Why didn't he shoot him?
He only had about six or seven good shots he could have taken! I guess the gun could have been empty, but I assumed since the dad sent him for it that it was loaded. Just a thought.
shareHe only had about six or seven good shots he could have taken! I guess the gun could have been empty, but I assumed since the dad sent him for it that it was loaded. Just a thought.
shareWell from what I understood the gun was in the safe unloaded and the bullets were supposedly in the dresser, which as a gun owner really stupid especially if it is for home defense. My main problem was that out of all the stuff he could have used as weapons in that house (chair/table legs, screwdrivers, hammers, powertools from the basement etc) he didn't. Heck it's a crazy gimp with throwing knives, rush the goon blocking his knife with a chair, get him on the ground with his arms pinned and start wailing on him till he is out, once he is out take one of his knives and slit his throat from ear to ear and because it's a horror movie and horror movie maniacs are notorious for coming back to life, drag his body over to the bear traps and drop him so his head goes right Into one of them... There ya go, piece of cake. If he would have done that the mother, father and oldest daughter would have lived, he would have been seen as a hero, the family grateful for him saving their lives would have given him the money he needed, his wife would be happy he came through, we would have been saved from yet another substandard obligatory slasher sequel... Everyone has a happy ending.
shareHe was scared. And to be fair he had just seen a guy clearly bigger than himself (the father) bloodied and beaten, and generally *beep* up, clinging to life. Why must a guy be bigger than you in order for you to be afraid of him? The Collector was clearly a psychopath. A psychopath killer of any size is terrifying.
shareThe original poster is correct on all accounts .. sure Arkin was afraid, but in that situation i think it would be more realistic for fear to manifest in a strong will to beat the gimp senseless with whatever object is available. Pure hatred of what he had done would do all the work. Id understand his fear if the gimp carried a gun the whole time. Its like in all these stupid slasher movies, the murderer is automatically very dangerous and you have to run away from him... The gimp obviously reacted to sound and came creeping whenever he heard someone scream, why the *beep* didnt Arkin use this to his advantage to bludgeoun the bastard from behind? No, instead he runs off to solve a puzzle or hide behind some pillows.
The entire movie is just a peice of utter *beep* 6.2 imdb score?? good riddance
I agree with Wamsize, felt really stupid. He didn't look scared and was in more control than any of the others who just ran around like headless chickens.
There was too many opportunities for the protagonist to kill the antagonist but he didn't. I can understand maybe one opportunity where the protagonist hesitated and would end up losing his chance to kill this guy but in this movie there was too many to count where he could have gotten rid of the killer.
Any normal human being would realise this is just another person, he bleeds just like anyone else. I would have dismissed it if Arkin actually looked scared but he barely flinched. Even from the traps that cut him in some way!
[deleted]
Seeing The Collector came out in 2009 and The Collection in 2012, I don't think the director planned to make a sequel. He waited to see how well the first one did, as most directors will do and WHY CAN'T HE want a sequel to be made? We, as the public benefit from one as much as they do. They make more money on the franchise and we continue (hopefully) to be entertained. It is a movie after all.
shareThe original poster is correct on all accounts
As said the gun was empty, but it is also worth noting that people attempted to pick up weapons and they were traps. So, it makes it much more believable than other horrors where they run right past a nice battering tool.
shareHow can you say what's "realistic" about how someone would react when he/she is scared. There is no one base reaction that everyone has, everybody deals with problems differently, and the portrayal in this film was completely realistic. Just because it's not how YOU would respond in a similar situation (which you can't even say with any surety because you've never been in this situation) doesn't mean it's unrealistic.
-------------------
Just because you're too stupid to understand it, doesn't mean it's a plot hole
That's how I feel, bmalone--it's realistic. He wants to stay the 'unknown' for as long as he can, to find any other possible resolution before going gung ho 'do or die.' I still have half an hour left [I'm right at where he becomes the 'known'], but I just remembered he has probably a pretty decent weapon on him right now.
