The Collector Review | Pajiba

Vile, Reprehensible Dogsh*t!

The Collector / Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | July 31, 2009 | Comments (109)

So, Marcus Dunstan, you dumb son of a bitch. We meet again, huh? After scripting three Feast movies (oh, there’s a challenge) and a trio of Saw movies (or should I say, recycled them), some fucktard in Hollywood decided to put your name on a director’s chair where you could sit your fat ass for a few weeks and twiddle your dick, huh? Somebody needs to appeal to the amoebic intelligence of 18-24 year old men with boners for torture porn, I suppose. Though, to call you an anthropomorphic nutsack, Mr. Dunstan, would be a disservice to smelly nutsacks — and I doubt your brain could fill up even the most shriveled of scrotes. So I say this, Mr. Dunstan: Jump up my ass.

I don’t even want to review your fucking film. To call it was it was — 90 minutes of agonizing, sadistic, fetid dogshit — would give it more power than it deserves. Seriously, is that all you got, anus brain? You think you can chase of a few lightweights out of a theater and somehow cash in on the shock value of your sadism among a bunch of giggly 17-year-old girls and their pea-brained boyfriends who are trying to wear them down for a night of roofies and finger banging? Give it up, pube breath. You’re going to have to bring a lot more than that, asshole. Cause I stayed. Not because I was entertained (I wasn’t), revolted (brother, please), or even curious (hah! About what?), but because I didn’t want to give you the satisfaction. Ripped flesh? Pffffft, Hellraiser did it 47 times better, and it did so with panache? Murderous booby traps? Stolen from a franchise that you’ve been running into the ground for years. A masked boogeyman? See: The 1980s, pal.

The Collector is, essentially, Saw set in a house, only the Collector (who wears a some sort of beekeepers outfit that’s about half as scary as the “No Rain” bee girl’s costume) has none of the Jigsaw Murderer’s charisma. And when you can’t claim to be half the movie of Saw XXV, then you may as well stick your head in a dung pile and inhale. The plot (ha ha ha ha ha!) is about a man named Arkin (Josh Stewart), a decent enough guy who has been casing a house (as a handyman) for weeks. The plan is to break in while the family is away, steal a jewel from a safe, and keep his wife’s loan sharks at bay. However, when he arrives at the house, he discovers that it’s been booby trapped — there are bear traps on the floor, hooks dangling from ceilings, knives hanging from chandeliers, a bedroom floor covered in acid, razor wire dividing rooms, and nails on the stairs, all set up by the Collector, a psycho exterminator who likes to collect people for his trophy case. Once Arkin realizes what’s going on, however, he sets about trying to save the family, who were caught by the Collector before they could make it to the Cape for the weekend.

And that’s it. The family is captured by the Collector; they are tortured; they have their mouths sewn shut; they are thrown into walls of nails; they are hung up by hooks; they are mauled by bear traps; and they get their entrails pulled out. There’s nothing to this movie (and certainly nothing new) but a series of death traps because that’s the only thing that the two-bit shit-for-brains writer/director could come up with. An even mediocre director might know a little something about creating characters; about sympathy; about doses of humor; or pacing; or storylines; or suspense; or tension. Marcus Dunstan only knows how to set up a torture and mutilation scene that makes him feel better about his tiny dick. One day, he’s going to finally see a big penis. And it’s going to come from the business end of a horse. And I hope it ass rapes him.

But, hey! If you’re feeling emasculated; if you need to see a woman felt up before a nail is driven into her temple; or if you just get off on the prolonged, agonizing deaths of people you couldn’t possibly give a shit about, then maybe The Collector is for you. Maybe it’ll give you just the right amount of testosterone-fueled adrenaline you need to unshrivel your dried up, desiccated ball sack to go home and masturbate into a sock, you misogynistic, humanity hating fuck.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba.

← Name that Obscure Actor | Funny People Review →

Comments

I know it's been said before, but: I LOVE IT when Dustin gets riled.

Thank you, Dustin, for your delicious suffering.

Posted by: Jerce at July 31, 2009 3:02 PM

dang!

Posted by: shaine at July 31, 2009 3:03 PM

So, you didn't care for it, is what you're saying.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at July 31, 2009 3:03 PM

I heart you right now Dustin.

P.S. Sorry you had to see this vomitous movie.

Posted by: androstarr at July 31, 2009 3:07 PM

So I take it that The Collector II will probably begin shooting soon, then.

Posted by: MizHellion at July 31, 2009 3:12 PM

Why did I think Ed Norton was in this?

Posted by: Whorish Mouth at July 31, 2009 3:22 PM

Is it wrong that I almost want this to succeed just so I can see exactly how batshit insane Dustin goes?

Posted by: Alice at July 31, 2009 3:28 PM

*slow clap*

Posted by: fucta14 at July 31, 2009 3:28 PM

When you go and look up "Seething Rage" in the dictionary there is a picture of a Mr. Dustin Rowles and an excerpt from this review next to it.

No? Well there should be damnit.

Posted by: ashes at July 31, 2009 3:35 PM

I would never hope that Mr. Dunstan be subjected to the actual, physical torture that he so gleefully commits to film. I would never hope for it... but, I can dream it can't I?

