Leofwine_draca
...and not in a good way. Instead, POPULATION 436 is difficult to sit through, purely because it's not very well made. The story comes across as a mix of a typical Stephen King small-town-hiding-dark-secret effort a la NEEDFUL THINGS, with a STEPFORD WIVES-style twist thrown into the mix. Given some of the imagination that's gone into the writing (and in particular the premise), this should have been a hell of a lot better than it's turned out.POPULATION 436 just doesn't have much to offer the viewer. The film has been miscast and Jeremy Sisto is extremely hard to like as the hero. The mysterious nature of the narrative sits at odds with the violent scenes which have been shoehorned into the plotting to spice up the film for horror fans. The characters are unlikeable and there's a definite lack of pace; this should have been more like CHILDREN OF THE CORN, with a sense of evil forces closing in and building excitement that way.Instead, the film offers exactly one predictable but affecting moment at the climax, while the rest of it feels like a wasted opportunity, a SyFy-level B-movie rather than a proper movie.
Tubular_Bell
I guess it's somewhere in the Constitution, but apparently there is a checklist of about a dozen overdone "thriller" clichés that EVERY "scary" film must include: tinkling dissonant music with scraping violins; a Hand grabbing the protagonist's shoulder from behind his back, which -- oh! it's just a friendly neighbour; silhouettes peering from within dark woods; the camera that seems like it's peering from within dark woods; you can fill in the rest. And of course, those clichés are all thrown in at inappropriate times, just to remind you that -- yes! you ARE watching a scary movie, and something BAD is about to happen. Just wait a few more minutes, okay? Stay with me. You won't be disappointed.As for the rest, what can be said? There is no reason whatsoever why you should watch this movie, or why this movie should have been made in the first place. "Run of the mill" doesn't even begin to describe it. It plays along exactly like every other scary movie you've ever seen -- except for the good ones, that is. You may be intrigued by the main premise of the film: a town that has had the exact same population size for over a century. I, too, was interested on that plot line. But the blunt, plain truth is that the premise is the only good thing here. The actual execution of the premise is pitifully bad. In fact, it's so pitiful and lame that even calling it "bad" is giving it too much credit. Yes, it is that kind of film.Oh, so it is a very low budget film. Oh, so it doesn't have any super celebrities (no, you don't need to remind me that Fred Durst is in it). Oh, so it doesn't have any great special effects. So what? If you're looking for the shoestring budget classics, go watch Romero's Dawn of the Dead. And if you've already seen it, go watch it again. If you've already seen it hundreds of times and are sick of it, go watch it again anyway: it will be better than watching Population 436. But if you're just really, really interested in the "peaceful little town with a dark secret" premise, well, try Hot Fuzz instead. Only watch this if you're interested in the boring, dull padding-out scenes which try too hard to convince you that there is Evil about to ensue and forget to try to make you care, or the cardboard-cutout supporting characters, or the "protagonist with a tragic backstory". The plot twists? You'll guess more than half of them just by watching the few opening scenes of the film, and the rest will make you pretty confused about just what the film is trying to achieve; at times it goes for a "psychological thriller" thing with a very menacing motivation, other times it switches straight into supernatural land, and then suddenly it goes all religious (or anti-religious, in the pettiest and most shallow way possible). If the intention was to combine all aspects into a single thing, the result is pretty ridiculous. It seems like the film is trying to please everyone at the same time: if you're into the supernatural, you'll find out something to like; if you hate it, though, hey! you'll ALSO find something to like! And so on.As unassuming and low profile as it is, it's just painful to watch a film completely devoid of identity or skill. Watching it I almost wished it would have a few "scare your face off" scenes for diversity; not that I think films should actually try to scare (really, people get scared by movies? That's pretty much like falling in love with an inflatable doll), but, heck, it would just be good to see the film try SOMETHING for a change. In the entire movie, I can only recall ONE moment in which it did try something, which is the festival scene; but a scene like that should come as a thrill, not as a relief! And worse: if it did generate any thrill, they dissipated it very, very quickly.I swear I wouldn't be so cynical if there was any actual effort in this film. I appreciate filmmakers who actually do try hard to create something interested. It doesn't even need to be NEW, but just worth watching. This film goes to show that, even when you have a pretty good idea, you still have to put effort in executing it, and stacking cliché on top of cliché sure doesn't qualify as "execution". Just skip this one.Oh, and if you still really, REALLY want something scary to watch, go and watch some random half-assed Asian horror film with a long black haired female protagonist who looks like she weeps constantly. You'll at least get a few laughs out of it.
