IMDb RATING
3.0/10
1.5K
YOUR RATING
A woman once possessed by a mysterious entity uncovers a shocking secret about her past and must face the demon that dwells inside of her.A woman once possessed by a mysterious entity uncovers a shocking secret about her past and must face the demon that dwells inside of her.A woman once possessed by a mysterious entity uncovers a shocking secret about her past and must face the demon that dwells inside of her.
Donald M. Austin
- Principal Hoots
- (as Donald Austin)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Take all the actors out and replace them with ones who can act and use more than one or two facial expressions then possibly it could work. Oh and a corpse that doesn't breathe, although by far she was the better actress so that says a lot. Worst film I have seen in ages. Says I have to write ten lines before I can submit this review. ...I am not sure I can come up with anything more valuable to persuade you not to waste your time. If you do have a fish tank then perhaps buy some popcorn and settle down in front of it and enjoy an action packed fish frenzy of aquatic pleasure. It will be a far more valuable use of your time. Is that ten lines yet? I have put more effort and time into this than the whole film . Right.....off to sprinkle some fish flakes........
Despite the intriguing title, THE APPEARING is nothing more than a cheap and lousy horror movie that screams derivative at every step. It starts out as a tragedy-from-the-past type movie, and before the end has turned into your usual demonic possession flick. At no point is it original or indeed valid as a decent horror film.
The characters are dull beyond with Will Wallace's lead being particularly stultifying. Former Superman actor Dean Cain shows up in support, while poor old Don Swayze - the late Patrick's brother - reminds us that he's nothing like his more famous sibling. Despite attempts by the filmmakers, the incidents portrayed in the film are rather tame, and the familiarity of the whole thing makes it tough to keep your attention on it.
The characters are dull beyond with Will Wallace's lead being particularly stultifying. Former Superman actor Dean Cain shows up in support, while poor old Don Swayze - the late Patrick's brother - reminds us that he's nothing like his more famous sibling. Despite attempts by the filmmakers, the incidents portrayed in the film are rather tame, and the familiarity of the whole thing makes it tough to keep your attention on it.
Your usual overused plot/bad acting/weak effects, second hand movie. Maybe the plot was smarter than normal, but those bad picked actors, horrible lines and the lookalike "The rite" ending managed to destroy it completely.
So here you have it, one hour and 30 minutes that felt like a small infinity because they threw more twist than you find in an Asian horror, they just wouldn't stop. Indeed maybe the creators of "The appearing" wanted to make something to stand above the rest of B horrors, but failed to. They got so lost in their own work, something I see happening more and more lately. The problem lays either in that extremely cheap camera work or a plot pulled out to its extremes!
So, either try "The exorcist", "The rite" or "The possession" just, sadly, not this one. Won't work even for a late night movie. It's bad...
Cheers!!
So here you have it, one hour and 30 minutes that felt like a small infinity because they threw more twist than you find in an Asian horror, they just wouldn't stop. Indeed maybe the creators of "The appearing" wanted to make something to stand above the rest of B horrors, but failed to. They got so lost in their own work, something I see happening more and more lately. The problem lays either in that extremely cheap camera work or a plot pulled out to its extremes!
So, either try "The exorcist", "The rite" or "The possession" just, sadly, not this one. Won't work even for a late night movie. It's bad...
Cheers!!
There's something to be said about how bad a film is, when the first ten minutes pass and you're wondering more about how it got made than the plot itself.
The acting is bizarre. It reminds me of drama classes in high school, where a prompt to "look happy" means smiling maniacally whilst staring at a single point in the distance like a crazy person. Or the instruction to be the "stoner chick" ends up like the only knowledge the actress has of drugs is a "Just Say No!" education commercial.
An early scene sets the tone. A curious girl and some guy (...boyfriend? I honestly have no idea) wander into an abandoned, haunted house. The script has the girl stating at least 5 times how weird the place is, even though it actually doesn't resemble anything other than an old house with cobwebs. Seriously, it's not even dark in there.
Then we're introduced to a couple who have moved to the area following a "tragic event". Fair enough, but when we see the wife in the bathroom looking upset, music suddenly roars into life, completely obliterating the mood. Is it background music? Is it a CD the wife put on? Where the hell did it come from? And WHY IS IT SO LOUD?!
Still, I'm only fourteen minutes in.
The next scene shows the wife making breakfast and the husband doing his best not to act in any kind of realistic way, by stating that he can't share breakfast as he's late for work, but then weirdly taking absolutely ages to drink a glass of OJ and take two bites of toast. Sad wife (I think, she's got that weird look in her eyes again - and not because of her acting) looks at a photo of her daughter (ah, so that's the tragic event) and then runs out of the house, and then just appears in the middle of a country road with photo in hand. But this isn't lost time, or a fugue state. She's just...walking there.
I've got another hour and a quarter of this. Can't wait.
The acting is bizarre. It reminds me of drama classes in high school, where a prompt to "look happy" means smiling maniacally whilst staring at a single point in the distance like a crazy person. Or the instruction to be the "stoner chick" ends up like the only knowledge the actress has of drugs is a "Just Say No!" education commercial.
An early scene sets the tone. A curious girl and some guy (...boyfriend? I honestly have no idea) wander into an abandoned, haunted house. The script has the girl stating at least 5 times how weird the place is, even though it actually doesn't resemble anything other than an old house with cobwebs. Seriously, it's not even dark in there.
