|Page 1 of 9:||        |
|Index||82 reviews in total|
"The Collection" is a fun, gory time at the movies. A sequel to "The
Collector", the story is about a serial killer who uses elaborate
contraptions to kill groups of people but he always seems to take one
away alive, and bring one of his "collection" to his next murder scene.
After a jaw-dropping opening sequence in a club, he snatches a girl who
is the daughter of a rich man. The man hires mercenaries to rescue her,
bringing along the survivor from the first film. So they head off to
The Collector's house of horrors to find her...
The film is pretty much non-stop action, violence, and gore. There are plot-holes a'plenty here -- the killer must be a multi-billionaire and able to control time and space to be able to do what he does, so too much thinking (heck, ANY thinking) will only damage your enjoyment of the film. But if you want to spend 90 minutes at a fun, gory flick, "The Collection" will do just fine.
So here is something new for me -- Watching a horror movie sequel, not
knowing it's a sequel, and it being good enough that I want to see the
original. Weird, huh? Don't get me wrong, it has it's faults. An
incredible body count that would draw the attention of the CIA, FBI,
and any local police much less the Criminal Minds-type teams. It's
completely impossible to have that many dead bodies in building and it
not just REEK of death to the point you can't go in. But... it's a
horror movie. Just go with it.
If you can just go with it, and you like really scary, psychological thrilling, torture-porn horror flicks like SAW, it's pretty good. It's certainly scary, quite unpredictable, and the acting is actually... not terrible. The plot is original. It's very gory. But it didn't come across as being all about the gore. It had you thinking, "What would I do if I was in that situation." Most of the time, my answer was - Sit down and cry.
I compare it to the Saw franchise, because it was written by some of the guys who wrote some of those, and because of the sadistic puzzles the people had to go through. But it really isn't the same as Saw because the plot was different. I would say if you like the Saw movies, you'd really enjoy this. If you didn't, don't waste you time. It's wouldn't be your type of film.
I gave it an 8 meaning it to be compared only to other horror movies, not to all movies in general. It certainly isn't for non-horror people. And it isn't a family film. Some of it was very hard to watch. I was proud of the fact that the ticket seller refused to sell a ticket to the 20-year-old in front of me trying to buy tickets for the 10 and 12 year olds she brought to this. It's not for kiddies at all.
I'm going to get part 1 (The Collector) on Netflix, then hope part 3 (if there is one) is as good.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
So at the start of the movie, I was thinking that this was going to be
epic, especially with the positive ratings I'd seen prior to the film
and the gruesome killing scene at the beginning of the movie, but then
the movie kind of didn't go anywhere after that.
Now I'm not one of those people who expects a lot from a horror film, but this film had no substance whatsoever. We didn't learn ANY back story about any of the characters, the most we know about the main characters is that the female (Lisa) had gotten into a car accident when she was a child and the male (Arkin) had a wife he sent off somewhere. There were only 2 flashbacks and the only purpose they served was to show the audience her connection to the guy hired to save her. Now a back-story isn't always necessary if the characters are interesting, BUT except for the lead male, Arkin, non of the characters stood out in any way, they were completely forgettable...so when one died, no one really cared.
Secondly, there were plot holes too big to ignore. The whole point of going to rescue the lead character (Lisa) was because the police haven't been able to find the "Collector" but then we learn that the guy who got away (Arkin),had inscribed directions to the place he was taken, on his arm. So if this guy knew how to find the Collector, why not just tell the police so that they can go in with a trained squat team? Also, Arkin knew what the inside of the hotel looked like and he knew that there were traps everywhere, so why would the hired men NOT think out a solid plan before going in? It could've definitely had an "Ocean's Eleven" or "Smokin Aces" like quality to it, which would've made the story more interesting.
