Commentaires des utilisateurs

"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.

Though this is the sequel to "The Collector" and ties in well with the ending of the first film, it actually has very little to do with the original. For starters, you have to forget the premise of the first as well as The Collectors modus operandi. Like the original, these films work well if you don't think... at all. Once you do you'll start spotting the massive gaping flaws in the story. So in this chapter, The Collector has upped his game and has gone after a club full of young adults. From which one survives. Luckily for her, she has a loving and rich father who will do anything to get her back... so he sends in his own band of mercenaries to get her out... okay, everybody, let's march into the blood-spattered decrepit hotel and chant at the top of your voices, "Let's Go Die, Let's Go Die". And so the carnage continues.

The thing which made the previous film so good is the same thing that makes this... the tension and suspense. Dunstan is a maestro at manipulating the pace and atmosphere to get you on the edge of your seat. Every time a trap is sprung you wonder how nasty it'll be... answer... very nasty. That's the second thing keeping the audiences attention, the kills and the action. There is a tonne of gore, enough to keep Hershall Lewis smiling in heaven, and plenty enough for the gorehounds.

Stewart is much better as Arkin in this film. It would appear that being the collector's plaything has added an extra depth or two to him. His motivation to escape is evident in every scene he's in. Lee Tergesen does a passable job as the hired killer Lucello. However, the rest of his merry men are ten-a-penny redshirts... proper cannon fodder. So, it would appear that the writers decided not to fill out their characters too much. Then there was Fitzpatrick as Elena, who was okay while she didn't say anything. However, when she did speak she spoke with wooden tongue.

The special effects were awesome, the re-breaking of Arkin's arm and the escape attempt is quite nearly sickening. The sewn together body parts is eerie and disturbing. And the traps are gruesome and deadly. Hopefully, all of this should be enough to satisfy, who needs a story, right(?)

The story really could have made this into a better and stronger film. In the original, all you had to do was forget that it takes time to jerry-rig a house with all the traps, the collector used - forgivable, for entertainment's sake.

The character of the collector breaks into a house and leaves a present for the homeowners. A trunk, inside of which is a tortured person from his previous escapade. This "Present" is for shock value to throw the prey into confusion and fear. Then he sets about torturing and killing everyone, but one, in the house... nobody lives.

This is even mentioned on a TV News Broadcast in the sequel. There's been a spree of home invasions with this MO. Even though it's the police being interviewed in the broadcast there appears to be no manhunt for The Collector. No Task Force. No FBI. Then there's a party at a secret location... not too secret as TC's had time to set up a really nasty combine harvester trap, which is rigged to the trunk, hidden away in one of the rooms of the derelict house. Boy, he was really hoping that somebody would be curious enough to go looking through a condemned building, so they'd set the trap off.

Then when we get to his hotel it just gets worse. Not only does this killer torture and murder homeowners but he must also be picking up people off the street judging by the number of dismembered cadavers laying around... Not only that, but he now has "The Collection" roaming around the place too. People too scared to try and escape. Most of which are high on drugs. TC must be cooking the stuff or he really is one sick rich dude. However, the strange thing is the traps in this place... a place that's his so he has all the time in the world to construct the best traps ever, but are really weak-assed. One of them is a hallway of plywood with nails knocked through them. They don't even move together. Another is a hallway full of bear traps. Which you can easily get through by just walking to the side of them. Damn this place really needed Kevin McCallister's touch.

Then there's the stitched together body parts. Looks, like TC's been watching The Human Centipede, what a sicko... This absolutely breaks with his persona. There is no way that he would do this. And then to arrange them in some kind of fluid inside glass canisters... believability is out the window.

Had the writers chosen, not to go down this path but to remain on the original and begin to explain TC's psychosis and background a little then it would have only helped to define the character better. The strongest films give their audience an inkling into the psychopath and his thinking. You know what's eating Norman, what's driving Michael, why Freddy is so evil, and even Jason gets a backstory and motivation. These add to the power of their characters and hopefully the films.

If you're a gorehound then this film is definitely for you. If you don't like blood then I'd recommend you stay away.

After the horrific events at the Chase family's home, and being captured by a brutal killer known as the Collector, Arkin (Josh Stewart) manages to escape his box prison and is recovering in hospital when he's approached by Lucello, an "employee" of an extremely wealthy businessman. Arkin learns that the businessman's daughter, Elena, has been kidnapped by the Collector and his help is required to get her back at any cost. Reluctantly willing to help, Arkin finds himself once again involved in a deadly game of survival, only this time the game is on the Collector's own turf.