Posted by: Spender at July 31, 2009 3:35 PM

Why did you think Ed Norton was in this, WM?

And the answer to your question, Alice, is yes. But only a little bit.

Oh, yeah. As a good friend of mine might say (keep in mind she's 67 and quite possible the most cantankerous person I've ever had the pleasure of meeting), "I'd rather have a hot poker shoved up my vagina that watch that piece of shit."

Completely deadpan. Completely serious, I kid you not. The lady is hardcore.

Posted by: Smokin at July 31, 2009 3:39 PM

Dustin,

You brought that shit on yourself. You run this site and could have said, "You know what Rowle-Dog? I'm not going to assign this movie to anyone because it's worthless on every level." But nooooo! You had be all stubborn and give this moron $10.

And admit it, you just copied and pasted a bunch of insults from the Micropenis rant, didn't you? Understandable since that well will never run dry.

Posted by: Kballs at July 31, 2009 3:42 PM

I thought I saw him in the trailer. I've only seen the trailer a couple of times and it moves pretty quickly, but I totally thought that was him. And I wondered what the hell he was doing in this movie.

Posted by: Whorish Mouth at July 31, 2009 3:49 PM

for a second there I thought you said "jump my ass".

Posted by: sara at July 31, 2009 3:51 PM

Is it wrong that I would love for dustin or someone else to rank all the torture porn movies based on how angry they made dustin? The rowles-rage meter, if you will.

I just don't think you can top the captivity review for anger; I see that as topping the scale. Next to that review, this feels like gumdrop rainbows.

Posted by: "Luker" the barbarian at July 31, 2009 3:55 PM

Crap. This actually happened (torture house), and a much better story was written about it. "The Devil in the White City" tells the story, and is a great book.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at July 31, 2009 4:01 PM

This may be the finest bit or writing I have ever had the pleasure of reading. Thank you.

Posted by: DemonWaterPolo at July 31, 2009 4:03 PM

Mrcreosote,
Word. That book is phat.

Posted by: Kballs at July 31, 2009 4:05 PM

Heresy though it may be, I'm actually beginning to get quite bored of Dustin's 'angry' reviews - paragraph after paragraph of ad hominem attacks seemingly geared towards the same lowest common denominator audience that the movie he's currently denigrating is supposed to be reeling in. Maybe that's the point - maybe he's assuming that anyone reading the review must be part of that movie's target audience, and thus he needs to call the director an 'anus brain' and 'pube breath' to explain the movie's incompetence to the reader in terms they can understand.

If it works, then bravo. But I gotta say, I personally prefer the more intelligent, reasoned reviews on the site. Y'know, the ones that actually criticise the movie.

Posted by: Dill The Devil at July 31, 2009 4:39 PM

I normally heed your warnings, but I cannot for this film. Why? Because I know too many horror fans in real life who have seen preview screenings of this and loved it. I can't ignore their feedback on a horror film as it is a rare day they push me in the wrong direction.

Do I like torture porn? No. Then again, I don't believe that exists in mainstream American cinema as these "torture porn" flicks really don't do anything but regurgitate violence from kind of extreme Japanese horror and the best of the 70's/80's slasher height in America. They're not designed to produce sexual satisfaction as the "porn" part of the pejorative would imply. Someone who gets off on a man having his arms twisted out of their sockets while his neck is snapped in a twisted crucifixion device needs mental health care as I doubt that audience (one who would see excessive violence against people who can't fight back as a sexual thrill, as "torture porn" implies) is large enough to sustain a new wave of horror film.

Am I a weak man who gets his jollies from watching women suffer? No. I hate sexist horror film cliches with a fucking passion. Is my dick so small that only proving how tough I am by laughing at awful kill shots will make me feel like a man? Again, no.

I'm just a fan of the suffering horror genre. I can hope that what's clearly intended to start another franchise at least has some scrap of potential such that I don't punch my fist through the poster of The Collector 4 when it comes down the shoot. That's all I ask.

Posted by: Robert at July 31, 2009 4:41 PM

Ugh. Again, another halfway-interesting concept ruined by a guy who knows fuck-all about making a film.

I love villain-protagonist stories, but few people seem to do them right. This could have been a halfway interesting one, but instead we get more torture porn (by the way, I still think carnography is a better term). Fuh.

Posted by: Vermillion at July 31, 2009 4:41 PM

I didn't have high hopes for this movie from the commercials. I will say that I thought the concept was vaguely intriguing; two guys break into a house, only to find that they picked a very bad place to be, and, simply because they're the only ones who can, they have to save this family from this vicious serial killer. They can't call the police, because they'll know they were trying to break in (though anonymous tips are not unheard of, and maybe doing the right thing by turning yourself in instead of letting a family get torn to shreds by a murderer is worth a few nights in the slammer). But fuck me. I don't know anyone who actually likes these things anymore. I honestly don't know a single person, even my horror fan friends, who liked the last couple Saw movies. Between this and Japanese import remakes, horror films need some serious redirection.

Posted by: Christian H. at July 31, 2009 4:45 PM

I don't feel like looking it up but is this a real movie? Because I've never heard of it. Ke-ripes man, this really is the summer of shit isn't it.

