In concept, this movie is pretty awesome, and at first the movie seems to have the style to match. However, once the movie really starts going it becomes apparent that each trap and related death scenes are designed to be as cringe inducing as possible. Which is all well and good, but it makes it difficult to re-watch. If you found Saw II even slightly disturbing, then this movie is definitely not for you. One particular aspect of the movie that is interesting is the insect theme but, other than a brief moment with a jar of cockroaches, it never really inspires any scenes in the movie. (This is also never really touched on in the sequel either)
Add a Review
-
AelitaAlbarn9 September 2019
-
BA_Harrison3 June 2010An ex-con, desperate to help pay his ex-wife's debts, breaks into the seemingly deserted house of his employer, only to find that he isn't alone: a twisted nut-job in a gimp mask has taken the owner and his wife captive and has littered the building with deadly traps.
The masked killer in The Collector has got to be one of the most organised and productive psychos in movie history. In one evening, he not only takes prisoner and tortures a married couple, but he also finds time to install numerous booby traps in their mansion, ranging from simple 'bear traps on the living room floor' to the more complex 'accidentally touch this filament and a chuffing great blade will swing down and cause you much pain'. I don't know about you, but it takes me the best part of a day to put up a bloody shelf.
The thing that really puzzles me, though, is why he bothers with all of these devices in the first place since he's already trapped most of the family (the youngest daughter is hiding in one of the many rooms), and the oldest daughter (played by buxom babe Madeline Zima, who kindly provides the requisite topless scene) surely wouldn't represent much of a problem when she returns from her evening out with her boyfriend. Still, without the traps there wouldn't be much of a film, and since I had a lot of fun watching the characters meet their gruesome fates via various ingenious means, I'm willing to be a little forgiving about both lack of logic and motive.
It's clear that what matters most to director Marcus Dunstan is not explaining why and how his killer does what he does, but rather that his film creates a palpable sense of dread—which it does—and that people die horribly— which they do. Dunstan successfully builds a decent amount of suspense and atmosphere and sure doesn't hold back on the graphic stuff, delivering plenty of moments that'll be particularly uncomfortable viewing for the more squeamish of movie-goers: amongst the gory treats we get a delightfully bloody death by bear-trap, a disembowelled body, finger chopping, impalement on spikes, fish hooks in the face, a mouth being sewn closed, and a cat slowly dissolved in acid before being sliced in half!
And since there's nothing quite like a half-melted moggy being bisected by a window rigged with a guillotine, I'm happy to—despite the flaws in the narrative—rate The Collector a pretty decent 6.5/10, rounded up to 7/10 for IMDb. -
callanvass4 September 2013I've been a fool. I tried watching this a few years ago, and couldn't finish it. That inkling to give it another go just wouldn't go away. Well. Guess what? Not only did I watch the whole movie, but I wound up digging it for the most part! The comparisons to the Saw franchise are apt, I suppose. But the Saw series started to become redundant. The Collector is much more than just another cash-in attempt to make some coin. Director Marcus Dunstain clearly had a vision with this one. The killer in this one is not someone that asks questions. Jigsaw was a nasty individual as well, but he had a motive for doing what he was doing, a reason if you will. The Collector (Creepily played by Juan Fernandez) just likes to hurt people. He's gleefully psychotic and kills people in the most sickening ways imaginable for his own demented pleasures. There is no background on this guy, and that makes him all the more terrifying. In some ways that could have worked against it, but I didn't feel it was needed here, and added to the atmosphere. The gore scenes deliver. I won't spoil them, but gore hounds will be replenished for their thirst. My only real carps are I wish the finale went on a tad longer, and that is was hard to make out what was going in a couple scenes because I had trouble seeing. It was a bit too dark. William Prael plays for a very good reluctant hero. His desperation had me rooting for him. I enjoyed him a lot
Final Thoughts: Sometimes a second viewing does wonders. It sure did with the Collector. It's not perfect, but it's a highly suspenseful thrill ride that lacks the budget of a Saw, but is arguably better than a lot of the Saw sequels. Recommended. I'm looking forward to The Collection!