Thirdly, the person hired to rescue Lisa, only took FOUR frickin people with him. I mean this Collector guy has killed over a 100 ppl (often murdering in masses) and he lives in a huge abandoned hotel and you decide to go in with only a team of FOUR ( 5 if u include Arkin)! Not to mention that the hired team of 4 were in no way prepared nor did they seem to have a plan...they all went in and died almost instantly - barely putting up a fight. At the start of the film, you assume that the father has hired these bad-asses to help his daughter but honestly, they were sort of useless.
Lastly, it wasn't really explained very well as to what the Collector was doing with all of the victims he had in his house. From what I gathered, he took at least one victim from his massacre with him and once he got them to his hotel, he would see who could survive. Now what he did with them after they survived was a mystery...we only know what he did with the weak victims. Also despite how great the murder scenes were, the fighting scenes were amateur at best...it was VERY obvious that it was choreographed and the movie wasn't scary in the slightest.
With that said, I can honestly say that this movie could've had a lot to offer...it had so much potential, which is why I'm so frustrated. The characters could've been developed more, so when they died off we'd actually feel something...anything. They could've developed the plot more by sending out a group of trained bad-asses in the hotel to sort of level out the playing field, as opposed to the four idiots who just got slaughtered. The only silver lining was the ending, which was unexpected but considering how disappointing the rest of it was, I couldn't take much pleasure from it.:/
Despite all of this, the acting isn't terrible and the effects are pretty amazing, so if you're bored this movie isn't a complete fail...I guess...
Following the events of the first film, Arkin (Josh Stewart) breaks out
of the insane maze devised by the Collector just as a rave is being
slaughtered on the level below him. Before he escapes, he sees Elana
(Emma Fitzpatrick) the daughter of a wealthy, vengeful father
(Christopher McDonald) who has created a team led by Lucello (Lee
Tergeson) to find his daughter. Arkin forces himself back into The
Collector's private hell to find the girl.
It is really required viewing to see the predecessor to understand the successor. Just as you can't understand a current Presidency without being told of what built up to it, history is important to understand the present. Before I saw the sequel, I took in 2010's "The Collector". It is an intense, harrowing nail-biter that I can't recommend more. The sequel is just as intense but lacks the finesse that the first had in spades.
We have our main character, Arkin, who is expertly played by Josh Stewart. In the first film, you understood more about what drove him and how he might have been clever enough to survive the devastating maze. In the sequel, he is less clever and less developed. With two films already made, perhaps another film is already in the works. I hope this one furthers the back story of our hero and paints him in starker contrast to the villain.
The story is really put into the relationship between the kidnapped girl, played by Emma Fitzpatrick, and Lee Tergeson's Lucello, the leader of the team trying to find her. Through flashbacks we see that Lucello saved the girl from a car accident long ago that left her father badly injured. But we never learn anything else about him. Who was he? What relationship did he have to the family? Why would he risk his life for this girl?
Finally we have The Collector, the demented freak who somehow has the means to construct the unholy traps that await anyone who is fool enough to feel his wrath. If you saw any of the "Saw" films only to see how twisted some minds can be, you'll be shocked at what the people who made this movie (repeat: it is only a movie) can come up with. The actor who wears that bizarre leather mask does a good job seeming scary and mysterious but doesn't do much else. He is obviously smarter than the average film butcher, why doesn't he act like it?
Besides some design flaws, the interior of the film remains relatively intact. It keeps your attention with a brisk pace and an energetic soundtrack that matched the feel of the scene Had the script been a bit more supportive on some biographies, you would feel for the characters as more than just expendable fodder for the Collector.
All in all, "The Collector" is a creepy, terrifying thrill that stands above any of the other horror we will see until "The Collected".
'THE COLLECTION': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five)
Sequel to the 2009 grisly slasher film 'THE COLLECTOR' once again written by horror meisters Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton and directed by Dunstan. Dunstan and Melton are the team that wrote all three 'FEAST' films, the last four 'SAW' films, 'PIRANHA 3DD' and the original 'COLLECTOR' (which Dunstan also directed). This installment has the survivor from the original film (Josh Stewart) leading a team of mercenaries into the warehouse of a deranged serial killer, he just escaped from, in order to rescue the daughter of a successful businessman. If you enjoyed the first film you're sure to love this follow-up. Everything is bigger, bloodier and more gruesomely entertaining (if you're a horror fan).