Then we're introduced to a couple who have moved to the area following a "tragic event". Fair enough, but when we see the wife in the bathroom looking upset, music suddenly roars into life, completely obliterating the mood. Is it background music? Is it a CD the wife put on? Where the hell did it come from? And WHY IS IT SO LOUD?!
Still, I'm only fourteen minutes in.
The next scene shows the wife making breakfast and the husband doing his best not to act in any kind of realistic way, by stating that he can't share breakfast as he's late for work, but then weirdly taking absolutely ages to drink a glass of OJ and take two bites of toast. Sad wife (I think, she's got that weird look in her eyes again - and not because of her acting) looks at a photo of her daughter (ah, so that's the tragic event) and then runs out of the house, and then just appears in the middle of a country road with photo in hand. But this isn't lost time, or a fugue state. She's just...walking there.
I've got another hour and a quarter of this. Can't wait.
I'm a big fan of Horror dealing with haunting and exorcisms. The Appearing seemed like an average film from these sub-genres, but it definitely isn't, for better and for worse. After watching this, I've realized I'd find it easier if I tried hard enough to focus on the good things...
First of all, I was very happy seeing Dean Cain doing cinema! I really liked him in Lois and Clarke back in the day, and last time I've seen anything by him was his average role in Circle of Pain. So... Nice seeing you Dean!
Second, I absolutely loved the new interpretation of possession behaviour. It of course had some of the motives we've grown accustomed to from pretty much every exorcism film since The Exorcist, but it was mostly quite innovative in its own way. Less extreme over-acting, more mellow and tasteful insanity originating from something unknown. Speaking of insanity, the film did try to combine that factor in order to present some twists, but these were sadly not that impressive.
Finally, the best feature of this film is without a doubt newbie actress Emily Brooks. I have no idea why Dean Cain, who has 10% the camera time she has, appears as a main actor while she doesn't. She has performed almost perfectly both as a delusional woman and as a possessed one. I loved every minute of her, and sincerely hope to see her again in the Horror genre! Also, along with her acting, main actor Will Wallace (Braveheart, anyone?) whom I've never seen before demonstrated some exceptional, professional and wonderful acting.
Now for the rest... the plot was vague, unclear and needed better writing and editing (script lacked in particular). The acting by the rest of the cast was bluntly unimpressive. The way Exorcism films insist on staying fixed on Christianity is old and annoying and we were already tired with it a decade ago (please, I mean absolutely no disrespect towards Christians or Christianity, I'm simply saying demon possession and exorcisms can and should be additionally examined from one of the other angles available to writers and directors). In order to enjoy this film you really have to focus on the aforementioned light spots, and most viewers and raters aren't really going to. And I completely understand them.
Would I recommend this film? Only to a fellow devout Horror fan who would appreciate the good parts enough so as not to smack me across the head for making them tolerate the rest. As for others looking for a fun scary film? Nope, sorry. This film deserves a 2, but I'm mercifully rating 5 because the smart possession scenes and Wallace and Brooks' acting are easily worth 3 points in my opinion.
First of all, I was very happy seeing Dean Cain doing cinema! I really liked him in Lois and Clarke back in the day, and last time I've seen anything by him was his average role in Circle of Pain. So... Nice seeing you Dean!
Second, I absolutely loved the new interpretation of possession behaviour. It of course had some of the motives we've grown accustomed to from pretty much every exorcism film since The Exorcist, but it was mostly quite innovative in its own way. Less extreme over-acting, more mellow and tasteful insanity originating from something unknown. Speaking of insanity, the film did try to combine that factor in order to present some twists, but these were sadly not that impressive.
Finally, the best feature of this film is without a doubt newbie actress Emily Brooks. I have no idea why Dean Cain, who has 10% the camera time she has, appears as a main actor while she doesn't. She has performed almost perfectly both as a delusional woman and as a possessed one. I loved every minute of her, and sincerely hope to see her again in the Horror genre! Also, along with her acting, main actor Will Wallace (Braveheart, anyone?) whom I've never seen before demonstrated some exceptional, professional and wonderful acting.
Now for the rest... the plot was vague, unclear and needed better writing and editing (script lacked in particular). The acting by the rest of the cast was bluntly unimpressive. The way Exorcism films insist on staying fixed on Christianity is old and annoying and we were already tired with it a decade ago (please, I mean absolutely no disrespect towards Christians or Christianity, I'm simply saying demon possession and exorcisms can and should be additionally examined from one of the other angles available to writers and directors). In order to enjoy this film you really have to focus on the aforementioned light spots, and most viewers and raters aren't really going to. And I completely understand them.
Would I recommend this film? Only to a fellow devout Horror fan who would appreciate the good parts enough so as not to smack me across the head for making them tolerate the rest. As for others looking for a fun scary film? Nope, sorry. This film deserves a 2, but I'm mercifully rating 5 because the smart possession scenes and Wallace and Brooks' acting are easily worth 3 points in my opinion.
Did you know
- TriviaThe House is the Bates-Residence from Psycho.
- Goofs(at around 30 mins) Rachel hears a child's voice coming from the old, unplugged radio. As she gets closer, both plug and wire are in a different position.
- ConnectionsReferences L'homme qui tua Liberty Valance (1962)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Pojavljivanje
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $200,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 32m(92 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content