AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
3,0/10
1,5 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaA 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)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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.
I know it's not entirely fair to review a movie without watching it all the way through, but in the case of "The Appearing", watching it all the way through just wasn't an option: it was either switch this execrable garbage off or be forced to fall asleep in front of it; either way, it wasn't going to appear for more than 30mins. before this writer's eyes.
Being low budget and amateurish aren't necessarily the death knell of this kind of film. I have seen plenty over the years that are both, yet strive to bring something unique, creative, or reflect a deep love for the genre. At the core of it, "The Appearing's" biggest problem is that it doesn't display any of these qualities. The storyline is as humdrum as can be; the most basic horror tropes are on display: teenagers partying in the woods, local legends, new cop in town, troubled wife struggling to get over the loss of a child...and I'm sure the rest of the film would have kept trotting them out.
The most glaring flaws have mostly been mentioned in other reviews. For me, the casting was the biggest issue. The alleged teenagers--Susie in particular--look 30 years old, while the cop's wife looks incongruously much younger than him, to the point of looking like a dorky teen in that ill-suited (and ill-fitting?) summer frock they have her traipsing around in. I suppose wardrobe was provided by the actors and the director had to go with whatever they showed up in. Actually, Susie looks older than 30. She kinda looks like Jerri Blank in "Strangers with Candy". She doesn't actually look like her, just as out-of-place-old as her. That's a very cruel thing to say about the actress, but a look at her IMDb bio and photos does show a desperate attempt to hide her real age.
The script possesses many stupidities. One that stood out was the sheriff, upon greeting the new cop, saying that the town didn't even appear on several maps. Now, this was done to highlight its remoteness, its hick-ness. Yet it has a high school? How many backwoods ghost towns/lost to memory townships with tumbleweeds blowing through Main Street while a swinging bench claps against faded wooden boards with one road out that no one ever visits since the highway went in in '55...and therefore doesn't appear on official maps!...how many of these places have a staffed, operating, high school? That's right, a high school tends to get a place noticed; enough to warrant a dot and name on a map.
The best thing about the movie--and I really am being entirely serious here--is the stock footage of foliage that interlaces many of the editorial scene cuts. They are overdone and sometimes out of place, but they were quite attractive. That's why I assume they were stock footage of some sort; or footage acquired from elsewhere, at the very least (the director's college project, for example). Oh, if I'm being generous, the music wasn't too bad; in some scenes, such as 'teenager in summer frock' wife making (her first? it kinda looks like it) breakfast for straight-out-the-door cop husband (another cliché. What does she expect? She married a cop! He just said there was a missing person's case! What's with the "...but I made it for you special!"?)...the music while that gem was being played out was quite well done.
OK. Enough. For only 30mins of watching, I've been rambling enough.
Here's my summary: This is a very poor film which doesn't warrant a viewing even for supporting-up-and-coming/fan-of-B grade etc. reasons. It has few redeeming features and utterly lacks uniqueness or a creative addition to the genre. Plus, a bunch of middle-aged people running around playing teenagers while the director's little niece plays "a adult wife wiv a husben and everything!" is just too silly to watch. Don't let "The Appearing" appear anywhere on your movie viewing schedule.
Being low budget and amateurish aren't necessarily the death knell of this kind of film. I have seen plenty over the years that are both, yet strive to bring something unique, creative, or reflect a deep love for the genre. At the core of it, "The Appearing's" biggest problem is that it doesn't display any of these qualities. The storyline is as humdrum as can be; the most basic horror tropes are on display: teenagers partying in the woods, local legends, new cop in town, troubled wife struggling to get over the loss of a child...and I'm sure the rest of the film would have kept trotting them out.
The most glaring flaws have mostly been mentioned in other reviews. For me, the casting was the biggest issue. The alleged teenagers--Susie in particular--look 30 years old, while the cop's wife looks incongruously much younger than him, to the point of looking like a dorky teen in that ill-suited (and ill-fitting?) summer frock they have her traipsing around in. I suppose wardrobe was provided by the actors and the director had to go with whatever they showed up in. Actually, Susie looks older than 30. She kinda looks like Jerri Blank in "Strangers with Candy". She doesn't actually look like her, just as out-of-place-old as her. That's a very cruel thing to say about the actress, but a look at her IMDb bio and photos does show a desperate attempt to hide her real age.
The script possesses many stupidities. One that stood out was the sheriff, upon greeting the new cop, saying that the town didn't even appear on several maps. Now, this was done to highlight its remoteness, its hick-ness. Yet it has a high school? How many backwoods ghost towns/lost to memory townships with tumbleweeds blowing through Main Street while a swinging bench claps against faded wooden boards with one road out that no one ever visits since the highway went in in '55...and therefore doesn't appear on official maps!...how many of these places have a staffed, operating, high school? That's right, a high school tends to get a place noticed; enough to warrant a dot and name on a map.
The best thing about the movie--and I really am being entirely serious here--is the stock footage of foliage that interlaces many of the editorial scene cuts. They are overdone and sometimes out of place, but they were quite attractive. That's why I assume they were stock footage of some sort; or footage acquired from elsewhere, at the very least (the director's college project, for example). Oh, if I'm being generous, the music wasn't too bad; in some scenes, such as 'teenager in summer frock' wife making (her first? it kinda looks like it) breakfast for straight-out-the-door cop husband (another cliché. What does she expect? She married a cop! He just said there was a missing person's case! What's with the "...but I made it for you special!"?)...the music while that gem was being played out was quite well done.
OK. Enough. For only 30mins of watching, I've been rambling enough.
Here's my summary: This is a very poor film which doesn't warrant a viewing even for supporting-up-and-coming/fan-of-B grade etc. reasons. It has few redeeming features and utterly lacks uniqueness or a creative addition to the genre. Plus, a bunch of middle-aged people running around playing teenagers while the director's little niece plays "a adult wife wiv a husben and everything!" is just too silly to watch. Don't let "The Appearing" appear anywhere on your movie viewing schedule.
The movie is quite slow and lacks pace. The leading cast are ok, but the teenage roles were very unbelievable. The actors playing the teenagers were definitely in their mid 30s and the roles were very unconvincing and it kinda spoils the mood of the movie.
Sucks that there's a minimum requirement on how long a review needs to be. Rinse repeat
The movie is quite slow and lacks pace. The leading cast are ok, but the teenage roles were very unbelievable. The actors playing the teenagers were definitely in their mid 30s and the roles were very unconvincing and it kinda spoils the mood of the movie.
Sucks that there's a minimum requirement on how long a review needs to be. Rinse repeat
The movie is quite slow and lacks pace. The leading cast are ok, but the teenage roles were very unbelievable. The actors playing the teenagers were definitely in their mid 30s and the roles were very unconvincing and it kinda spoils the mood of the movie.
One of the worst movies I have ever had displeasure to watch. The plot must have been written by someone under influence. Acting was anything but convincing. Characters were 1-dimensional. Even music sucked. Not worth watching at all. At first, I thought it was a parody perhaps but it wasn't. It was just "work" of a bunch of people who obviously had no idea what they were doing and decided one fine day to make this very poor excuse for a horror movie. What the whole movie reminded me the most of are the worst of the SyFy channel productions. Although those movies tend to have better costumes, decorations and special effects than this one. So... do not watch this at home or anywhere else. It's definitely not worth your time. You can recommend it to someone you really don't like, though.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThe House is the Bates-Residence from Psycho.
- Erros de gravação(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.
- ConexõesReferences O Homem que Matou o Facínora (1962)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Pojavljivanje
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 200.000 (estimativa)
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 32 min(92 min)
- Cor
- Proporção
- 1.78 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente