Will K 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.

BA_Harrison 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.

erolsabadosh I enjoyed the first film enough to check out the sequel but just barely. The Collector had a handful of decent moments peppered throughout a plot-hole riddled story and while some of the ideas were better than the execution it was slightly above average. This sequel is extremely average and forgettable. If you thought the premise of the first film was pretty far-fetched you haven't seen anything. All logic is thrown out of the window this time around and because the characters act without a shred of credibility it's difficult to really care what happens. It's still entertaining and funny to watch for its sheer stupidity but it would have probably benefited from either being more self-aware and revelling in its silliness or being more harrowing and gritty. As such it falls somewhere in the middle; moments of grisly violence and threat don't make much of an impact because nothing about the script is realistic. It's straight-faced absurdity with seemingly no intentional comedy. I did appreciate the continuity from the first film though, and the return of Josh Stuart's character Arkin was definitely welcome but this was a very different beast more focused on over-the-top action. One thing this film has in common with the first though is that there is absolutely no real horror here. Nothing about this film is scary, but there certainly are some nasty moments of violence although as I said it's not even close to being disturbing because of how silly it is. If you're bored and you're in the mood to watch something that's entertaining because of how stupid it is then this can be enjoyable, I definitely didn't hate it, but I didn't really like it either.

ericrnolan 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.