Posted by: TylerDFC at July 31, 2009 4:46 PM

Yes, Tyler, it certainly is. BUT we do have lovely, off the grid, Coen Bros movie to look forward to now.

Posted by: JenVegas at July 31, 2009 4:58 PM

I think this movie got exactly the review it deserved. Why waste highfalutin' language and reasoned critique on a pile of horse shit? Sometimes all that needs to be said is "It's shit." Dustin just happens to communicate that in a particularly vicious way that I enjoy, and it is this mix of high-brow/low-brow, serious/fun that has kept me reading for three years.

Posted by: heatdamaged at July 31, 2009 6:18 PM

First things first...

a bedroom floor covered in acid

What kind of acid? Because...well...I may just go lay on said floor for a little while. Then explore the rest of the house with my mouth wide open and my pupils dialated.

But, hey! If you’re feeling emasculated; if you need to see a woman felt up before a nail is driven into her temple; or if you just get off on the prolonged, agonizing deaths of people you couldn’t possibly give a shit about,

Soooooooo, I won't be in my bunk then.
*hangs head*
Damn't.

Posted by: Deistbrawler at July 31, 2009 6:23 PM

Yes, but how do you really feel about the movie?

Posted by: chenry at July 31, 2009 6:56 PM

Dustin, you're such a pussy. Anything even remotely "torture porn-esque" and you immediately wet your drawers and run off into the corner screaming and seeking comfort from your copy of Legally Blonde.

That said, I haven't seen this yet and it very well may suck (it kinda looks like the film Panic Room was trying to be), but...seriously, you could have summed up this review in one sentence, "This film was not meant for me." We get it...we get it...

Posted by: Case at July 31, 2009 7:22 PM

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.....

Posted by: Rubble44 at July 31, 2009 7:52 PM

i'm seeing it in 2 hours 29 minutes. not that i'm counting down or anything, it's just a simple fact.

my roomie is one of those people who scream like a little girl whenever i grab his arm at the appropriate moments. i know this will enhance the movie-going experience for those around us (usually the audience screams in waves around us, like pebbles in a pool. of blood.) and therefore people will leave the theater thinking this was scarier than it was.
i'm hollywood's bitch. i bring it.

Posted by: gp at July 31, 2009 8:02 PM

Yeah...I don't understand how the guy being a bad filmmaker as anything to do with the size of his penis. They're just gory movies...calm down.

And I think People Under the Stairs did this premise the best of anything.

Posted by: Rob at July 31, 2009 8:16 PM

This was... transcendent. I think I came a little bit. And by a little bit, I mean my scortum is now the size of Dunstans shriveled dick. After a long days work in the coal mines, some good old fashioned loathing is just what the pajiba ordered mmmhmm.

Posted by: Hellajet at July 31, 2009 8:17 PM

I don't know about you guys, but I feel a certain amount of cleansing when I read a review like that. Thanks Dustin

Posted by: EricD at July 31, 2009 8:54 PM

How do you keep your balance writing these reviews with the pen shoved all the way up your ass? You could at least keep the shit off the page. My high school juniors write better than you and have more insight into film. The only thing worse than torture porn is the proliferation of self-proclaimed pundits who have access to the Internet. No matter how bad it is, The Collector is a real movie playing nationwide. Too bad your opinion is only important enough for some fucktard blog. Jeez talk about masturbation.

Posted by: John Allen at July 31, 2009 9:06 PM

I love it when you review torture porn, Dustin. It brings out the best in you. You fuck those movies up the ass with a rusty machete in such a way that it can only be called art.

Posted by: George at July 31, 2009 9:08 PM

Robert,

If you knew the difference between "shoot" and "chute," you might have better taste in movies.

Posted by: alone in the dark at July 31, 2009 9:23 PM

"But, hey! If you’re feeling emasculated; if you need to see a woman felt up before a nail is driven into her temple; or if you just get off on the prolonged, agonizing deaths of people you couldn’t possibly give a shit about, then maybe The Collector is for you. Maybe it’ll give you just the right amount of testosterone-fueled adrenaline you need to unshrivel your dried up, desiccated ball sack to go home and masturbate into a sock, you misogynistic, humanity hating fuck."

Its funny that you judge the people that go to these movies, when you didn't have to go see it or review it. You just wanted something new to bitch about. So you sat through it all so you could stretch out your cry a little longer, and hear your faceless little followers and yes men tell you how right you are.

Torture porn? Please. Its a fucking movie. Its fake blood, its fake knives, its a fake family, in a fake house. Its for entertainment, its to be grossed out and scared. Its something to scream and laugh at. People like you talk so much shit about the horror industry, and you know nothing about it. You just fuel the millions the film will make with your name calling and shit talking.
Like your website is gonna change peoples minds about seeing it.

I was just searching on google for a review of a film I wanted to see, and POOF! I found yours. And congrats! I'm still gonna go see it! And i'm gonna enjoy it even more because I know you'll just be complaining about how horrible it was, while I get to enjoy seeing "a woman felt up before a nail is driven into her temple".

Its not porn! If it was, there would be a cock getting shoved into her mouth, pussy or ass, not a nail through her temple. Get it right. Its self righteous bitches like you that ruin everyone else's fun. Go protest at a gay persons out or something you nazi bitch.

Posted by: Not interested in this website, was looking for a useful unbiased review of skill, not some whiny bi at July 31, 2009 9:58 PM

No matter how bad it is, The Collector is a real movie playing nationwide.

It doesn't count as a movie, it's an on screen abortion of a love child produced between a horsecock, and the directors asshole. Just because you can get an abomination like this distributed into theaters, you don't have the right to call it an actual movie.

Posted by: George at July 31, 2009 10:04 PM

Mmmm, delicious hypocrisy.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at July 31, 2009 10:38 PM

Posted by: John Allen at July 31, 2009 9:06 PM

A "fucktard blog?" Then why are you reading it. Not to mention you're a junior high teacher and you just used the word "fucktard?" No wonder our education system is shit.

Posted by: Deistbrawler at July 31, 2009 10:57 PM

there are bear traps on the floor, hooks dangling from ceilings, knives hanging from chandeliers, a bedroom floor covered in acid, razor wire dividing rooms, and nails on the stairs
---
So, Harry (or maybe it's Marv) Arkin is out of jail and robbing houses again, and of all houses to try to rip off he picks the one where a growed-up Kevin McCallister has been living ... and waiting ... alone ... all these years?

Yeah, right, like that would ever happen in real life.

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at July 31, 2009 11:07 PM

"I think this movie got exactly the review it deserved. Why waste highfalutin' language and reasoned critique on a pile of horse shit? Sometimes all that needs to be said is "It's shit." Dustin just happens to communicate that in a particularly vicious way that I enjoy, and it is this mix of high-brow/low-brow, serious/fun that has kept me reading for three years."

I can see your point of view, and empathise with it. I can see Dustin's point of view, and empathise with that also. Full disclosure here - I actually thought that the first two Saw films were quite enjoyable - the first one had a what promised to be a clever premise at the beginning, but was quickly let down by a clumsy structure. The second film was tighter, story-wise, than the first, but was already showing the signs of the franchise being bogged down by the film-makers' pandering to the crowd who weren't interested in the relative cleverness of the first movie, but instead were there for the gore and for little else.

I didn't think Hostel Pt. 1 was particularly amazing, but I enjoyed it - and Hostel Pt. 2 I thought was far superior to its predecessor (but that's still not saying I put it anywhere near on a par with, say, Children Of Men or Blade Runner) - just that it took an interesting horror premise from a previous movie and gave us a closer look at the organisation behind the premise and the kind of people that would go to such an organisation.

But all that is somewhat beside the point - my point was that Dustin used to temper his rants with actual criticism of the film involved. There were only about three lines of the above review that could seriously be considered 'criticism'.

I've always thought that you can tell a good critic when you can read one of their reviews, and even when it's completely obvious that they hated what they were reviewing, there was still enough information about the movie in the review so that someone could read the review and say "Well, it's obvious they didn't like it, but from how they've described it, I still may get something out of it."

Naturally, that's all just my opinion - whether any of you agree or not, I don't think any more or less of you because of it. And I hope that none of you think any less of me because of it - because I still value this site as being my primary stop for intelligent, non-studio-biased film criticism. I've just been getting a weird sense of a cult of personality around here just lately - a sort of 'We Are Pajiba, Hear Us Snark' sort of thing, and this (in my opinion) unimaginative and uninformative review and the fervent hand-clapping it has received seems to be symptomatic of that.

Posted by: Dill The Devil at July 31, 2009 11:10 PM

Sorry to double-post (and to go on in what must appear to be an antagonistic tone) - but I just went on Roger Ebert's site, and one of his latest blog posts, whilst not precisely synching up with my sentiments here, does still bring up some points that I think ring true with some of what I've said:

The Greatest Movies Ever Made.

Posted by: Dill The Devil at July 31, 2009 11:36 PM

Personally, as a bitchy person, I love the occasional vitriol-fueled rant about a movie a reviewer didn't enjoy. While these types of reviews may seem to be appearing a bit more often than before, they're rare enough to be a nice treat at the end of a shitty week.

Also, hey, that guy who isn't interested in this site and was just looking for a review of the movie not a whiny bi found this site early, if not first, in his search. It's like you're famous!

Posted by: Erin S at August 1, 2009 12:22 AM

Maybe I'm not the target audience for this site anymore - or, at the very least, I ahouldn't bother reading Dustin's reviews and articles. Daniel, Stephen, Ranylt, Brian, Claude, - can't say a bad word about any of them (or any of the other staff I've missed - I apoligise for my inattentiveness). Even if I happen to disagree with them, they always seem to come from a perfectly reasonable standpoint. It just seems that Dustin has taken on a certain persona now - one that is almost undoubtedly meant to be amusing, but one that I can't quite get behind.

Posted by: Dill The Devil at August 1, 2009 12:38 AM

well damn.

Posted by: Deistbrawler at August 1, 2009 12:55 AM

Love Rowles or hate him, I'm just thrilled beyond words that whatever the response the commenters aren't just posting "great review" or "i thought the same thing so you're wonderful" so much anymore.

