MovieChat Forums > The Collection (2012) Discussion > How could you not like collection if you...

How could you not like collection if you LOVED collector ?

posted 11 years ago by naak00
52 replies | jump to latest

SPOILER!

I am observing that people who enjoyed the 1st one blame this one for lack of...how can i put it....lack of being exactly like the first one. Because yes let's admit the first one independently was better. BUT...

BUT...

BUT...

BUT...

If you are emotionally connected to the hero and still remember how he went back for the little girl you can do nothing else but praise and yell in the last 10 minutes like a dog seeing his master after 2 weeks. Screaming "Kill him" in the meantime.

What i wanna say is that I laugh at people who find this "ridicilous" and "ripoff" etc. If you are such big critics watch a classical Hitchcock movie. Watch David Lynch. Watch Bergman. Watch flawless japanese horror (i like only some of them). Hollywood horror is something else. And this movie was exactly that. A GREAT Hollywood horror movie where a little girl breaks a man's arm in order to escape BUT forget to blow out the wick of the upcoming explosion. A movie that they do not take the machine guns of the dead. A movie where the only unarmed man leads the way with a torch (!). A movie where the villain accidentally his own dog. As i was saying a GREAT GREAT hollywood hoorror movie.

"*beep* you! *beep* you! *beep* YOU! "

[–] daria_pechersky 11 years ago

Simple - the first one was good, creepy, had great scenes, was more mature and had heart.
The sequel is childish, generic and has a lot of cliches in it.

In the first one the killer was methodical, unique and in the second they made him into a generic villain with big guns.

I love, absolutely love The Collector. It's one of these rare horror movies that make you actually feel something. Makes you root for the hero, makes you want him to save the little girl and makes you worry and tense up every time you watch it, like it's the first time.
I didn't hate the sequel, I was merely upset that it wasn't as engaging as the first.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] naak00 11 years ago

i do understand your frustration. What i am saying is that whilst i agree on the tecnhical deficits of the movie i was screaming like crazy on the last 10 minutes. And this is what i will remmeber from this movie instead of how a better could have been made.

[–] seph82 11 years ago

*English is not my primary langage.

The 1st one was a good decent horror flick. The sequel was one of the worst horror movie I have ever seen.

[–] daria_pechersky 11 years ago

I enjoyed it too, at least most of it.
But that's the good thing about the first one - I not only enjoyed it, but loved it from the first minute.

[–] movie-chick313 11 years ago

naak00, I agree with you, albeit loving The Collection MORE than The Collector. I watched The Collection fist by myself, and screamed at the last 10 minutes when Arkin owned The Collector. Everyone who watched it with me does the same thing. My sister and her boyfriend also like The Collection better. It was a great movie, imo...

In order to BE the man, you gotta BEAT the man! WOOOOO!~Ric Flair

[–] ilon 11 years ago

A "good" ending, as important as it is, does not make a good movie.

If you have material for 10 good minutes, make a short film and don't waste my time.

[–] dhuggz 11 years ago

I agree wholeheartedly since I just saw the sequel an was disappointed. An example of upping the ante in a horror film, look to Human Centipede 2 as a reference.

I saw the Collector in the theater and fully enjoyed myself. The plot wasn't mind blowing but it didn't need to be, it had a old school vibe to it that worked. My favorite scene was the one with the song Bela Lugosi Is Dead playing for it had build up to the horrifying climax. The Collection looked like it tried to copy the space marine concept from Aliens instead of just keeping it simple.

[–] jgrayson_au 11 years ago

What Daria said, though I think the OP was being sarcastic.

Collection wasn't bad, just wasn't brilliant like the first.

[–] Tomthespacetraveler 11 years ago

^this^

"This isn't TV, it's real life. Can't you tell the difference?"
"Sure - I just like TV better."

[–] Shinobi-vs-Gast 11 years ago

To be honest, for me the first one sucked and this one was awesome.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hvg-1 11 years ago

Daria, I couldn't put it any better myself.