6.5/10 -
Cujo10831 July 2010Arkin is an ex-con turned handyman who cases the houses that he works on. When his wife needs money to pay off some dangerous loan sharks, he decides to break into the house that he's currently fixing up, that of the wealthy Chase family, ahead of schedule. The family is all set to go on a vacation, so he figures it shouldn't be too much of a problem. When he hits the house late at night, everything seems normal aside from a suspicious guard dog leashed in the front yard. Arkin shrugs it off and goes for the safe, but while attempting to crack the combination, he hears someone moving about in the house. You see, Arkin isn't the only intruder on the property. A sadistic madman has beaten him to the punch, only he isn't interested in collecting gemstones. He's interested in collecting people that he deems worthy, and those that he doesn't will meet a most unpleasant end.
Going into this film on the weekend of it's theatrical release, at the very least I had hoped for a pleasant diversion. It had certainly caught my eye, but the director's connection with the atrocious Saw franchise gave me reservations. Fortunately, not only did I have nothing to worry about, but seeing it wound up being the best time I had in a theater last year. What transpires for the majority of the film's running time is a tense game of cat and mouse between Arkin and the collector. You can tell that the latter suspects someone else is running around the house, but Arkin manages to avoid him while trying to rescue the family in the process. In fact, the collector never would have known about Arkin, as he was out of the house without ever having been spotted. That damn kid!
Marcus Dunstan and his crew really did a lot with the budget they had. The film has a unique look and sound design. The look is a large part of what drew me to the film in the first place back when the TV spots were airing. Solid use of music as well. It's fierce, it's visceral and it's nasty, but the atmosphere created here is what sets the thing apart from others. That and the collector himself, a wicked villain who goes after his victims with an intensity that I found refreshing. No slow slasher walk here. The eyes were a nice touch too, reflective like those of an animal.
The security system from Hell is an intriguing twist on your typical home invasion setup. It certainly makes for some unique situations. There's a different trap around every corner, so no running at full blast to make an escape and you had better watch where you fall. The boyfriend's fate is the film's best set piece, almost Grand Guignol in it's execution. There's also one demise that can best be described as human flypaper.
There are some suspension of disbelief flaws in there, but I enjoyed the ride too much to really mind in this case. It's a mean horror film that is strong on mood and takes itself seriously. Hard to believe it's from the guys behind various Saw movies, as I can't stand any of those. -
bihaughs3 August 2009for horror movie fans, 'The Collector' has everything you would want and nothing you expect. From the writers of 'Saw 4-6' comes a new chapter in America's love affair with the sub-genre known as "torture porn". To me it plays more like an R-rated 'Home Alone'. You know, if Macauley Culkin's traps were made VERY effective.
I was expecting a standard horror/slasher flick when taking my seat and was pleasantly surprised. the opening credits mix somewhere between the opening sequence of 'Se7en' and a Tool music video, sets up perfectly the mood in which you will spend the next hour and a half. confused but intrigued. freaked out but with a big grin on your face. there is plenty of gore for fans but not nearly as much as one would expect from graduates of the Saw school of horror. whilst our "hero" sneaks amongst the booby-trapped household trying not to set up a carpet of steel bear traps (awesome!) or tripwires connected to swinging blades of death (also nice), perhaps the creepiest thing in the movie is the way in which the director (sparingly) uses the killer. We rarely actually see him acting out his brutality upon his victims. But when crouched in a corner, watching two hot young teens do what they do best, and the light reflects off of the corneas of his dead eyes hidden behind that odd silk mask... yeesh! Another pleasant surprise to the film is it's use of quiet, a rarity in horror movies (especially torture porn). Most of the film's action is in hiding which means the protagonist must avoid detection at all times. There were screams in the theater, but about 89% of those were coming from the audience.