Posted by: Jack Random at August 1, 2009 7:37 AM

I guess I don't understand why, given your knowledge of the other awful projects this man has -- well, I guess "created" will have to do -- you would bother seeing this movie or paying any attention to it at all? Is the chance that some small percentage of this movie's fanbase knows someone who can read this review to them really worth the time you didn't spend with your family or watching something good?

Posted by: Brett at August 1, 2009 9:17 AM

Always love your reviews Dustin. Is there some way to make this site members only? No offense but if you aren't one of the weirdos who read this site on a regular basis then I really just don't give a shit about your stupid fucking opinion. No offense.

Posted by: becks at August 1, 2009 9:37 AM

Becks, as one of the writers for this site, I can honestly say that your post is exactly the opposite of what we're trying to do here.

No offense.

Posted by: TK at August 1, 2009 10:45 AM

It was actually a joke. Go back to your basement.

Posted by: becks at August 1, 2009 11:22 AM

I'm banned like Pookie now, aren't I?

Posted by: becks at August 1, 2009 11:43 AM

I think the first Saw was kind of original and even the first Hostel works on both a scare level (for anyone who has traveled to strange places) and a visceral level (the last 20 minutes of vengeance get major cheers).

The mistake that this director and the people making movies of this type is they confuse gore with suspense, viciousness for tension and shock with actual horror. They could mutilate 100 people in 90 minutes and they still wouldn't be as scary or disturbing as either Rosemary's Baby or Funny Games.

I'm more interested in catching Thirst by Chan Wook-Park.

Posted by: Fredo at August 1, 2009 11:59 AM

Wook-Park's Vengeance trilogy was amazing and definitely more horrific than any of the crap, (ie.,The Collector), Hollywood churns out for that special kick-you-in-the-nuts kind of takeaway feeling. I'm with Fredo--looking forward to Thirst.

Posted by: slim at August 1, 2009 1:27 PM

Bane of humanity!! Misogyny!! Blah, blah, blah!! This guy is at best a terrible movie critic, and at worst quite a moron. Clearly, he doesn't know what "misogyny" even means, and yet, like most highly repressed homosexuals, he feels the need to scream it at every piece of pop-culture he doesn't like. Grow up, Dustin Rowles. It's OK to be gay; no one is judging you. Let go of the anger, and embrace your shriveled-ballsack fetish.

Posted by: me at August 1, 2009 2:38 PM

Also, could we start categorizing the reviews by reviewer, so I'm no longer drawn to read Rowles' "reviews" like a gawker at a car accident? I like the others, as they actually, you know, critique movies.

Posted by: me at August 1, 2009 2:41 PM

Also, could we start categorizing the reviews by reviewer, so I'm no longer drawn to read Rowles' "reviews" like a gawker at a car accident?

I'm pretty sure that having the reviewer's name right under the header and right beside the title being reviewed serves the same purpose as your proposed categories.

It seems that movies like this bring me more joy through their review on this site than they will when I eventually see them. I have an illness, I believe I've mentioned it before, that forces me to watch horror/thriller/scary-killy-time movies even when I know they will be terrible. So, I will likely see this movie at some point, but not in the near future. Ooooh! Library score!

Posted by: Pinky McLadybits (aka Dangle McGee) at August 1, 2009 2:56 PM

I thought 500 Days of Summer was a snoozefest, maybe this movie will be more up my alley.

Posted by: hollaback at August 1, 2009 3:58 PM

The currently released documentary "The Cove", about the small town where Japanese fisherman spear dolphins for fun and profit, is infinitely more horrifying and cause the lump to form in my throat and my heart to beat faster in shock, horror and outrage, than a million of these goofball dumbass movies ever could. Want suffering, misery, torture and more debased and unspeakably perverse examples of (hu)man's inhumanity to (hu)man than any thing ever conceived in the world of 'entertainment'? Read the newspaper. Thank you, and good evening.

Posted by: devildoggie at August 1, 2009 3:58 PM

devildoggie ALWAYS cockpunches me when i'm at my most-est vulnerable.

TIME!

Posted by: gp at August 1, 2009 5:11 PM

Who suffers more? The people in this shit storm Torture Pornado? Or the ones watching it? Is empathy so rare a commodity that we have to go to such lengths to find it?

Posted by: Odnon at August 1, 2009 6:19 PM

This is one of those incredibly obnoxious reviews that are more about the reviewer than the film. Get over yourself, Dustin. On the basis of this "review', film criticism is not your bag.

Posted by: Jason at August 1, 2009 8:00 PM

HIJACK TIME! In the name of Admiral TCFKAB, man the poopdecks, do NOT poop the mandecks, mind your mizzenmasts, mill about smartly and set sail, ya' swabs!

Posted by: Spender at August 1, 2009 11:09 PM

I'm going to need an AssSwiffer if I'm swabbing the poopdeck.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at August 1, 2009 11:28 PM

Random Thought: When you see a picture of Harry Knowles, don't you imagine that he's got a serious - SERIOUS - "Fro Down Below"?
Ummm. Nope. Me, neither.

Posted by: Spender at August 1, 2009 11:37 PM

There's no way he manscapes.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at August 1, 2009 11:45 PM

Well, he'd have to be able to reach it... a thought that makes me want to poke out that mind's eye.