Spoilers|Spoilers|Spoilers|Spoilers|Spoilers|Spoilers|Spoilers|Spoilers
he seemed pretty on the ball when he was sneaking round hiding from him like some army guy. and whe he quickly formulated the elaborate plan to electrocute the guy and drop the knives on him (i dont know why he didn't shoot him witht he shotgun then!). The best time to do it was when the teenager came home and her boyfriend was about to fight him and he was behind him, 2 on one, with a weapon... Stuff like that really takes me out of the moment and makes me aware im watching a film
shareSuuure, sure. Piece of cake! Nobody in this thread would be scared at all. Not panicked or afraid. In a situation like that, they would of course be completely mentally stable, even though a killer psycho is chasing them. Why do we even have police or whatever anymore. Look at all these internet tough guys, thinking they can karate chop someone like him from behind. Just block his throwing knives with a chair! Piece of cake!
Man, it's *beep* hilarious how so many people think they would do so much better in situations like that. It really is. xD
I'm the grim reaper, lardass, and you're my next customer.
I hear ya mate! I have been laughing the same thing, i work as a security on bars and on events, the few first times i got into fights/truoble with drunk people, were pretty terrifying. Tho i have had training how to manage them and wrestle my way out if needed, but the real situation is still different! I don't even want to what it would be like in a house full of traps, and some mentally ill chasing and not knowing where he is. It's so easy for people to sit comfy at home, and think that nothing would scare them.
shareWell let's say after seeing the father grabbing the golf club and activate a trap wich pulled him all the way downstair, it would make me a bit afraid of picking up something.
shareAnd it would have made for a very boring and overly short movie, all because you're applying logic to a horror movie.
shareWow. Amazing to know what you would do in such a desperate situation under severe pressure and being put into a terrifying ordeal.
Mind you, while I seriously doubt you'd do any better in the situation (probably the same as 90% of people of just fleeing the house after seeing a man being strung upside down with his intestines hanging out) I did find certain moments of sheer stupidity from Arkin.
When the boyfriend and girlfriend enter the house, the first thing I would've thought, even under the stressful situation, would be 'there are now two of us fully grown men against this freak'. Arkin saw The Collector perving on them having foreplay, so I don't know why he didn't make a huge fuss and a din knowing all three men were in close proximity of each other and The collectors chances of winning were now minimal. Instead, he laid under a table and watched Chad being crushed by bear traps.
When he found the box in the bottom drawer like the dad said, he said it was empty. No bullets, no chance to shoot him.
shareWhat the others said: Arkin looked where the guy said the shells were, and all he found was an empty box. No bullets -- no shot.
What bothered me was: Why didn't Arkin attack the Collector sooner? How desperate did he need to be before he finally tried to simply overpower the guy? The Collector wasn't a big dude, and at one point the Collector was looking out a basement window -- unaware that Arkin was behind him (albeit hiding under a desk) with a knife! Considering all the horrible stuff Arkin had already seen and been through at this point -- and considering that Arkin knew by then that the Collector had a big ring of keys on his belt -- I can't believe anyone in that situation wouldn't jump up and plunge the knife into the Collector's back. Given the opportunity, surely you'd at least *try* to kill the guy.
Another thing that bothered me -- even more, really -- was how Arkin got hit by a police car near the end of the movie. This guy's got sufficient awareness and survival instinct to get himself and the little girl out of a locked house full of deadly traps...and then he runs in front of a speeding cop cruiser and tries to stop it by waving his arms? Stupid.
And, finally: Why does EVERY horror movie today have to have that last-second, downer, "shock" ending -- which, half the time, reverses the whole third act? Here's a tip: DePalma did it in "Carrie" in 1976, it was a cheap trick then, and it's been nothing but a lame cliche since.
I have to wait to see what happens in the sequel to really judge the ending.
shareYou see that makes no sense. Why can't you take in the movie as a single entity. There was NO sequel when this movie came out. It was at that time a stand alone movie with no sequel. The whole idea of people thinking that after seeing a sequel they better understand the original movie is ridiculous. You are just as perfectly capable of using your imagination as to what happened and why as was the director upon completion of the original, which at that time probably had no idea where it would go from there, or if it would at all.
shareDanimal, it really helps to pay attention. 1) Yes, I believe the sequel was already planned when the first film came out, although there were questions on whether or not it would be produced. If I remember correctly there was even a reference to The Collection near the end of the credits. But I definitely looked it up online when I saw the first film, and there was already reference to The Collection as a sequel. And 2) maybe I could have made it clearer when I explicitly referred to "judging the ending" in response to a post going on about the ending being a cheap shock, but I was referring to whether or not the ending was a cheap shock, which is an entirely different matter than interpreting the film. Sorry to have upset you.