I would definitely recommend this to a movie fan with a strong gut and a healthy sense of "what's going to be behind Door #3?" curiosity. Bonus points for being the fist movie to actually visualize the classic childhood game of "Can't-Touch-the-Floor-Because-the-Floor-is-Hot-Lava" well played -
andrewchristianjr22 August 2021Ngl, this movie actually was pretty decent, it was terrifying, creepy, disturbing, and twisted. It had a decent plot. And a very intense sequence to thrills and chills. The first act maybe could have explained the killer more, because we dont get a description of why. But we get a good horror thriller throughout.
-
Siamois11 February 2010As the story of the Collector unfolds, it quickly becomes obvious that writer/director Marcus Dunstan is knowledgeable when it comes to the horror genre and knows what makes people click.
First, there is a 70s/80s feel to this movie. From the dirty-ish cinematography to the pacing, editing and the casting choices, a lot of this reminds me of the less polished horror films of these decades.
One of the aspects where this movie shines is with its protagonist Arkin. A down-on-his- luck handyman struggling to pay his bills. Josh Stewart was a revelation for me in this role. I can't wait to see what the future has in store for this actor. Is he a one-note actor who was perfectly cast or is this some serious talent? I for one would lean toward the latter. Stewart is perfect in making us feel Arkin is a decent guy with a will of is own but just suffers from a total lack of respect by the people around him. He oozes charisma despite the "loser" role he has to work with and reminds me a little bit of Sean Penn. What makes the film effective is really exploring the character of Arkin early on. There is a simple situation driving this man to do what he is about to do and we can relate to him.
Unfortunately, the movie begins to lose steam when Arkin gets inside the house. At first, the traps and situations are intriguing. But character and story development halts to a crawl. Who is the collector and what is the meaning of this collection? We don't really know and Dunstan doesn't seem to care in the least. Themes explored throughout the movies? Again, doesn't seem very relevant.
As the story progresses, the traps become the star of the film and the whole thing seems more and more far-fetched. What should be the meat around the bone becomes the entire movie. The concept seems more like the latest horror gimmick. It's a somewhat interesting and entertaining one but one must deplore all the character development of Arkin if the rest of the movie was really just about mindless fun.
All in all, this is a solid movie reminiscent of the trashy, dirty 70s and early 80s horror flicks. But it seems to be lacking in themes and symbolism that made those movies so great and I sensed the writing lost its purpose mid-way. I also deplore what I sense like a desperate attempt to build a franchise, as opposed to make a great movie. The movie seems like a setup for sequels, a TV series pilot more than a single work of art to be enjoyed.
The movie deserves a 5.5 and is relatively well-done. If this review seems harsh, it's just that the first half hour or so lets you think the movie will be much more powerful than it actually ends up being.
Very curious to see if a sequel will be done for this one. -
czjrox_24 August 2009The Collector, a new horror that's trying to bring about a new horror icon such as Michael Myers or Freddy Krueger, had good intentions but ultimately fails. The basic summary is an ex con skilled at opening safes, decides to invade the family's home (while they're on vacation) where he has been doing housework to steal a jewel intended on paying his wife's debt. But when he enters the house he discovers that not only has the family not left, but they're being held captive by a man known only as The Collector. Their only hope, the con is forced to race against the clock to save the family from the madman and find the missing daughter who's hiding in the house. There's just one problem: The Collector has rigged the entire house with boobytraps intent on killing those who trip the wire.