Posted by: Spender at August 1, 2009 11:50 PM

Well I imagine *hurk* he'd need *gag* some kind of *hmpharhalph* stick?
*Sets self on fire and leaps out of a window.*

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at August 1, 2009 11:54 PM

there was a dentist in my old company's insurance plan who's name was harry sacks. DOCTOR harry sacks.

*tugs fondly at coinpurse*

Posted by: gp at August 1, 2009 11:58 PM

Now, isn't this better than yelling and flinging obscenities?
No?
Well, then... fuck yer dog ass, you skanky motherfucker and suck my dick until it tickles yer tonsils...'cause I'm kinda...lonely... and need attention... that I never got from my...*snif*...Daddy.............

Posted by: Spender at August 2, 2009 12:30 AM

um, spender, are you hitting on me or optimus?
because, you know, that might require more alcohol on rhyme's part.
and i'm closer.

Posted by: gp at August 2, 2009 12:50 AM

Do you look like...*snif*...my Daddy?
No?
Well, close enough, I guess.

Posted by: Spender at August 2, 2009 1:15 AM

I saw the trailer for this movie and thought it was going to have a bizarre "twist" a la The Captive and the guy in the bee suit was actually the desperate housewife and she'd set up the whole thing to steal the handyman for her collection in the basement that her husband never acknowledges, WASP that he is.

You know, like you do.

The traps and hooks and acid and screams and "help me, help me, he's going to KIIIIIILLLL my BAY-BEEES!" was all to fuck with him and get him all teary eyed and shit-scared-stupid and, you know, otherwise break his spirit so he'd be more pliable once he got to the aforementioned basement.

I like my movie better. Anybody know where I can get a bear trap and some acid? Also, a generically attractive handyman?

Posted by: Ava at August 2, 2009 10:16 AM

$5 says that all the trolls are just the same sad bastard sitting in his mom's basement in his dirty crusty underwear, changing his name every five minutes and trying to come up with a new and original way of saying "Dustin sucks waaaah" every single time.

God that's sad.

Posted by: figgy at August 2, 2009 10:59 AM

i'll take that bet. but his underwear better be extra-crusty or you're going to have a difficult time, er, collecting (see what i did there?).

Posted by: gp at August 2, 2009 11:21 AM

Fiiiiiggggggyyyyy!

So very glad that you're among us again.

Posted by: Spender at August 2, 2009 12:12 PM

The internet is for entertainin'. This review appealed to the internet-dick-joke-chuck-norris side of me, as did some of the comments. Haters, keep sipping on your haterade while I dance around your dessicated comments like a mad Pied Piper on acid, laughing like I had a small penis to laugh at. Yes, that acid.

Your review was the funz enough that I sent it away via IM to be lol'd at by other dickplay lovers. Also, I am a female so my repeated use of dick in this comment is entirely justified and appreciated. Viva la Internet!

Posted by: Trey at August 2, 2009 2:05 PM

Conga-conga-con-GA ...

Aaaaaand here's your modest weekend diversion:

Speaking of the Conga, do people still do dances with names? I mean outside of a wedding, where the Hokey-Pokey and the Chicken Dance and the Macarena are unfortunately sort of required? Me, I just do a thing that looks like I'm having an epileptic seizure, and still I'm far from the worst I've ever seen at it. But it isn't called anything, and the places I hang out the dancing tends to be more ... um, let's be kind and call it free form.

Do people still name dances?

That's it, disappointing, I know, but this was on sort of short notice and I promise to try to come up with something about beastiality for next week.

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at August 2, 2009 2:33 PM

Your choice of words to describe this film only insult your own intelligence to the point of which its less than the age of Dunstan's range of appeal. So maybe you should stop trashing movies for what they are, when you're no better. Get a life, learn some english, graduate from.. well I'd say you're probably about 13. So grow up, pretty hard to graduate from anything if you can't form a decent opinion of something without bringing out your dumbass book of childish names. I'm a random visitor of the site, and I definitely can't believe what I saw, you piece of shit. Go die somewhere you fucking moron.

Posted by: not dustin at August 2, 2009 3:13 PM

HaHa! I like how someone commented that you don't know what misogyny means Dustin. If there is any place on the internet that has gone over the definition of misogyny more than Pajiba, I'd like to see it.

Posted by: becks at August 2, 2009 3:58 PM

You know what would be more interesting than the horrific execution of the family through elaborately planned rooms? Learning how the serial killer put together these rooms! Like some sort of bizzaro home makeover show. How do you coat a floor in acid? It's going to burn through most everything, so coating and flashing the floor particularly at the door sills and vents is vital. You don't want your acid pouring al over your bear traps, corroding them and preventing them from snapping shut. And how about the spooky mood lighting? That shit ain't going to terrify people all by itself. Oh, sure you can flay, gouge and kill people, but really without the proper mood, setting and materials, you're no better than that guy sown the street with heads in his fridge. And that's just tacky.

I'd love to watch one of these movies where the traps just don't work because of shitty craftsmanship. I mean hell, in everyday construction trying to get a bathtub properly installed is difficult, yet this guy can get elaborate traps to work every damn time?

