The Appearing (2014) Reviews

• better acting in my fish-tank

  alec-817-7630022014-04-13

  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........

• Is Acting Really That Hard?

  Arfpint2014-10-27

  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.

• Don't expect anything extraordinary to appear here...

  paul_haakonsen2014-04-15

  While there are far better and worse possession movies out there, then "The Appearing" really didn't bring anything new to the genre, nor did it manage to differentiate itself from many other movies in the genre. The storyline was easy to follow, perhaps a bit too simple at times, but it was weighed down by the fact that the movie never really got up into gear and left its mediocre pace in its wake. The acting in the movie was wooden at best, and there weren't really any particular performances that stood out in any way. There was an shadow cast over the entire movie, from what appeared to be a fact that people weren't really putting their souls and wholeheartedly efforts into this movie. The effects were actually adequate, as were the storyline of the movie. Well, don't go and expect multi-million dollar effects here though, but the effects were used to good extend and did their jobs well enough. If it was deliberate that there were absolutely no chemistry between Rachel (played by Emily Brooks) and Michael (played by Will Wallace), then director Daric Gates did a good job, because there were absolutely no on-screen chemistry between these two at all. It does put a notion into the mind though; was it because the characters were growing apart and becoming estranged because of the death of their daughter, or if it was because of the lack of talent of the actors, well... For a horror / thriller movie, then "The Appearing" was frightfully devoid of anything even remotely scary or shocking.

• Wallace and Brooks are profound. The film really isn't.

  nitzanhavoc2015-01-22

  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.

• It appears i went to sleep while watching it

  tarakumari2014-04-16

  Omg do not waste your time watching this, I fell asleep by the end of the film, thinking this is never going to end. Movie is slow, Boring, no thrill, hardly any real suspense, and confuses a viewer more than anything else. The acting wasn't good, worse possession movie ever. The cinematography is nothing special to talk about. Its a lousy job from, Direction to Screenplay to even Background music. Being a horror fan i don't miss out on any horror movies. Don't be fooled by the IMDb rating. This movie IMO deserves not more than 2/10/. Sorry but i am a harsh judge of horror movies, because I Love horror. How did this movie ever get a 5.1 rating here, is beyond my comprehension. This is one movie horror fans can definitely do without.