shareHaha, yeah a lot of stupid things happened in this movie. The most annoying part for me was this - if the main character himself cannot get out of the house, why was he trying to free all the others, all he did was get them killed. He should of realized that the only ways out of the situation is to get out himself and bring some help, or to kill the bad guy.
shareTo defend the guy saying he shouldn't have been hit with the car, you do realize that by this point he had gotten the crap kicked out of him, knocked out twice, slammed his head on the floor, jumped out a window and fell on the ground, and not to mention cut open and had cockroaches shoved into his body. You're telling me if someone did all that to you, you wouldn't feel a little loopy? People need to realize this guy is a robber, not Clark Kent.
sharelook yes the movie was stupid - by horror movie standards though the guy was pretty smart. unfortunately by real life standards, he was a *beep*
-
"You're all talk, Hamill! You never even finished Jedi school!"
Hello! Its still a steel frame revolver, hit him in the dang head with it! It fits in your hand quite well & does more damage than a wood chair leg.
shareI'm pretty sure he did hit him with the gun.
shareYeah, plenty of chances to kill the guy. Another movie that bothered me by not killing and beating the crap out of the killer was 'Human Centipede.' After the Japanese dude has the doctor on the ground clearly in pain, he just moves past him, making no attempt to attack. Hell, I would use my teeth on the doctor until there was nothing left if that had been done to me. Hell, even a good tear on the neck would suffice.
shareJust saw the film and I could tell you if that was me the last thing I would want is a fight with a sociopath or a nutcase of killer. First and only instinct is to get the *beep* out of there. Obivously this killer is very intelligent and if he could over power the father and make him his play tool that theif probably knew he didn't stand a chance.
He wanted out. He did the right thing moving around him and staying away from the guy. He would be no help and probably do little harm if he tried to fight him. Another thing is that the house is full with traps and TWICE he saw two people grab weapons that was rigged. He knew after the first time any weapon that he may have grabbed could have led to his death. He wasn't being stupid. He was playing it smart.
The only thing I didn't like was him escaping and then going back in for the girl. I wouldn't have done that at all. I would have called the cops and then helped my baby mama and kid. Everything else he did was understandable.
For those people who think your rage will overpower anyone let me tell you something. I fought an angry person full of rage and I was able to subdue him and I'm not a fighter. Secondly did it ever cross your mind that maybe this killer is also full of rage and anger? It's obivous this guy has no fear and knows how to handle himself. The killer knew what he was doing from the start. He planned the damn thing. A theif wouldn't be much of a problem to handle once he finds him. The theif knew that too that's why he played cat and mouse.
What? You don't know that whenever someone is confronted by an armed psycho that you suddenly turn into a heroic crimefighter with Bruce Lee skills?
shareThe gun was empty.. as people have said. As to the other people asking why he didn't just attack him..
The answer is called SUSPENSE!
What good is this movie if he jumped out and knifed the guy 35 minutes in? You'd be pissing and moaning about that too. You do the best you can with the genre, and I thought this movie was much better than most in the genre lately. The only real problem I had with the writing was when the guy got hit in the end.. Surely they could have just had him collapse from his wounds or something and have that sufficiently render him harmless for the climax.
Some kids really don't understand the psychology behind fear here. People (or all animals) who are afraid for their lives will look for a way to escape or somehow avoid any conflict that might gravely endanger their lives. Arkin evaded the killer and attempted to escape many times (a normal reaction). It was unrealistic that after escaping he went back for the little girl. Someone who just escaped such a situation would be far to traumatized to even look back at the house, let alone go back in there and engage the killer.
shareHe didn't shoot him because this movie is bad. That is the only answer that counts. They had a 200 pound German Shepherd that could lay undetected in an open back yard...........that was 100% aggressive ....but did not bark. Seriously. That happened.
shareobviously the homeowner isn't an avid gun owner/shooter. anyone with a brain would have ammo near by or right by the gun. if you keep your gun separate from the ammunition, than what is the point in having the gun?
shareThere was no bullets. He checked for bullets in the drawer but the box was empty.
shareHe had no bullets, he searched all drawers but couldn't find any and gun was empty from the start.
Don't watch movies with your ass next time.
Loads of knives in the house as weapons , and if he was worried about walking into traps , why didn't he trigger them by throwing furniture etc into rooms as he entered them .
So many plot holes it was impossible to take seriously .
If he trigger traps, collector will find him. And knife fight with a psycho is dangerous.
share