Overall, the entire thing is just too unbelievable. I couldn't even enjoy the clever mastery of the tricks, for they were too far fetched. The acting was sub-par, especially from the leading hero. He was as dry as unbuttered toast and I found myself not being able to care less if he lived or died. And it's obvious from the beginning that the movie is trying to re-invent a classic horror movie and icon so everyone dies, lamely and The Collector, while very much human, never portrays a scar. The basic point is that films like this are just getting old. I'm begging, begging for some originality, but won't receive it from this film. -
lukenolan-0187717 March 2019If you can sit tight for the first 20 minutes which is a little slow your soon rewarded with a tense on the edge of your seat violent bloody thriller/horror were you find yourself rooting for the better of the villains you would usually hate but end up screaming at the tv in support of. Iv watched this loads of times now and still love this film please watch
-
The movie has a very strong beginning. But when you get to the end (or maybe even very early on into the movie), you will realize that there are quite a few flaws in this movie. There might some elaborate ideas involved, but you can't help but wonder why? Especially because there are just so many easier ways to get what you need. On the other hand you could also say, that there might be no way, that someone who is crazy can know that.
Of course this is a horror movie (the tag on the cover/poster should be a giveaway) and so you will have quite a few bloody scenes in the movie (I think it is not yet available, completely uncut in Germany), so you should know that this is not so much a psychological movie (a bit too), but more a movie about violence. Question is, do you really want to watch that? You could talk about an "overkill" of an idea, but that pun would be too easy. And in the end, it's not completely bad ... I just wished it had stayed with the strong beginning -
chicagopoetry25 September 2009I'm still scratching my head trying to figure The Collector out. A guy who gets a job as a pest exterminator (right?) returns to the home of his employer to rip him off of some big diamond only to find the house has been taken over by yet another invincible maniac in a mask (how original) who has, wait a minute, set intricate traps throughout the entire mansion using wires and fish hooks and bear traps and spears and gummy bears (no not really) and so many wild gadgets that it would have taken a semi-truck to deliver it all, not to mention a spool of wire the size of a living room. Okey dokey, I guess it doesn't matter if it makes sense, because the lighting is good, think Saw sequel ripoff, the traps are like a demented Home Alone meets Last House On The Left, someone is screaming bloody murder in just about every scene, there is a small child that needs to be saved, and, ah, let us not forget, there is an invincible maniac in a mask killing everyone. Isn't that just what the world needs, another movie about an invincible maniac in a mask killing everyone. Since I saw this the day after seeing Laid To Rest, I can't help but to compare the two. At least Laid To Rest knows what it is and isn't trying to be so artsy fartsy about an hour and a half of torture and brutal murder. The truly sick thing about this movie it is that it is so well made on such a big budget with such thought put into it, that it is nothing less than a sin that all that talent went to waste on yet another BS movie about an invincible maniac in a mask killing everyone. Freakin' get a script!!!!
-
tim-danaher20 June 2010Pleasantly surprised since this is a way-above average shocker. Unpleasantly surprised because there's an awful lot of unpleasant surprises!
This had me jumping, open-mouthed, rewinding to check that I'd REALLY just seen what I saw...I don't think I've been as jumpy as this since the tower scene in 'In Bruges'.The editing of the gore scenes was brilliantly done, adding to the tension and the in- your-face, jumping-out-of-the-shadows quality. I'm also surprised that the writers and director were able to keep the ending they did: I thought it would have been preview- screened out of existence.
The film did take a while to get going, but when it hits its stride...phew! Although I'd never seen any of the actors before, the performances were top- notch.
Makes the last SAW films look like a teddy-bear's picnic...apparently, it was written by the writers of the last few SAW movies. They seem to have found their form again. -
YellowTea27 May 2021Take off your thinking cap and just enjoy the nail-biting game of cat and mouse. No, you can't ask me or anyone else how the quasi-human collector placed traps everywhere so quickly. Don't ask questions.
If you can get past the obvious questions regarding the far-fetched nature of it, then you'll probably enjoy it. Remember that movies shouldn't always be expected to comply with the laws of reality, if they were, they wouldn't be as interesting.
I'd say it's in my top 15 or so horrors. -
I signed up for IMDb just so I could vent on how much I HATE this movie. It begins with the most horrible character introductions and dialogue that I have ever heard. I can only describe it by calling it a "scary soap opera." My friends and I literally spent the first 15-20 minutes of the movie laughing. But we figured that wasn't why you watched horror movies anyway so we kept going with it.
