The Collection (2012)

Fantastic!

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

Elena (Emma Fitzpatrick ) is the daughter of a wealthy man. When she is taken captive by the Collector (Randall Archer) at a rave, her father (Christopher McDonald) hires a SWAT team to go get her. They employ the services of the reluctant Arkin (Josh Stewart)the only man who has ever escaped from him.The Collector's warehouse is filled with booby traps. Plenty of blood and body parts. Light on "one on one" torture, relatively speaking. This movie simply goes through the motions. Let's put more killings in the feature and neglect a decent plot and characters. This is bordering on gore for sake of gore. If you are a big fan of "The Collector" and have been able to watch all "The Saw" movies without getting bored, you know you will watch this one too.For me, one gadget killing after another is getting tiresome. Can we have a pause for drama and plot?Parental Guide: F-bombs, brief nudity, no sex.

Let me start off by saying this has a great concept. The mere idea of it is so chilling and terrifying. However, the nauseating editing and lack of character development really ruin this movie and make it unbearable to get through.There is no reason to care about what is happening. None of the character's have any personality - literally zero. This film should have been thirty minutes longer so we could have had at least an ounce of character development. The characters who get killed are irrelevant and you don't care because you feel no attachment to them whatsoever. The editing - oh man. There are parts where they use slow motion, shaky cam and quick cuts and it is a mess. It is understandable the hotel they are in is a "maze", but the way the film is edited gives off the idea of a labyrinth where the locations make no sense in relation to each other. You don't get an idea of where the characters are in relation to each other and which way is "the right way" to go, so to speak. It doesn't create a sense of isolation - it's frustrating. Characters appear and disappear and it makes NO sense. The quick cuts make it even more confusing on getting a bearing of your surroundings.This is a fun movie that comes across more as a violent action movie than a horror. If you want some cheap thrills then this is a good movie for you. There is a really strong foundation here for a film, everything else is just piled on garbage that distracts from the good concept underneath.

I didn't realize while I was watching this film that it happens to be a sequel. I walked into this one knowing absolutely nothing about the previous film 'The Collector' (2009), so my view of this movie wasn't very knowledgeable of the overall plot between the two films. I watched it as a one off, and not sure how the first film affected the plot of this movie.The Collection is a gruesome series of trap-based murders, akin to the 'Saw' franchise. There is no denying it's influence on this film, as several people find themselves trapped in a warehouse of a serial killer known as "The Collector." An escaped victim of a mass slaughter, an former convict who had a run in with the killer in the past (watch the previous film to find out about that), and a band of soldiers/mercenaries looking for the main character. They find themselves being knocked off one by one, through various disgusting and nasty traps. As the victims fall to the killer's somewhat ridiculous traps, they get closer and closer to discovering who the killer really is.It's not a bad Horror/Thriller film. It has one of the worst beginnings of any horror I've ever seen however. The Collector is obviously some sort of wizard like engineer, being able to transform entire buildings into one giant death trap. I know you don't watch something like this for the plot, but this film is pretty absurd throughout its short run time. The lead actor and actress aren't awful, they stand above the rest of the cast, but I never felt scared throughout the movie. There was a bit of action elements in the middle, which was actually the best part of the film. There were some very decent knife fighting sequences in this movie. However, a horror should put you on the edge of your seat, and I kind of thought this movie was not successful for its genre. I realize that the author of this film has a reputation for 'funny' gore flicks, but this one wasn't funny or scary. It was just okay for me.Obviously if you are a fan of this genre you may simply enjoy the blood, traps, and gore, but I thought the whole thing was one big 'Saw' copy, that has the occasional moment or two.4/10

have to give "The Collection" an 8 out of 10.No, it's not a classic horror movie — it's derivative of the "Saw" movies, and it seems to result from too little thought by the screenwriters. The antagonist is a serial killer (and here a mass murderer) who employs extraordinary Rube Goldberg-esque machines to brutally trap his victims.We know nothing about how he arrived at his expertise. (He appears to be a demon-possessed Thomas Edison.) His choice of victims is random. His modus operandi is puzzling. (Why bringa prior victim to a new crime scene?) And we're not even shown how these machines work — only CG'ed tracking shots of cables and pulleys. Neither do we know why he has unarmed combat training that seems to approach the level of Batman's. And the question I was left with by the previous film ("The Collector," 2009) is still the most egregious omission — how on earth does our bad guy have time to invade a house or building and set all these things up?! There is SOME nice exposition about the killer's motivations in some closing dialogue, and it's wickedly interesting, but it's cut short.But, hey — this still got under my skin enough to be an effective horror movie. The opening action set-piece (YEESH!) was not only frightening, it was also something completely surprising. I knew bad things were afoot when we spot our horrible machinist lurking above, but … I didn't expect THAT.Even with almost no speaking lines, Randall Archer deserves credit for terrific physical acting throughout — not to mention some the best (worst?) crazy-evil eyes in horror film history. (Just LOOK at this mamajama in the second picture below.) Archer is a professional stuntman, and his movement and posture sell the role perfectly.Even better is the presence of Josh Stewart, who returns as the first movie's nuanced antihero. I'll say it again — I love this guy. He's a damned talented actor, and he deserves more leading roles in major films. He was even frikkin' awesome in his small role as Bane's craven little henchman in "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012).And Lee Tergeson, who I remember best as Beecher in HBO's "Oz" (1997-2003), is also great to watch.There are other nice touches too. Like its predecessor, this movie could be smart and creative when it tried. The use of a gun here is pretty clever, even if it seems obvious in retrospect. (I wouldn't have thought of that.) And the fate of some of our bad guy's past victims is both fresh and very disturbing. If those ideas had been expanded on much further, this film would have risen above its status as a "Saw" imitator.Finally, I love endings like the one we see here. I won't say more for fear of spoilers.