The film begins with Arkin (Stewart), the hero from the first film, escaping his captor 'The Collector' (played by stuntman Randall Archer this time) at a club where he brutally murders dozens of people. As he's escaping he witness Elena (Emma Fitzpatrick) being taken by 'The Collector'. He makes his way to a hospital where he's approached by a man named Lucello (Lee Tergesen) who wants Arkin to lead him and a team of mercenaries in to the killer's lair (a booby trapped warehouse) in order to rescue Elena. Lucello works for Elena's wealthy father, Mr. Peters (Christopher McDonald), and will stop at nothing to bring Elena back home to him. He forces Arkin to enter the warehouse with his team and into a maze of horror once again.
I heard one critic call the movie the 'ALIENS' of the series and that's an assessment I definitely agree with. It's a sequel that boldly expands on the mythology of the first and ups the bloody ante very aggressively (the body count goes through the roof)! It also follows a very similar formula to the James Cameron horror sequel classic; the sole survivor from the first film leads a team of gung ho mercenaries back in to the mouth of madness he just escaped from. If you're a fan of the genre and the original film you're sure to enjoy this installment, if you're not a fan you probably won't like the film. I really enjoy this series in particular and very much look forward to a third installment; I think it's the slasher genre done to perfection (just about). I hope enough other true fans discover this series in order for it to draw the cult following it deserves and continue it's bloody slasher film legacy.
Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9BHpPUnE8
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Recently, I re-watched The Collector in anticipation of the just recent
sequel: The Collection. I was all excited to write both reviews and
have some kind of double feature on my website. To my failed memory, I
already wrote the review of The Collector back on June 28, 2010 and
I wasn't kind.
With this second viewing of the first one, I favored it more, but then I've seen my share of grotesque/torture porn films since, so maybe I've become quite immuned to horrific scenes. For, my review was very clear in its warning to stay away for its over-the-top gruesome and shameless scenes of gore.
I will now begin my review of The Collection saying close to the same thing: STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE.
Sure, the gore's still here, albeit it's actually a tad-bit milder than the first time around. But, my warning is because of how incredibly bad this copy-cat sequel is all around.
Damn, where to begin? Terrible acting? Na, how about the incoherent plot, unrealistic actions of the characters, completely stolen ideas from ten-times-better screenplays? Or the zero background, and I mean: no explanation at all, to develop the main character that should've been included in this sequel? And let's talk about the dozens of deaths for the sake of for the reasoning of sorry, maybe the multiple writers are just plain sick.
The Saw series that this steals from heavily wasn't perfect, but at least it had direction. A goal and characters to latch onto, namely the central "villain." This low-rent fare is so all-over-the-place with way too many subplots and plot-holes that it's not even recommended to fans of the first one.
"The Collector," (now replaced from the original by Randall Archer I guess, Juan Fernández was smart to turn this down) wants to shred, literally, more than a few dozen of party-goers in order to collect one survivor. I'm only assuming this, as, again, they give such a small insight to anything going on, the viewer can only speculate what the writer/director was trying to convey.
Masked Man Collector does, in fact, get that one "special person," but, behold, he's being tracked (on his own turf) by that special unit that's off the grid by the angry father of said surviving victim. In this segment, think: Saw II meets Aliens, but only hell's depth worse.
I would be happy the charismatic thief from the original, Arkin (Josh Stewart) returned if he wasn't so dumbed down here and shares his unearthly ability to outwit someone completely prepared for victims with the new hero(ine) of the hopefully only-two-installment franchise, Elena (played very plainly by Emma Fitzpatrick.) Together, they quickly and absolutely absurdly come up with ingenious ways to survive the undocumented super-human Collector's every move.
