It's time for another round of I Would Have Saved/Killed, the feature where we pick a character, big or small, from a movie and explain how, for whatever reason, we would have altered his or her fate.

Don't worry, we will never spoil anything pre-jump, though obviously everything after the break is operating under the assumption you've seen the film to the right, so be warned. And a big tip of our hat to Arbogast on Film for inspiring us with his post The One You Might Have Saved.

Click through to see who I would have killed in the recent Saw-inspired gore flick The Collector.
Name:
The Collector

Fate: Alive, kidnaps Arkin at end of the movie

Verdict: I would have killed him

Reason: When The Collector came out, it was met with generally mixed reviews among the horror community while being heavily derided by critics. This isn't surprising. It was basically a Saw film without characters or a story. A man named Arkin, played by Josh Stewart, needs money to pay off the loan sharks after his wife, who plans on running away with his daughter to escape them. A construction worker, Arkin has been casing the new house he's been working on, and intends to steal a valuable jewel being held in the family's safe. Once he obtains it, he will be able to pay off his wife's loan sharks and all will be right in the world. Upon returning to the home that evening, it appears he has been beaten to the punch by The Collector, a masked man who has set up a series of traps around the entire house. Once inside, Arkin's plan to steal the diamond gets sidetracked as he struggles to steal the diamond, save the family being held captive and escape the booby-trapped house. Sadly, this does not go as planned and ultimately, Arkin ends up being "collected" by The Collector.

Simply put, The Collector needed to die because there doesn't need to be a sequel to this movie. While I did enjoy the film to the extent one can enjoy a movie that was pretty much Saw lite, it certainly isn't deserving of a continuation. The Saw franchise makes up for the excessive torture by actually containing an interesting story (well, depending on who you ask), while The Collector doesn't. Any of the characters you might be interested in are either killed or captured, and while Arkin is technically alive at the end of the movie, it seems logical to assume that the focus of the second film would be continuing the exploits of The Collector. No one wants to see this, because The Collector is a boring character. Jigsaw had a reason for the things he did, however deeply flawed it may be, while The Collector is nothing more than a perverted lech that seemingly offers no reason for what he's doing. The movie exists solely to make the audience squirm.

Concerning the potential for a sequel, this is all conjecture, as it could very well involve Arkin trying to escape the lair of The Collector, but do we really need that? It would essentially be the same as the first film, and beyond this would be nothing more than perpetuating the misguided notion that we need another torture film. I'll be the first to admit some of the things they did in the film were clever (the "flinging the daughter into the spikes" trap was pretty cool, albeit very ridiculous), but they failed to reach the same level of intricacy (though just as ridiculous) of the traps in the Saw franchise, serving merely as a painful nuisance for Arkin throughout.

I didn't hate The Collector; far from it. I found it entertaining in the same way I find a Jerry Bruckheimer or Michael Bay film entertaining. It required absolutely no brain power, and served as nothing more than a chance to escape for a couple of hours. I welcome this with open arms, but not in my horror movies. Maybe I'm cynical, but I want a horror film to make me think. This is impossible with a film like The Collector. For this reason The Collector should have kicked the bucket at the hands of Arkin. It would be the triumph of "neutral good" or "chaotic evil."

That's right, I made a D&D reference. Wanna fight about it?
CATEGORIES Features, Horror