Then as it moved into the more intense part of the movie, it just got worse. The main character Arkin, has scoped out a house that he's going to rob to pay child support (an attempt at character development?). He goes in the house while the family is supposedly away, and in the time that it took Arkin to crack one number on their safe, the collector has managed to set elaborate traps in EVERY ROOM of the house. The next twenty minutes of the movie are spent watching Arkin wander aimlessly through the house finding the traps and making pathetic attempts to escape. Then we find out that the family is already captured inside the house! Why on earth did he set traps??? For himself?? For random burglars that are coincidentally breaking into the house at the same time (does this happen often?)?? For any teenagers that just want to have sex in the house?? How convenient! All of those happened!
And just when you think that at least the ending MAY be decent, that gets ruined too! You spend 90 minutes watching this guy that you never really cared about finally escape from this house, just to watch him get smashed by the police coming to save him. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry or just punch the wall so I literally stood up and walked out of the room cursing the fact that I had just WASTED an hour and a half of life.
That's how bad it was. Pathetic. -
fedor825 December 2012It started some time in the 90s, roughly. The typical big-screen serial-killer's power, stamina, skills, intelligence, and incredible luck grew with every additional retarded thriller. Eventually – and this was a natural progression of the retarded regression of this increasingly cretinous sub-genre – the serial-killer acquired magical powers as well, but without becoming a ghost or a demon (which is the only way all this illogical piffle could be half-way justified). This is when the movie serial-killer became invincible. By the 00s, he had as much power as all the Nordic and Hindu gods combined, and then some. TC: another recent entry in a long line of such amazingly mindless little filmic concoctions. If green, bug-eyed aliens ever invade us and slaughter us all, they might one day find a copy of TC, watch it, and then realize: "Yup, we were right all along. We did the right thing."
The "Collector" (duh name) is a man (not a creature) who has no rhyme, reason, or purpose. He simply shows up at a random household, kills and tortures everyone in sight, but has a generally friendly relationship with spiders and large blood-sucking cockroaches (which he keeps in jars and occasionally feeds with blood pouring out of his victims' stomachs). We are told by his bloodied and beaten up "bait" that the Collector "kills people he doesn't need, and keeps those he wants". (Huh?) Not in one scene is there the slightest indication that this might be true; he kills everyone. Besides, what would he keep any of those dumb stereotypes captive for? They're awfully-written Tinseltown characters; who the hell needs them? I certainly don't. So in a sense "the collector" is quite right to kill them all, but while he's at it he should have gone for the writers' and the director's throats, too, and then jumped off a cliff: the only way to get rid of ALL of the wasteful carbon-based debris here.
Nor is it even clear how the hell "bait" knows this about "the collector", considering that the killer doesn't utter a word during the entire movie. I can't quite picture the killer driving, with "bait" sitting in the back of the van in his box, the two holding a conversation: "Well, you know, I keep those I want and kill those I don't want. That's kinda my shtick." In fact, when the movie finishes, you are none-the-wiser about either the killer's appearance, motivation or his background. He starts off as the perennial non-descript Man In The Mask, and he leaves the movie as the Man In The Mask, pissing off in his van. The point? None. What have we gained from TC? Diarrhea. The writers didn't even bother to give us a back-story, not even vague clues to it. To return the favour, I won't bother to watch anything else they ever did or will do in the future; certainly a great way to build up a fan-base.
The killer manages to set about a gazillion booby-traps within a single night, a workload that a team of experts would be required for, working for at least a day. The booby-traps are so intricate and spread out that it would require slow tip-toe walking – at all times – for this so-called "collector" to even move about the house without falling into any of them, especially since it is dark half the time. He has super-human strength (and this description might be considered an insult by "the collector" because his physical prowess is about 1000 times larger than super-human), and yet the burglar manages to throw him around the kitchen like a rag doll. Even sillier, by that point the burglar shouldn't have had energy left to punch out a baby seal, let alone a killer with Jedi powers; the burglar had already been cut, butchered, tortured, burned, slashed and diced Perhaps he too has super-human powers? Why would I even ask this question: of course he does.