Posted by: Mrcreosote at August 2, 2009 4:07 PM

Your choice of words to describe this film only insult your own intelligence to the point of which its less than the age of Dunstan's range of appeal.I'm a random visitor of the site, and I definitely can't believe what I saw, you piece of shit. Go die somewhere you fucking moron.
Posted by: not dustin at August 2, 2009 3:13 PM

Ummmm.... Mr.Pot, meet Mr. Kettle?

Posted by: Spender at August 2, 2009 5:20 PM

Posted by: Mrcreosote at August 2, 2009 4:07 PM
---
Kevin McCallister booby-trapped an entire house by himself, and cleaned it all up afterward, by himself. And he was 8.

So maybe your bathtub problem is, y'know, you?

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at August 2, 2009 7:06 PM

Ummmm.... Mr.Pot, meet Mr. Kettle?

Posted by: Spender at August 2, 2009 5:20 PM
---
I'd like not dustin to meet Mr. Skillet.

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at August 2, 2009 7:09 PM

... Is gp a girl's name?

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at August 2, 2009 9:52 PM

OK, first, isn't it amazing how one little troll with several different names can bring us all together? Sigh and smile.

Second, these freaking ads are driving me nuts! I'm at the bottom of the comments, listening to some terrible bit, even as I type this. The volume/pause controls are up top!

Third, I worry that Dustin will burn out.

Posted by: Lance at August 2, 2009 10:27 PM

I got halfway through this review, and figured, even if Dustin had a heart attack writing the next sentence and the review was never finished, I'd still get a good half-hour entertainment from the inevitable bitching from some horror film lover in the comment section. Mmmm, vitriol.

Then Mrcreosote won my heart with his idea for a reality TV show Transforming Torture Houses. Because yeah, I would watch that. Actually, I'd tape it and rewatch it until something broke. Possibly my mind.

Posted by: ScienceGeek at August 2, 2009 11:01 PM

it's short for guiltypartner, or james (like the fashion model)...

and i wouldn't talk. i thought you were a rapping robot for the longest.

Posted by: gp at August 2, 2009 11:44 PM

Dustin Rowles, instead of bashing the hard work of others, why don't you try accomplishing something instead. You sit comfortably at your computer ranting about movies you dislike because you don't have what it takes to make a film of your own. You're just another asshole with a computer. The sheer level of narcissism it takes to think that anyones gives a shit about your worthless criticism is mind boggling. You're nothing more than a frustrated little man who's failed at life and has settled for the uneventful and depressing life of a fucking blogger. You're angry, because in the end, millions of people will have watched "The Collector" and enjoyed it, while you and your handful of troll followers will be forgotten by the end of the month. I'd love to see you write a screenplay, or direct of film.

Posted by: David at August 3, 2009 1:49 AM

Check out Dustin's facebook picture:

http://www.facebook.com/Pajiba

He looks like a bloated, post-chemo man who has a penchant for raping small boys. He even has the pedo smile.

Posted by: travis at August 3, 2009 1:56 AM

"So, Marcus Dunstan, you dumb son of a bitch. We meet again, huh?"

I seriously doubt you've ever met Marcus. Nor do I think Marcus has ever heard of you or this blog.

Posted by: dan at August 3, 2009 1:59 AM

I'm going to assume that "David," "travis," and "dan" are the same person - note the shrinking, descending names, evidence of boredom, and the common, unimaginative vocabulary. travis's joining of "post chemo" with "pedo" might be clever if it made any sense at all. Why "post," lad? Facial swelling and the loss of hair come *with* chemo, not after it. When you write like this, people think you're an idiot. That isn't your goal, is it? If so, then this is a really meta sequence of posts Bravo! But note, too, their foolish misuse of simple words. A "troll," David, is ... well ... someone like you: a person who doesn't accept a particular community on its own terms, and who attacks to disrupt the general conversation, ethos, and spirit of the site. You are a troll. Your "friend" dan is too! Since we live in a society obsessed with identity, perhaps the certainty of this last crucial bit will bring you some comfort. But since I am equally sure that you have a very, very tiny penis, I think we should also recommend deep therapy.

Posted by: Lance at August 3, 2009 6:32 AM

I hate these ambiguous reviews. Should I see the film or not? Pajiba ought to consider giving marks out of ten to prevent these sorts of confusion.

Posted by: Caspar at August 3, 2009 7:54 AM

Is this my fault? Did I start this? If so, I really do sincerely apologise. I thought we could maybe have a sensible dialogue about Dustin's writing - maybe Dustin could offer his own point of view so both I and others could better understand where he's coming from when he writes reviews like this. I didn't much like it, and I said why. Other people did like it, and they said why. That's just civilised discourse right there. There's no need to insult the guy's appearance, or tell him to go somewhere and die - that's just lame, and undermines the point you were trying to make.

Posted by: Dill The Devil at August 3, 2009 1:20 PM

in the scene where the collector holds the jar of bugs up to that guys stomach and puts a lighter underneath it... how does he get the bugs out of his cut? do they just stay inside his body?

Posted by: bobster at August 3, 2009 1:57 PM

I love the smell of hostility in the afternoon.

