not as good as all the hype

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

"The Collection" is, if anything, even more like the "Saw" movies than its predecessor, "The Collector", was.That movie also involved gruesome traps laid by a homicidal maniac, though they were set up in the house of the innocent victims, and thus weren't anywhere near as creative as the average "Saw" execution device."The Collection" takes the action out of suburbia and into a run-down hotel where the killer apparently hangs his hat... or mask. Thus the traps are more elaborate, though still not as shocking or elaborate as the best from that other franchise.The movie also features a team of mercenaries entering the hotel, attempting to break someone out, so it could almost be called a horror/action hybrid. At one point, the killer even breaks out some martial arts skills.Unfortunately it all adds up to a pretty forgettable movie. Lee Tergesen - who I hadn't seen in anything since "Oz" and "Rescue Me" - is in it, and so is Andre Royo, known as Bubbles in "The Wire". But obviously, this isn't an actor's movie.Like the first, it doesn't really have any memorable death scenes or violence, and it didn't hold my attention for long.

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.

After enjoying the first movie The Collector I was slightly worried as we all know horror sequels always come up short, saying that Marcus Dunstan did a good job.Arkin is back This time the movie focuses on Eleanor a girl with a very rich father. We see flashbacks of her in a car incident when she was a child possibly resulting in her deafness.The Collection starts slightly similar... Eleanor her friend Misty and Josh go to an underground club, whilst there the girls separate. Eleanor finds a trunk in a room opening it up to discover Arkin who then runs off. Meanwhile the deranged killer is letting of his traps in the club killing everyone par Eleanor who he collects.Unfortunately for the mad man Eleanor's rich father has hired a bunch of mercenaries to hunt down the killer and free his daughter. The group also manage to blackmail Arkin into leading them to his lair, there led to a abandoned hotel. Multi stories high and booby trapped the crazy the group are in a race against time to free Eleanor.If you liked the first you wont be disappointed, there is the same amount of gore and suspense

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.