The first one was methodical, took it's time and was frightening without the need for constant jump scares.

The scene that always sticks out for me in the 'The Collector' and made me actually purchase the movie to own on bluray was the scene where Arkin looks out the basement window, sees the Collector standing over his victim, and then the collector turns around and spots Arkin, runs over and looks in the window while sniffing the air. He then runs out of view and you know stuff is about to get real. Amazing, amazing, amazing scene.

This film however jumped randomly from protagonist to protagonist... we had to apparently feel something for this militia group coming in. Apparently the warehouse is so huge and maze-ike but everybody knows just where to go when an emergency is happening. Acting was wooden and the fast cuts and overuse of jump scares took all the suspense out of it. The killer now uses a gun which he could of done from the very beginning. He also rigged an unknown club with a whippersnapper and crusher... for some reason... apparently he also likes to kill in mass rather than collect. The killer also gained weight in 2 days and his backstory was explained by 'collector of bugs' and 'daddy had a museum'. This could have been sooooo much more but in the end it was just a frantic waste of time that sped to the end with no real connection to plot or characters. To me, this shouldn't be apart of the canon. The less you know, the better. And that's where the first one got it right and this one got it terribly wrong.

Oh and now to address the idiot known as ltd1293... So by your logic we have to enjoy EVERY FILM WE SEE because we haven't written an Oscar winning movie?! Is that your reasoning? Did you lash out at people who didn't like the sequel because they didn't have facts... did they start to troll? No! They issued an OPINION that you can take or leave. You're being the freaking diva over a very formulated and thought out response. This is a discussion board... DISCUSSION board. Get it?!

So now to cram it back in your mouth... the movie was not 'Brilliant'. It didn't have a perfect ending. And for your reply, it didn't give any facts and reason as to why this film was better but rather was a troll inducing *beep* of words that made you seem big to one person... that being yourself. Kindly get to the back of the line, kid, and try again at adding a more thought provoking response to the thread.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mikebourkefan 11 years ago

the only thing i did not like about Collection is it was a few minutes to short everything else was good

Rob Zombie is one of the greatest movie directors today

[–] Hasjtracker 11 years ago

"If you are emotionally connected to the hero"

Your are likely to forgive him in the next movie "The Collected" where he continues his killing spree(numbers 1 to 11 eleven beeing innocent bug collectors yet very dead innocent bug collectors).

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arusinghnz 11 years ago

Haven't seen the first since it first came out.
The first 10mins had the most body count I have seen in any horror flick.
The last ten minutes was awesome.
This one had a lot of flaws but as per gore and straight out psychotic it was very gruesome. And yes a hollywood movie.
I was thinking the same, wick, mask, guns.
But still a torture porn movie.
I wondered if that guy who asked Tarantino why he makes such violent movies, asked Marcus Dunstan why he makes torture porn?

:)

[–] naak00 11 years ago

Why is this torture porn exactly ?

Have you ever seen torture porn movies?

[–] lilmarkuk 11 years ago

i found the 1st film boring and pretty dull

this one is alot better apart from a couple of cheap gore shots

like those samuri swords that swing from the walls in the club and stop before even hitting the guy and girl then bloody squirts from the floor infront of them to make it look like its from their body lol

i know its a straight to dvd budget movie but that looked stupid lol

[–] xxkungfuchickxx-71-963384 11 years ago

To be honest, I hated the first one and I really enjoyed the sequel.
Come and get one in the yarbles, if ya have any yarbles, you eunuch jelly thou!

[–] ilon 11 years ago

I'm surprised by the amount of people who dislike the first one and like this one.

