In the film industry the success depends on depth, story, performances, SPX, screenplay, authenticity. In the horror genre a good film needs to be able to encompass the audience, entrap them in the characters vision. From the opening segment the film needs to keep you invested. There should be enough twists and turns that makes you say "THAT I WAS NOT EXPECTING". Sorry to disappoint this film really doesn't have much to offer.One sequence is The Collection seemingly picks up shortly after the first one. The sadistic killer controls his victims in a hotel/warehouse instead of a house this time. As with the first film the traps the killer lays are a rip-off from the Saw films. Albeit there are some unique ones but they are savagely depicted to cause mortal death or dismemberment. The screenplay/writing lacks intensity, lacks suspense and fill. The idea behind these films is unique, but the way they were laid out for the audience truly lacks entertainment value.

I didn't realize while I was watching this film that it happens to be a sequel. I walked into this one knowing absolutely nothing about the previous film 'The Collector' (2009), so my view of this movie wasn't very knowledgeable of the overall plot between the two films. I watched it as a one off, and not sure how the first film affected the plot of this movie.The Collection is a gruesome series of trap-based murders, akin to the 'Saw' franchise. There is no denying it's influence on this film, as several people find themselves trapped in a warehouse of a serial killer known as "The Collector." An escaped victim of a mass slaughter, an former convict who had a run in with the killer in the past (watch the previous film to find out about that), and a band of soldiers/mercenaries looking for the main character. They find themselves being knocked off one by one, through various disgusting and nasty traps. As the victims fall to the killer's somewhat ridiculous traps, they get closer and closer to discovering who the killer really is.It's not a bad Horror/Thriller film. It has one of the worst beginnings of any horror I've ever seen however. The Collector is obviously some sort of wizard like engineer, being able to transform entire buildings into one giant death trap. I know you don't watch something like this for the plot, but this film is pretty absurd throughout its short run time. The lead actor and actress aren't awful, they stand above the rest of the cast, but I never felt scared throughout the movie. There was a bit of action elements in the middle, which was actually the best part of the film. There were some very decent knife fighting sequences in this movie. However, a horror should put you on the edge of your seat, and I kind of thought this movie was not successful for its genre. I realize that the author of this film has a reputation for 'funny' gore flicks, but this one wasn't funny or scary. It was just okay for me.Obviously if you are a fan of this genre you may simply enjoy the blood, traps, and gore, but I thought the whole thing was one big 'Saw' copy, that has the occasional moment or two.4/10

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.

(39%) I wasn't too sure if this was the original (which I haven't seen) or the sequel, but to be honest I really don't think it matters in the slightest; though why didn't they just call it "The collector 2" is beyond me. What we have here is a rehash of 80's slasher gore mayhem, only the killer here wants to kill everyone he possibly can get his claws on, not just a select few teens. Most of the film takes place in a dark, grim building in or at least near a town/city that appears to be a magnet for many, many disco kids. Only when the collector strikes not one of them appears to make a swift escape. Plus the fact there's always one person outside every night spot throwing up into the street, so couldn't they raise some kind of an alarm after hearing their friends getting chopped up from inside? You can tell this is from some of the minds of the later Saw movies, not because it is shocking or scary, but because it's just so stupid. At certain parts you wonder how nasty is it going to get, well the answer is not really all that much. Sure there's some blood and gore, but this is too low rent Hollywood to get upset about. Even thought this isn't very good, I'd still kind of like to see the original, which is at least something positive to say.