As does the little girl. Her very predictable survival is just one of the many symptoms of the clichéd script. Somehow she manages to achieve what none of the seven adults had. Not the only predictable plot-device or turn of events: did the writers of this tired script actually think that we didn't anticipate that the burglar would be hit by a police car? That's the oldest shtick in the book. What we could NOT anticipate however was that the writers would actually get "the collector" to ram his car against the ambulance and then pick up the burglar, whom he then very predictably sticks into his "bait-box" - nevermind the dozen police cars all around.
Just so the film-makers ensured that we know that everyone in this movie is either a mindless zombie moron or a hell-fire demon-god, the burglar actually CARES about the fact that he's got the diamond, and even ASKS the ambulance technician what time it is so that he can deliver it on time to his loser wife. That scene could have been so funny – in a silly ZAZ comedy. Why would they include such a goofy, funny moment in a sadistic-killer-on-the-loose thriller. I am so SURPRISED that such a perfectly put-together movie would have such a silly glitch.
But it's me who's silly; I am actually trying to tie some of these dumb shenanigans to the real world. TC's parallel universe makes the "Hellraiser" franchise seem like a BBC science documentary series. There is nothing in this run-of-the-mill flick that even remotely has to do with the world we humans inhabit. This ridiculous "story" might as well be set on planet Zong. -
Evvzz7720 August 2022A fun movie with lots of gore and interesting traps. Overall the movie was enjoyable but I found myself getting bored and losing interest during some parts of the movie . Definitely still worth watching in my opinion.
-
Carlnivirous2 June 2010I came across this film by accident, I didn't read anything up on this, and as the film started to pan out it seemed like this was going to be a run of the mill heist type of film, with the added cliché of a father trying to dote on his daughter, with a angry ex-wife.
I was soon mistaken and taken into what can only be described as Saw meets the cube, The easy heist changes to a deadly game of cat and mouse amongst a house laden with traps set by an unknown masked man, who doesn't seem to talk and has these really creepy eyes that, is he a deranged psycho killer, or a demon? no one knows. Twits and turns as the crook tries to sneak his way out, he gains a conscience and tries to help others that have been captured. The motive for the masked man is apparently unknown, maybe he gets a kick out of it. This film is a mix of Hostel meets Saw with a hint of the cube. -
lawrencebugboy13 July 2013This movie was a waste of time. I literally wish I had used my time to do something else, because the majority of the film was hard to take, and the ending sucked. Only the little girl gets out, and nothing about the main character is resolved. It made me want to punch the writer in the face. It seemed like the point at the end was that there was no redemption or justice. Further, the plot was laughable, because it was not realistic at all. There's no way someone could booby-trap a house so quickly, and the writer or director seemed intent on frustrating his/her audience. Needless to say, I don't plan on watching the first movie, or the Saw series for that matter.
-
brentn13 February 2021I am a Marcus Dunstan fan ever since I saw Feast. However, Feast was a comedic gore fest with crude humour and boisterous characters, Dunstan has opted to take a different path with this film.
Arkin O'Brien (Stewart) moonlights as a cat burglar but during the day he does handyman work for a well off family in the sticks. As his girlfriends debt deadline nears, Arkin is forced to use his skills against his clients home and crack the safe to steal some high priced goods. Unbeknownst to him a serial killer, The Collector, has taken the family hostage in their home in order to commit his nefarious need to kill and collect. Cat and mouse games ensue while Arkin attempts to escape the killer and rescue the family.
