Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Dreadfully Boring

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

I quite liked "The Collector" (2009) and thought of it as a straightforward and unpretentious torture porn flick that was much more enjoyable than all the later "Saw"-sequels combined. It was a gory, raw and extremely brute film with finally a menacing serial killer clever enough to keep his mouth shut, and whose death traps were simplistic yet engrossingly effective. "The Collector" was a reasonably big hit at festivals and scored quite well among critics & audiences, and thus a sequel was inevitable. And what a prototypic horror sequel it became! "The Collection" is basically more of the same, except that the gore is more grotesque while the plot (and the death traps) are less inventive. You'll need a high dose of "suspension of disbelief" to swallow the opening sequences at the rave in the secluded underground night club. With a sort of self-constructed aerial combine harvester, the collector nastily slaughters at least a hundred party-goers. Can you imagine this happening for real? Not only would he go down in history as the sickest mass murderer of all times, but it would undoubtedly generate mass hysteria all over the world and set into motion the biggest manhunt ever. Instead, however, only a handful of mercenaries start hunting down the culprit. They are hired by the wealthy Mr. Peters, because his daughter Elena was found missing from the crime scene and confirmed to be still alive, since the collector's trademark is to always abduct one survivor to add to his titular "collection". The mercenaries force Arkin, miraculous survivor of the previous film, to join their team and track down the psycho killer to an abandoned hotel where his whacko collection is exhibited. But he's prepared for emergencies, obviously, and equipped his hideout with a large variety of death traps as well. "The Collection" is entertaining from a brainless horror point of view, with buckets of bloodletting and vile set-pieces (including a modern-day Iron Maiden), but the script is now uninspired, derivative and devoid of surprises. In the first film, Arkin and the rest of the victims found themselves trapped in an ordinary family house where seemingly normal spaces were turned into clever and unexpected booby-traps. Here, the killer is at his own turn, so you naturally expect every decor to be a disguised torture device. I'm always annoyed by the fact that serial killers in this type of films are so incredibly meticulous, perfectionist and well-prepared. With their organizing talents and technical skills, these people should be working for NASA and send rocket ships into space!

I'm not going to try and convince you that "The Collection"- the sequel to the underrated home-invasion thriller "The Collector"- is anything outside of exploitative "horror porn" for gore-hounds and fans of the original film. Because it's not. It's ridiculous from start-to- finish. Its plot merely a flimsy framework to justify a roller-coaster ride into depravity. Its characters ranging from generic canon-fodder to over-the-top caricatures. And its focus is almost exclusively on throwing as much nonstop gore and bat-crap insane imagery in the audiences face at every twist and turn.And I freaking love it!No, seriously. I will go on record saying that I think "The Collection" is just as good as the original in basically every single way because of one thing... honesty. This movie knows exactly what it is and what it wants to be, and it has no qualms about hiding this fact. It doesn't aspire to be more than it could possibly be and doesn't try to build a false facade of importance. It's up-front and in your face with its intentions. The creative team of Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton set out to make a completely psychotic sequel to their outstanding original, and by god they succeeded. And you're either in for the ride, or you're left in the dust.Some time after being taken by the mysterious "Collector", Arkin (Josh Stewart) manages to escape his captivity and flee to safety while his captor is distracted massacring teens in a memorable and wild opening sequence. But his freedom comes at a price- in his place, the Collector kidnaps Elena (Emma Fitzpatrick), the daughter of a wealthy and influential family. Soon after, Arkin is approached with a bargain- if he can use his knowledge of the Collector to help a team of hired mercenaries save Elena, he will be greatly rewarded. And so, Arkin must travel back to the lair of his enemy and infiltrate it if he has any hope of saving the girl. But what he and the others will find inside will be beyond anything they could have imagined, as they not only face the Collector himself... but learn what he does with his "collection."The movie fundamentally works thanks to its unapologetic dedication to giving audiences virtually everything they could want out of a sequel and then some, to the point it borders on self-parody at times... and yet, it always feels true to itself. The film's nuts. But it's nuts by design and it's clear everyone involved is having a blast putting on the craziest show possible. The body-count is bigger. The death- traps way more intricate. And the stakes suitably raised. From an opening murder-spree for the ages through intense sequences of characters stalking the halls of the Collector's lair to enormous brawls against the villain... it's everything the first film was, but ramped up many times. It's a twisted combo of action and bodily horror that I'd favorably compare to similar stellar-sequels such as "Aliens" or "Crank 2: High Voltage"... films that take what came before and give us roided-up, strung-out, no holds barred follow-ups.The core creative team is almost entirely intact and it's fun seeing where they take the story. Returning director/co-writer Marcus Dunstan is at the top of his game and revels in letting his twisted imagination loose on-screen. Much like in the original, his sharp sense of movement and composition lends itself well to the material, and he delivers some truly creative and captivating sequences of carnage that will leave you both laughing and completely revolted all at the same time. The script co-written with Melton is furious and quickly paced, with enough twists and turns and shocking developments to sink a ship. It's breathlessly action-packed and filled with plenty of scares and dark beats of humor. The performances are all fantastic, though Stewart and Fitzpatrick steal the show in basically every scene. They are both top-notch talents and elevate the wickedly fun script with their roles. I also admired the likes of Christopher McDonald and Lee Tergesen is strong supporting roles.Were I to point out any negatives, it's that the film does occasionally outreach its resources, leading to a few awkward moments and a handful of unintentionally amusing sequences where the effects don't quite hold up. This is clearly a $30 million film being made on a $10 million budget, and it shows with some wonky uses of cheap-looking digital stock-elements and obvious prosthetic "gore gags" that give themselves away. There's even a few key moments where you can see bursts of blood shooting out several feet in front of people that are being "killed" or even see where the blood-tubes are attached to the props because the film had to be made down-and-dirty with low-budget techniques... that don't hold up all that well when you pay close attention.Still, this is only a minor nitpick, as it doesn't really impact the film all that much outside of making a few deaths look slightly shoddy. And it definitely doesn't detract from the fact that I found "The Collection" to be a completely entertaining and very whacked-out sequel. Yes, the fact that it dives full-on into craziness and leaves logic and realism behind might turn off a lot of viewers. But I can't help but give my full recommendation to fans of the original. "The Collection" is just pure visceral fun. And thus, I give it the same score I gave the original- a very good 8 out of 10.

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.