Sunday, September 4, 2016

The Collector (2009)

Yes, I am late to this party. At the time of the release of this I was rather sick of the torture-porn thing. I am still not a big fan of it, but I have heard enough positive stuff about this one to decide to finally give it a try.

A family moves into a house and is having some work done (or maybe they were just having work done . . . I missed if they had just moved in . . . just assuming here). The exterminators are there, as is the home security guy (name of Arkin). Arkin (played by Josh Stewart) seems to hit is off well with the little girl in the house, much to the disapproving eye of the dad.

We come to find out that Arkin is also a burglar and is planning to rob the house that night to pay off a loan shark his wife (ex-wife? girlfriend?) in debt to. The loan shark isn't crazy about the deal, but Arkin insists. He is given until midnight to produce the goods.

Once Arkin breaks into the house, well, things kind of go wrong. Very, very, very wrong.

If Rube Goldberg had been a sociopath he would adore this movie. It is one vicious mouse trap after another. But this is also a key point of criticism for the movie. How on earth did all of this stuff get put into place in the short time it seems to have shown up? This is a question that might nag at he back of your brain, but then you get hit by so much horrendous stuff that you start to forget that you had any complaints. You just kind of shrug your shoulders, let your stomach churn from your nerves going crazy and from the brutality on screen.

To say this film is "brutal" would be an understatement. Yet, at the same time, it is very nice to look at thanks to inventive camera angles and set-ups. It is the same kind of style that Saw managed. One can be horrified by what is on screen, but then one starts to admire the look of the film.

I have seen a lot written on the gore. But here is the thing, the extent of the gore is a LOT of blood, and some intestines. But with really don't see what I would consider ground breaking gore. The guts had been spilled, so don't expect gore as in the zombie sitting up and guts spilling out in Day of the Dead. We do get a scene with sutures, but it isn't worse than what we have seen before. The gore in this film is accentuated by the brutality surrounding it, the attitude surrounding it all. It is one of those cases where what we see is not as vicious as what our minds make us think we see. Don't get me wrong, this isn't Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Halloween (two films severely lacking in blood even though the common population thinks they are blood baths). There is blood (lots of it), there are swollen faces, sutures, slashes, guts, all sorts of gross things. These things, however, were simple achievements for any up and coming FX artist.

The Collector stakes its claim on inventive kills and traps. The film was originally conceived as a prequel to Saw, and that makes sense in many areas. It looks and feels like Saw, and shares the inventiveness of that movie. The main difference is that this killer seems to act without a motive. He never speaks and we have no real idea why he is doing what he is doing. The poster says "He only takes one," but I am not sure where that is established. Maybe the man in the box said it to Arkin and I missed it?

The Collector is a solid movie. Full-on intensity from the second we enter the house to steal until the very end. If you can stand your movies with a whole lot of brutality, then I highly suggest you track it down and spend a bit of time with this movie. But if the idea of a man falling onto a floor full of bear traps and having one snap on his legs, arms, face, etc. (OK, maybe there is some intense gore . . . ) isn't your idea of fun family viewing entertainment, you might want to move along. I, personally, look forward to seeing The Collection, the sequel, which I have heard is better than this one.

Film viewed on Shudder.

**** out of *****


No comments:

Post a Comment