And bucdaddy, have you forgotten about the Lawn Mower? The Shopping Cart? The Sprinkler System? These are all tried-and-true dances, appropriate for any occasion, be it a bar mitzvah, a wedding, or a Wednesday.

Posted by: Jessica at August 3, 2009 2:40 PM

Dill, there was nothing wrong with your criticism. You are not responsible for the troll-tastic behavior at hand.

I'm surprised the Collector's marketing team was able to afford a troll of "not dustin's" caliber. Look at the creativity he put into his name? That's how you get credibility folks.

Posted by: "Luker" the barbarian at August 3, 2009 3:23 PM

Mrcreosote

Brilliant stuff. I see it on Fox in 5,4,3...

Posted by: "Luker" the barbarian at August 3, 2009 3:25 PM

Lance, sorry to disappoint you, but:

1. I'm not the same person and David or travis
2. Hair re-growth can take weeks to occur post-chemo
3. You sir are a troll, and a hypocrite. You accuse people of online improprieties and in the same breath resort to small-penis insults. Wow.
4. The ethos on this site is laughable. There is no shred of intellectual thought, criticism, or discourse here. The reviews on this site are designed only to bash movies and their makers, and do so brutishly.

Posted by: dan at August 3, 2009 4:35 PM

Nope, sorry dan. Caspar FTW!

Posted by: elizabeth at August 3, 2009 4:49 PM

I'd also like to add that Variety, the LA Times, and Aint it Cool News all gave this movie good reviews. If this is an indication of anything, it's that Dustin's review is negative for the sake of being negative. As for his minions, they don't think for themselves.

Posted by: dan at August 3, 2009 4:50 PM

Awesome logic at work in that last note, "dan." I marvel at your wit. And, like you, I always turn to the LA Times for guidance. And I relish the comfort of "Ain't It Cool," which marks everything that is hip for me, so that I might avoid the hard work of choice and selection.

Posted by: Lance at August 3, 2009 5:48 PM

Lance,

You missed the point of my argument completely. I didn't condemn individual choice and selection. I'm trying to encourage people to research what others have to say about the film. I would certainly hope that you don't pass judgement on a film based only on what Dustin has to say. If you read the reviews by the LA Times, Aint it Cool News, and Variety, you'll have a better idea of how good the film is than if you only read the one "review" on this blog.

For somebody who hasn't seen the film, more than one opinion will provide better insight on the value of a movie.

Posted by: dan at August 3, 2009 11:44 PM

Ok, I was high as hell when I commented the other day, so allow me to clear up my point. I don't feel that any one other person is going to like every movie I like. Therefore, I would like to know why a person does or doesn't like a certain movie, so I can make a guess as to whether or not I would like it. Other critics on this site "get it," and are very useful to me in picking movies. Rowles either rails against or fellates every movie he reviews; It's impossible to tell whether I would like a film he reviews or not, because I don't expect to agree with him in every case. This is why I say he sucks as an actual critic. Obviously, he's a great opinion leader, as a few thoughtless drones here have proven, but a good critic, hell no. And yes, the term "misogyny" is misused here as much as, if not more than, anywhere else.

Posted by: me at August 4, 2009 11:38 PM

Haven't watched the movie. Just wanted to comment about your review, which...is terrible. I understand what you're trying to do, being overly scathing and witty at the same time to make people laugh...but you fail. Its like watching Seth Rogan trying to be funny. Just because you string in a few undiscriminating "fucks (fucking, fucker) etc" doesn't accomplish the feat. Nor do insults like "anus brain" reflect any form of intelligence you might posses.
If this movie is as bad as you say it is, I would have to categorize you with in the same group as the director of this movie. Failure.

Posted by: Dustin at August 5, 2009 10:48 AM

Thanks for sitting through this for us all.

Posted by: Grrravy at August 6, 2009 7:14 PM

I agree with 'Me'. I think this style of criticism is partially meant to vent true feelings, but more likely it's just a gimmick aimed at all of us dissatisfied movie goers. In other words, this review is as dishonest as all of the shitty films we hate. I also don't see how liking this movie would make me a misogynist. Maybe if you explained some of your criticism (if you're under a word restraint try deleting a few of the sentences revolving around the description of shriveled ball sacks; that should free up about half the page) I would have enjoyed the review a little more. What I hope is that this review is not meant to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Jeff at August 10, 2009 10:43 PM

For the record I don't think Dustin should be killed...that might be taking it a little far. But generally the sorts of reviews or criticisms that are useful to people are those that back up opinion with objective information taken from the film. If you don't want to write a review that is useful to people, your review will come across as strictly self-serving, which is fine if that's what you want. But essentially saying, "Dude, this really sucked," doesn't help people decide whether or not the movie is for them. If you want to open peoples' eyes to problems with the motivations of people in Hollywood, try doing it in a way that informs people of particular problems. And as for calling this film "torture-porn," I'd say they used a lot more suggestion in this film than most of their others. It wasn't as bad as I'd heard.

Posted by: Jeff at August 10, 2009 11:28 PM

watch The Collector online

http://megashare.info/watch.php?id=TWpZeQ

Posted by: MegaMovies at August 11, 2009 9:20 AM

Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.