The Collection

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.

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.

"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.

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

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.