This flew under the radar for most and did not have a theatrical release that was very noticeable but then again neither did Shawshank. This movie proves that a small budget and decent camera work can earn you a loyal fan base. The 3rd installment will be release sometime this year and this reviewer can't wait. The The collection was also a worthy sequel which explores the killer a bit more. Watch the whole series it's better than most. -
neil-47630 June 2010I went into this movie knowing nothing about it and, for a while, I had high hopes. It starts with an unnerving sequence of a couple arriving home to a power outage and finding a luggage trunk in their bedroom which, when opened, leads to screaming and I'm-not-quite-sure-what. Then, after the titles, we meet a crew of assorted handymen, builders etc. who are working on a house owned by a dad, mum, teenage daughter and pre-teen daughter, who are about to leave on vacation. One of the workers, Arkin (Josh Stewart) is both creepy and sympathetic at the same time, and generates a feeling of unease in the audience. We then discover that his wife owes a large amount to loan sharks, that Arkin has criminal connections, and that he intends to burgle the house he has been working on in order to get the money necessary to pay the loan sharks.
So far so good - we have intriguing story elements, a sense of unease, and a sense of suspense. Unfortunately, when the burglary begins, the whole thing falls down. Arkin stumbles into a situation where an unknown psycho has set multiple traps up throughout the house, and a series of Saw-style torture episodes ensues with Arkin becoming the reluctant would-be saviour of the captive family. It's all rather familiar, and done perfectly satisfactorily in its own way, but another torture-porn movie falls short of the interesting developments promised by the opening 20 minutes or so.
And the ending irritated me. This would have been an ideal opportunity for the psycho to have actually got his comeuppance. But no, the completely expected unexpected twist took place, leaving Arkin's wife's loan shark plot thread unresolved but (of course) leaving the way open for The Collector II.
This is not to say that there isn't stuff to enjoy here. The cinematography is excellent, suspense is well maintained in a claustrophobic setting, and Madeline Zima as daughter Jill displays some impressive bosoms.
But it could all have been so much better. -
Exceedingly violent, exceedingly brutal and exceedingly sadistic! It's a film that literally glamorizes sadistic brutality and torture! And it's very difficult to watch. For me, nothing in it is entertaining, nor worthy of remembering. If you think 'Hostel' is mindless and unnecessarily brutal, this film is even more heinous and with more perverted violence! It seems to have a desperate need to drive the audience into a state of anxiety and shock. Do we really need to see Marcus Dunstan's gratuitous on screen violence and brutalities to deal with during our current economic turmoil? Frankly, I don't think so! We shouldn't welcome inhumane tortures and brutal abuses in real life; we don't need to see them in films. This film is, perhaps, reflective of the twisted and warped mentalities of Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton?
None of the cast members in this film does offer memorable or praiseworthy acting talents. The film basically is clustered with scenes of barbarous acts of killing, of gruesome traps, chasing or being chased, and a series of hide-and seek rigmaroles. Dialog is scanty and trasy, and basically a composite of groans and screams. It doesn't really take any experienced actor to take on any of this film's roles. Even Josh Stewart, as the main protagonist, clearly lacks emotional expressiveness!
It'd be hilarious if Dunstan and Melton should decide to offer a sequel of this awful film. What can they offer, except for the same opening with their 'evil' box landing in another address and the rest of the film with more glamorization of inhumane tortures and brutality in a crappy with lame dialog and ridiculous characters.
I'm surprised that this disgusting film is not rated NC-17. -
t-g-orrell8 July 2010I've read reviews off and on that dog this movie. I wonder sometimes if the people that dislike this movie so much, dislike the horror genre. If I were to rate a musical, I would probably give it a low score myself.
This movie is not perfect, but because the horror in it is done well enough, it is worthwhile to suspend some disbelief to go along with the ride. This isn't a PG-13 teen scare. People tote the term "torture-porn" I think because the killing is done is such an unapologetic, organized fashion. Every kill is planned and gruesome. In the horror genre, what actually is wrong with that?