[–] xxkungfuchickxx-71-963384 11 years ago

I was exhausted after watching the first one and also, I was didn't care for the
poor catburning in acidic adhesive and then decapitated as the result of failed rescue attempted by Arkin

(Just in case ANYONE who reads my comment suddenly feels compelled to say I took something they consider small and meaningless to them and blew it out of proportion for personal reasons or say "it's only a movie!"......I am saving you the time of doing so because I WILL NOT REPLY. This is how I feel and I am not going to discuss my personal feelings any further and do not have to justify them either.I don't acknowledge insults or misjudgment to my opinions; I only debate on why I hold high regard for films when someone refutes with my praising and tells me I'm wrong......however I realize it is easy to be sucked into participating in a straw-man argument on those occasions.)

I enjoyed the second one because I was satisfied that retribution was carried out and the killer got his wake up call with a taste of his own medicine

Come and get one in the yarbles, if ya have any yarbles, you eunuch jelly thou!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ackrynradnys 11 years ago

I like The Collection, I don't think it's a stupid movie.

Now I have to re-watched The Collector. I forgot how awesome that movie was.

Going to put those 2 movies in my collections

[–] fakeslashdash6 10 years ago

So you had issues with the way the cat got its head chopped off but not the dog getting its head chopped off in the sequel?

[–] winzentween 11 years ago

LOL
because the second one manages to ruin everything the first one got right!...where do i begin?
did the same person from the first make the 2nd?
if he did he was a sleep at the wheel or paid to screw up his legacy as the two only have a superficial connection and where one was a grade A original horror film, relentless and clever the second is a b movie straight to video shlock fest which is comparable to hostel 3 as hostel 3 is to hostel i.e. the film was gutted though unlike other indie horror hits where the director / writer has the good sense to move on to other projects some how the same guy ruined his own movie franchise. There will not be a 3rd and if there is it will be a bigger disaster then this junk. I AM SO DISAPPOINTED !!!!
“What we have here is a failure to communicate”, Captain

[–] cyril_grey 11 years ago

I had to check if the same people were involved (creatively speaking) and I was shocked to see they were. Any sequel runs the risk of demystifying the aspects that made the original so good. Usually they will do this by trying to explain why the person of interest became that way and the motivations rarely meet our expectations. In the Collection, they did not try to explain the why's, but they still killed the mystique. Ironically, they did this by going the opposite way many other horror franchises go: they made the killer seem more mortal rather than, like Friday the 13th or Halloween, making him more supernatural.

In the Collector, the killer was a mystery. Was he even human? I couldn't say for sure. Those eyes! And the constant shots of spiders. I thought he might be some kind of, well, spiderman, but more in the vein of the Cure's Lullaby kind of spiderman that is out to get you (yeah, I know, Lullaby is actually a song about drug addiction, but it also painted some interesting images that I always thought lent themselves to a good horror idea). Instead of a web, he used insideous traps designed to kill.

The Collection made him seem like a normal guy. Who used guns!?! Why would a killer who uses such imagination making these traps use a simple machine gun? It made no sense. He may have fought well and it seemed like he was a really tough guy, but he still seemed... well, uninspired.

I'm glad they left his motivations vaugue and I'm glad they never showed his face, but unlike The Collector, I really could care less if we see another sequel to this one. Even Arkin lost his appeal. Had he hesitated when he had that chance to escape in the beginning, that would have kept him the same character we saw in the Collector, but his selfishness, while understandable, kind of knocked him back to average victim of circumstance rather than someone who presented the killer with a challenge.

[–] itMFtis 11 years ago

The Collection made him seem like a normal guy. Who used guns!?! Why would a killer who uses such imagination making these traps use a simple machine gun? It made no sense. He may have fought well and it seemed like he was a really tough guy, but he still seemed... well, uninspired.

He had no problem using a shotgun in the first movie. In fact it seemed like he made it a point to go to the cop's car to get it. People keep forgetting that.

[–] omendata 11 years ago

He used the machine gun to kill them quickly as he was busted and the police were moving in - no time to torture i would have thought that would have been obvious?

[–] utahman1971 9 years ago

When was this straight to video, when I went and saw this in the theater? News to me. I guess for you it was, because you rented it instead. I guess people are still clueless, and say things they know nothing about. It still continues.

I am a gore watching freak!!!

If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch.