos to you both for being open to disagree and debate civily and not insult or censor the other - it is SO refreshingly extremely rare to see - its like a breath of fresh air. :)
Who said Lars missed when he shot at the dog while in the helicopter? It's the thing, it can repair itself. And plus he was trying to shoot a small moving target whilst in a moving helicopter(which is moving in 3 dimensions).
That's a very good take!
Not sure what the hatred on the CGI was. It didn’t harm the film. What I felt was bad was that the thing was always “exploding”. In Carpenter’s, the thing was transforming slowly and it gave it a disgusting, creepy vibe. In the prequel, we never had a chance to get creeped out
I looked it up, it's way older than the 2000's(ukulele). Just past antique age of about 110-115 years(as of 2021).
This film was done dirty with the prosthetics. They put in loads of work for the higher ups just to cover up their hard work. Even in a interview one of them tounge in cheek said "Yeah the special effects were not that great, it looked like something in the 80s" which is exactly what they were going for.
Norris said in Carpenter's film "the ice it's in is a 100,000 thousand years old, at least"
I honestly thought this was a massive channel with millions of views on every video.. i just realized you guys are a decent sized but relatively small channel for the quality and level of entertainment of the videos you're making im sure this channel will snowball and become massive at some point.
But Colin had an earring too, and we saw that the creature made the mistake of putting it in the wrong ear, so it would have learned to make sure it puts it in. So that theory doesn't hold up.
Temple of doom is a good prequel...
it really is not. Awful film.
@@stevenlornie1261 Hahaha! Fair enough. I love it though.
Been waiting for a a review of one of these thing films. Great content lads
Man y’all keep it real on every film. And very entertaining to watch. Been a fan since I’ve seen the George A Romero film reviews
I'm so fking glad I binged this channel and subbed a few month ago, seriously, I'd been missing out on so much! Classics, terrible classics, discovering new..old movies I'd missed and this October has been awesome so many uploads! As much as I miss gaming Fridays this has been awesome. Now to stop being a fan boy and watch the review...*sigh* why didn't they keep ALL the practical effects? They could have even blended it with the CGI. 😂
John Carpeneter must hold the distinction of most of his films being remade Assault on Precinct 13,Halloween,The Thing which is a prequel to his remake and the Fog
I can't believe you have only 15k subscribers This content is some of the best on TH-cam Simplistic and to the point The 1st thing I do on a Thursday morning is to check what review we are getting this week Until I subscribed I'd never heard of HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN or BREAKDOWN with KURT MOTHER FUCKING RUSSELL loved both of these movies Point is keep up the awesome content boys P.S would love to hear a review of either Salems Lot or Demons
It's ironic that The Thing (2011) was a pale imitation of The Thing (1982)
I think the ukulele issue is that he is playing a Fender Ukulele which wasn’t rolled out till the 2000s
Did you know the practical effects team were sat in the theatre unaware that there effects had been replaced by cgi
14:32 plants have different cell that animals , plus it is confirmed that thing cannot asimilate plants ( in the comicbooks series )
Is the comic book series considered canon? Because as long as the thing can imitate carbon based cells, theres no reason the thing couldn't imitate plant life, if it wanted or needed to.
The ukulele was first introduced into Hawaii in 1889, that's a little bit before the late-2000s.
I heard from another review of this movie that the "practical effects creators" went on to do harbinger down all practical! Can't remember if it's a screw you we'll show you CGI is not best practical still works. Or just to exercise they creativity.
Love your reviews guys, keep up the good work!
This is the perfect tonic I need right now!
59:03 Actually, there are several good prequels:
1 - The Godfather Part II
2 - Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom (Which takes place one year prior to the "Raiders of the lost ark"
3 - Batman Begins
4 - Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
The only film that's a real prequel on your list is Indiana Jones, the rest isn't. The Godfather Pt II has flashbacks, which is something entirely different.
I never knew the Temple of Doom was a prequel.You learn something new every day!
Gary's wrong about the Childs "revelation." It's entirely possible Childs could have been assimilated off screen and the Thing replaced his earring just like it would have replaced his clothes.
Sadly, for Childs and MacReady, the mystery remains.
It's not a mystery. The videogame explains that Childs died and wasn't a thing.
Not really. Childs had to be a Thing. At the end his breath did not smoke and McReady’s breath you could see.
You guys are wrong about Childs. He might be a Thing he might not.
He might have put his earring back in the correct ear.
I'd love to see the guys review Encounters Of The Spooky Kind (1980) or Mr Vampire (1985). Failing that The Untold Story aka Bunman (1992) a simultaneously disturbing and hilarious offering.
You were right about the elements you needed from the carpenter film, but the one glaring mistake that bothered me to no end was that they didn’t blow up the ship with thermite. In the carpenter film they were shown blowing up the ship to uncover it, but this one just has the ship try to activate and melt itself out. That could’ve explained your point about them not exploring the ship as well, since they blew it up and couldn’t. (It was also that way in the book too)
I've really liked this movie from the 1st time I saw it. I thought it was great we got to find why the axe was in the wall, the suicide guy in the radio room, the 2 connected bodies and of course the big blue ice tub.
To me it's not the CGI but the behavior which is illogical (not illigical for a rational being, but for a being focused on self-defense). The fight-or-flight (with flight being hiding) of the 1982 Thing makes more sense.
And boy I wish the pilot was visible, the internal part of the ship was quite a loss.
I am a movie quoting machine in my circles n one of my fave quotes to use is, "their Norwegian Mac" so the opening to this review was quite a treat
The Halvorson thing looked like something out of Bloodborne, good stuff!
they did make one big error between the 2 films. in the Carpenter version the ship was uncovered using thermite and severely damaged. The effects shots of the saucer still in ice show this. in this film it uncovers itself and is not damaged.
Liked this review. On the point about the Americans being there and the body count/ base count from the 1982 movie. It's established by Windows that it'd been weeks since they got any new information or word from any of the other camps. So it's fair to say the American outpost wasn't being updated on the goings on of the other camps and vice versa for quite some time. So unaccounted personnel could reasonably be explained.
Great review, guys! Lots to think about!
Gary's right. Any normal human would be infatuated with the ship. They should have kept it mostly covered, instead of showing the entire thing.
I have a copy of both movies edited together. Sometimes I watch that copy, sometimes I watch John Carpenter's movie.
I enjoy both.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't a two-faced monster. That was just one person whose entire skull was splitting/stretching completely apart in JCs' movie. I did like how they portrayed it in the 2011 version but it was incorrect. The UFO blowing up wasn't caused by a single grenade either. The whole team set thermite charges around the circumference of the UFO from the video footage found by the Americans in Outpost #31.
THE THING 2011
did what prequels
are supposed to do
set up the
original movie's story
to explain stuff that the
original
only showed or talked
about briefly
So in the comics the creature was legit surprised the humans fought being assimilated cause it thought it was doing them a favor, by assimilating all life on all planets everything would be 1 organism and thered be peace
The Ukelele was first popularized in mainland US in 1915, but it dates back to the 1800s in Hawaii. I looked it up, maybe you should....
I will never understand how you guys are not huge by now. Great review as always
I love these reviews, never stop!
While I thought it was pretty cool to see how the events transpired before the Carpenters Thing, it made it pretty much impossible to get attached to any of the characters in it because you knew they all died. SO there really was no suspense or terror in the whole thing.
Oh and by the way, the ukulele has been around a LONG time. Tiny Tim played it in the 60s and on.Tiptoe, through the tulips....
They did have headphones like that in 1982, it was really new and niche.
The trouble I had with this movie was the fact that in the 82 film we see the Norwegians plant explosives in their home movie footage.......and blow the ship up........but in the prequel it doesn't get blown up until the end when there's nobody left to plant explosives. Plus they plant the explosives in the day time.
“The ukulele didn’t come around til the late 2000s”
What were you on about mate? 😂
George Formby says hi.
0:27:20
that's terrifying
because
if anyone has seen
GROUPS of
WORMS or SNAKES
moving together
it's creepy looking
what book were you refering to when you talked about the plant assimilation?
"Who goes there"? or another piece of work after Carpenters film?
Did you read the short story on clarkes world magazine?
This prequel film is a disgrace to John carpenter's superb original this one has one of the stupidest moments happen in the movie when the thing has a chance to escape to civilization in a helicopter then reveals itself causing it to crash killing itself in the process then there's a similar scene when the Kate character is alone with the thing in disguise as the other woman of the group and trys to kill her again in a moment when the ailen didn't have to unmask itself.in the original the alien would only do this when it had no choice but in this film it does it when it doesn't need to and can stay hidden.
It makes no sense at all. In Carpenter's Thing it spends its entire time trying to build a ship to take it back to the spaceship after Blair destroys the helicopters and tanks. It knows that it can't make the journey to its ship on foot without getting frozen again.
In the prequel it literally has a fully functional helicopter that is heading to civilization where it can infect the entire earth and take over an entire planet. But instead it crashes its only source of transportation and risks burning in a fire.
Well then you weren't paying attention. The thing didn't attack until Carter decided to land the helicopter when he saw Kate flagging it down. The thing knew it had been compromised. It didn't just randomly attack.
You seem like my father. Pick apart every piece of the movie until its ruined just because you're picky. You like the first Jurassic park? He ruined that for me with the wall and how the rex just walked over the huge gap and the broken glass that gets fixed with the kids. You wanna pick apart every small detail you'll ruin a good film. Enjoy it. Stfu
I had to actually look it up but Fun Fact: The Signal they are getting at the beginning is the same one from Icarus 1 from Sunshine.
@17:10 Those were practical effects, if you would've watched the extra features. So yeah, it is really there.
See I dunno about Childs. We discover that the Thing cannot replicate inorganic material. But the final scene of the prequel shows that either they can take inorganic material and put it back in. However, if it turns out that it cannot and Childs is a human, Kate is a murderer. *Insert line from Childs*
Those practical effects looked horrifying! Such a shame. When you notice the CGI it takes away all the horror of the shot. However as a prequel this movie works for me, I still enjoyed the movie and I guess in my opinion that’s all that matters - to me
Yeah I didn’t do the alien ice sculpture was shown in the movie decide to rewatch it
The birth of the ukulele dates back to 1879 Gary lol.
Damn. Put in that work boys.
Edit: the original Stepford Wives would be perfect for this channel.
What a film! When I watched the remake I almost gagged on the terrible comedy angle!
Yes, one of my favorite horror movies. I'll never forget those souless black eyes.
Remember that you are reviewing this with 21st century eyes. When Carpenter's Thing came out, audiences hadn't seen anything like it before as far as FX is concerned.
Add to the fact that in the actual story of the thing the alien ship wasn,t there because the explosives used to unearth it also destroyed it entirely because of the ships magnesium hull both movies are somewhat inaccurate but can both be equally enjoyed for what they are