While Rob Zombie and others are destroying monsters (Zombie basically killed the icon of Michael Myers) by humanizing them too much, it is refreshing to have a new killer killing for killing-sake. Isn't that worth a ride (assuming you are into horror)? -
Hey_Sweden15 March 2012One thing must be stated right up front: audiences who get turned off by rampant ridiculousness will more than likely find "The Collector" too absurd to really enjoy. There's no denying it: this is an insane, over the top exercise in cruelty and sadism, which one really shouldn't take seriously. Writers Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan are veterans of the "Feast" and "Saw" franchises (and Dunstan debuts as director), so we know going in we're going to get a pervasively grim atmosphere and a lot of splatter that will make gore loving horror fans happy. Likable Josh Stewart ('Third Watch', 'Dirt', 'No Ordinary Family') plays Arkin, an ex convict who needs to come up with a lot of money to get a loan shark off his ex-wife's back. He knows how to do it: steal a gem from the house where he's been working as a handyman. Only problem is the timing just stinks. When he returns to the house he finds that a brutal predator (Juan Fernandez) has already invaded the house, rigged it with all sorts of brutal booby traps, and been terrorizing the family. So now the more or less decent guy Arkin is in the unlikely position of saving the lives of the people he was going to rob. Dunstan delivers so much nastiness that the result is rather comedic, albeit in a very dark fashion. It's too hard not to laugh at some points, although there are others where one can wince in sympathy at something happening to a character. Mostly, though, the victims - a husband / dad, wife / mom, and teen aged daughter, are so stupid that one can't help but feel they deserve what they get. Give Dunstan credit for just diving head first into his tale of horror; pacing certainly isn't an issue. Credibility is the issue, but if people are willing to suspend a lot of disbelief, "The Collector" is a fine visceral entertainment. The villain himself is a very sinister one; veteran actor Fernandez, who's often specialized in bad guy roles (playing Charles Bronson's nemesis in "Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects", for example), adds another creepy role to his resume. Other familiar faces include Diane Ayala Goldner, who was in all of the "Feast" movies, William Prael, who was in two of them, Madeline Zima, the little girl from 'The Nanny' TV series all grown up, Robert Wisdom ("The Forgotten"), who has an undeniable presence as a crime lord, and Daniella Alonso ("The Hills Have Eyes 2", "Wrong Turn 2: Dead End"), so some of the cast is certainly experienced at genre fare. Overall, this movie is a true hoot and a half, with some priceless grisly gags, although the ending is too cynically predictable. Still...it's anything but boring. Seven out of 10.
-
andyp3002 June 2010The worst film in the history of mankind! Don't bother to waste two hours of your life watching this total and utter garbage.
The story makes little sense, the acting is terrible and the direction is very poor! Most of the time you can hardly see what is going on because its set at night.
i'm not going to go into details about the plot as that has already been covered.
What i cannot understand is how 'The Collector' managed to rig all those traps in just a few hours and why? So fair enough he is some nut that wanted to torture humans but why all the traps? I feel that this film is a 'copy' of the SAW movies in part. Horror with lots of graphic and clever twists.Unfortunately they are not clever and make no sense.
All in all don't bother, read a book or go for a walk but avoid this dribble at all costs. -
info-123881 August 2009If there was any way of giving something a negative score, I'd do so in a heartbeat.
How did this guy set all these traps in the minimal amount of time he had? Boarding the windows and locking the doors, sure I can understand that... but acid on the floor? Bear traps? Trick (and resettable) chandeliers? Who writes this lunacy and worse, who greenlighted it? What possible purpose did any of these silly set-ups serve him (as opposed to providing some gross-out visuals for the audience -- love the bear trap scene... NOT)?
And let us not forget the robber with a heart of gold, who has some strange deadline imposed on the plot so we can have at least some tiny bit of tension. Lord love that proverbial duck, but that had to be close to the worse...
... until we get the coda scene, with the robber in the red box and the "collector" sitting on it. Yeah, a very fitting end visual: the audience trapped in a movie that makes about as much sense as HYPERCUBE.
This is just some juvenile screenplay given a big budget. What a pity we'll waste money on this junk and that it will no doubt spur a ton of copycats.