I've seen ten men's share of terrible horror sequels, and while this isn't the absolute worse, it does rank high of awful horror film franchise's #2's #2. There is no redeeming quality of this and if anyone, myself included, had any problems with #1, wait until you get a load of this mess. SKIP IT!
"You're not strong enough, you're never gonna make it." Arkin (Stewart) escapes from The Collector's house and is going to the hospital trying to recover, before he can get there he is once again abducted and is forced to help a wealthy man rescue his daughter from yet another booby trapped house. Can Arkin survive another round of hell? I will admit that I did like the Saw series, but because of the actual story line and not because of the huge amounts of gore, although I will say that did add to the story. The Collector was trying so hard to be Saw but never quite got there. I'm not sure why they made a sequel but I sat down to watch. While this one had much more gore and many more people being cut up it was essentially the same movie as the first one. I realize people that watch these aren't in it for the plot, but there needs to be some difference to warrant a sequel I think. On the other hand this movie is pretty much just made for people who love gore so I could be wrong. Overall, a little over an hour of blood and dismembering, so if you are into that then this is for you. I give it a C-.
Wow. To start, I am a huge fan of The Collector. This film has no semblance to it's precursor. It is the worst, laziest pantomime of a Saw film bordering on parody. The editing is abysmal with nonsensical smash-cuts in the action sequences that will make your brain hurt. While The Collector definitely lacked in the logistics department, it more than made up for it in direction, framing, tension, mildly clever visual metaphors and the pivotal plot elements. The Collection dumps all that out the window and goes for a straight up poor man's Die Hard. The setup is beyond paper-thin, the characters unsympathetic, undeveloped, and uninteresting. Goddard must have had to push pretty hard for this to get green lit...but I don't understand why. This was clearly phoned in, rushed, uninspired and no care taken in it's development...yet a third film is teased in the epilogue.
I assume you have seen the first movie (called The Collector), by the
same director. While it seems he only directs this series, he also has
credits as writer (for the Feast and the Piranha 3DD and other "funny"
horror movies). Now this has some funny moments too, it does look good
(on Blu Ray), but it also almost plays more like an action movie than a
straight horror movie.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. You just need to be aware of it. There still will be blood and you will get some crazy traps (which might remind you of things that could also have been in Saw). The movie itself as a sequel reminds me more of the direct sequel to "Laid to Rest". That was more action orientated as well. But I'm not trying to put it into a box ... ;o)
Seriously though: Good enough acting, the obvious plot holes and a nice ending. I also suggest you watch the "alternate scenes" on the disc! There is an extended ending there, plus a different "fate" for one of the "crew". You see when you watch the movie.
The Collection (2012)
** (out of 4)
Arkin (Josh Stewart), the survivor from THE COLLECTOR, is forced into the warehouse of the killer by a group of professional hunters so that they can rescue a girl (Emma Fitzpatrick) who has been kidnapped. The group soon find themselves in a deadly game that has them entertaining one rigged room after another. THE COLLECTION is a sequel to the 2009 film that I'm not sure anyone was really asking for. I thought THE COLLECTOR was an entertaining, if flawed, movie that managed to have a few good things going for it. THE COLLECTION is certainly very flawed and has a bit of "been there, done that" but at the same time it's still a little better than most of the horror films from this year. As usual, director Marcus Dunstan offers viewers plenty of violence and gore. If you're wanting a gore feast then this here will certainly keep you happy as bodies are ripped to shreds in a variety of ways including a rather clever way to start the picture. I'm not going to give away what happens in the club but it was pretty wild and certainly memorable. I also think that the two lead characters are pretty good and they at least make you like them and want to see them work their way through this deadly maze. Both Stewart and Fitzpatrick offer up fine performances and help keep the film moving. The biggest problem with the film is that there's zero tension. This here is really too bad because had there been some sort of tension or drama then the film would have worked so much better. Since we're on this cat and mouse ride, the lack of any tension just makes everything feel rather routine and the deja vu from the first film is certainly here. Still, gore fans should enjoy the picture and it's cruel ways to destroy the human body.
|Page 1 of 9:||        |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|