After enjoying The Collector, I was looking forward to watching this sequel and while it's not as good as the first film I still found that it was worth the watch. This one definitely has much more of a Saw type of feel to it than the first as well which in one way is good because it generates a similar kind of dark, tense atmosphere but is bad in another way in that it's not very original BECAUSE it's just like Saw.

While there's a good amount of tension to this movie, I feel that it lacks the suspense of the first. The first had much more of a cat and mouse feel to it probably because it was in such a refined space like a house which brought about a good sense of claustrophobia. Here, even though the people are still trapped inside a building, it's a much bigger building and it just feels more open.

The movie comes at you right from the start and thankfully it keeps a decent pace. So many movies throw you right in at the deep end at the start but fail to keep you interested afterwards. The Collection doesn't do that, and after such an intense start, it keeps the pace up pretty well.

Gore fans should enjoy this one too, as that has been ramped up from the first one.

All in all, while The Collection isn't a cinematic masterpiece (and at least is doesn't pretend to be either), it's still a good movie to watch. Recommended, especially if you enjoy movies like Saw.

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.

I saw Collector (2009) around this time last year, and I enjoyed it. Ever since then I wanted to watch the sequel and finally got to see it.

If the first one was a home invasion thriller, this one is basically Saw + Crazy Action Film. It is different from the first one but it is great / crazy in its own way. More action heavy than the first one. The set design / gore / effects are the stand outs.

It is sad that the 3rd movie apparently got cancelled, but The Collection does work as a conclusion to this story I guess.

7.5/10 maybe 8?

The movie is engaging, paced quite well, and the acting is better then average for a film of it's class.

I've seen a lot of negative reviews and have to assume that their expectations were either for something different or just to high. Rarely is a sequel as good as the original movie but this one comes close, it's just a bit over the top at times and quite different then the first one.

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.

When Elena (Emma Fitzpatrick) is abducted by the sadistic serial killer known as 'The Collector' (Randall Archer), her wealthy father (Christopher McDonald) hires a team of mercenaries to locate the psycho's hideout, an abandoned hotel, to try and rescue the girl. Helping the team in their task is the only known survivor of the mask-wearing murderer, professional burglar Arkin (Josh Stewart).

The Collection, the sequel to gory 2009 horror The Collector, doesn't make a whole lot of sense, with a million and one plot-holes and characters who make the dumbest of decisions—but I don't care, 'cos it delivered precisely what I wanted from a film by the writer of the Feast sequels, the latter entries in the Saw series and Piranha 3DD: namely, tons of gore!

It's not long into the film that the nastiness begins, with an outrageously splattery sequence in a nightclub that sees an entire room of ravers reduced to a mass of messy body parts by several ingenious mechanical contraptions (like the Saw films, the killer is a dab hand at building the most complex of booby-traps and presumably has an endless supply of cash to fund his sick hobby).

From this moment on, The Collection is a gore-hound's dream, delivering one sickening scene after another, the camera lingering on every disgusting detail. The effects, both practical and CGI, are satisfyingly gut-churning, with one revolting moment involving a broken arm that I found very uncomfortable to watch, and it's not often that I can say that.

"Saw" and "Feast" series veterans Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan keep up their predilection for inventive nastiness in this intense, atmospheric production that is at least on a par with the original "The Collector". One still has to be prepared to suspend their disbelief quite a bit, but Melton and Dunstan do get high marks for showmanship, if not subtlety. The movie never tops an early set piece set in a club, which - aside from the plethora of digital gore - may have some horror fans howling in appreciation. As before, there are plenty of elaborate booby traps and torture devices, and characters who are mostly thinly written; many of them are just there to add to the body count. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

The much abused thief turned reluctant hero Arkin (Josh Stewart, returning from the first movie) has made it back to the real world, but a man named Lucello (Lee Tergesen) blackmails him into joining in an operation ordered by Mr. Peters (Christopher McDonald), whose daughter Elena (Emma Fitzpatrick) is the latest person to be abducted by the monstrous Collector (Randall Archer, replacing Juan Fernandez). Since Arkin is the only person who's seen inside the enormous "house of horror" created by The Collector, he's the obvious choice to lead this group inside and attempt to rescue Elena. Naturally, The Collector makes quick work of this hapless bunch of schmucks.

There's enough action and pace here - not to mention gore - to keep things watchable. Most of the acting is inane, but Stewart is as reasonably engaging as he was the first time. Archer is a passable villain. Tergesen proves to be completely bad ass, and Fitzpatrick does well as a young women, who despite a handicap - she wears a hearing aid - refuses to roll over and play victim. Everything leads to a pretty good, fiery finale, and a rather amusing coda. Director Dunstan makes sure that "The Collection" hits the ground running, and it's also appreciatively short in length (82 minutes all told).

Not bad if one just wants to relax their brain.

Seven out of 10.

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.

You can see by my summary that I don't think highly of this film. I also didn't think highly of the "Saw" movies. I watched this with few expectations of anything unique, new or original, and my expectations were met on every level.

Permit me to coin a term: Goresturbation. That's what the Saw movies were, and that's what this is. It's not even scary. It's just a collection (pardon the pun) of bloody scenes, always bloody, all the time for no real reason, and especially to NO GOOD EFFECT. If you like this movie after watching it, I question YOUR sanity. There is but one quality in this movie, and all 7 of the Saw movies, and the Feast movies: Gore. It's really not enough to make a movie, and yet die-hard fans flock to it and give it great reviews because lots of people get splattered. I guess I just expect more out of a movie, but unfortunately some other people seem to have severely lower expectations.

This film spits in the face of common sense, logic, good acting, worthwhile plot development, character development and almost every other facet of worthwhile movie making. The special effects were bad also.

But the part that really gets to me the most is how insulting it is. The writers assume that you'll just eat up whatever they hand you. They assume that they can get away with anything as long as there's gore. It's so amazingly inane that having the creators literally come to my home and spit in my soup could only be worse. And that means something coming from me! I LOVE bad movies, and I make allowance for anything if there's some real originality and creativity behind it, or at least attempted in it somewhere. But this had none of that. It's been done before. Seen before. 7 times in fact. This movie should be named "Saw: Regurgitated." It's crap. Event the music sucked.

The only part of this film that I found even remotely redeeming was the very small tribute to Dario Argento.

Now I'll try to find something good to say about it. Um.. the killer is the Batman of psychopaths. He has the benefit of crap-tons of money, an endless supply of time, a work force of hundreds of people designing his dungeons, the ingenuity of hundreds of mechanics, inventors, trappers, hunters and designers. And he's supremely intelligent and can hypnotize and reprogram people's minds for fun. He's also psychic and can predict people's movements and actions.

At least.. That's what he needs to be in order to make this film's bad guy even remotely plausible on the smallest level. Exactly the same as the Saw movies. Oh gosh darn! I'm getting confused. Was this movie different from the Saw movies at all?

I could go on about the actual plot inconsistencies, but I think I've wasted enough of your time. Thank you for reading. Trust me and waste less of your time and do not watch this movie.

The end.

'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

The Collection (2012) I recently grabbed off Vudu for $3.99. The storyline involves a woman who sneaks into an exclusive party only to discover The Collector has targeted this party with his next set of booby traps. A viscous killing spree begins where in the process the woman meets Arkin from the first film who may be the only person who can help her survive. Meanwhile, a group of mercenaries are hired to infiltrate the party and rescue survivors...sounds like an excuse for body count. This movie is directed by Marcus Dunstand (The Collector and Into the Dark) and stars Josh Stewart (Tenet), Emma Fitzpatrick (Before we Go), Christopher McDonald (Requiem for a Dream) and Lee Tergesen (Oz). These movies are a lot of fun with fantastic special effects, great kill sequences, and unpredictable traps that lead to a few good jumpy scenes. These movies are a bit too over the top in a "how could he plan for all that" kind of way, but it doesn't detract from the entertainment value of the film. These are very solid additions to the horror genre and must see for fans of the genre. I wouldn't put them in the classic category but would strongly recommend seeing them. I'd score this a 7-7.5/10.

So The Collection is one of the rare times I enjoyed a sequel more than the predecessor. Sure, the plot has severe holes in it, much like the first. The secret-underground-murder-club isn't very realistic, and the fact a team has been assembled that has the attitude of "shoot absolutely everything that moves even though we're trying to save someone" makes even less sense, but the gore is turned up by 10, and there's a little more character development, which is nice.

It was edited so similarly to the Saw franchise (even more so than the first) that it's very clear to see where the director drew his inspiration from. This isn't a bad thing, but choppy edits and excruciatingly-loud jumpscares get old pretty quickly.

Overall, much like the first but a tad more entertaining. 5.5/10

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".

I feel the rating is accurate with a 6 out of 10. Could be a 5 but it's a pretty good film, reminds me of Saw more than 'The Collector' did. Very gory and a little outrageous with the violence actually. It's not as realistic as the first one (even though neither are) simply based off of the first killing scene. No serial killer could get away with such crimes in reality especially one who studies bugs for a living and doesn't at least have military training to make him the badass he's portrayed as being. But I'm not going to be such a pessimist, it wasn't bad. It was a relatively short film so it's straight to the point. If you're a fan of violence and gore this is your film.