I take no pleasure in brandishing a movie from my beloved genre as "awful" but this one, sadly, deserves the moniker.The one positive was the quality of camera work and that it was easy on the eye. That was the only positive to take away from the whole experience, which proved to be a complete waste of time.The movie started off on a low note with a terrible scene of a group of "high school seniors" hanging out and drinking in the woods. The scenery was really nice but the fact is that the aforementioned kids, who I imagine were supposed to be 18, looked far too old for their roles. The girl that ends up being killed looked like she should be their mother, and there was another eye-rollingly bad casting job as well where one of the group looked closer to 40 than to 20. The group was far too quick to consider the possibility that the house was haunted and should have been more sceptical. The scene put an immediate bad taste in my mouth and set the tone for the rest of the movie with poor and unimaginative dialogue.Going back to the camera work, which was good, the way they pieced together the leading woman's "visions" did not work at all. They all happened so quickly and haphazardly that it ended up looking poor.The acting, bar none, was very poor. Will Wallace is probably the best of a bad bunch, but he himself didn't cover himself in any glory.The script was unquestionably the main offender. They could have got away with below-par acting because the visuals were good, but the script was overly cheesy and lacked imagination. Don't get me wrong - cheesy is good as long as its presented in a believable way - but the acting and the script made for a hugely shoddy movie.The last specific I will touch on is the stab scene late on in the movie. I had to revisit that scene to try and wrap my head around what happened or if I had missed something. In one scene, Rachel is brutally stabbing Sheriff Hendricks who is presumed dead. A couple of scenes later he then reappears with his arm in a sling - a fortunate let- off for what appeared to be a brutal attack.I could go on and on but I really don't want to because I'm not a negative person, I love the genre and I know that a lot of people put effort into the movie. Without paying any attention to reviews I took the film on its merits, which I don't regret doing because 95% of horror reviews are biased, and would have been willing to look past a number of flaws but there was simply too many. The movie ended up being a big waste of time and for that I do not recommend people watch this unless they have exhausted all other options and want something new to try, but even then I would suggest to not get your hopes up or take it too seriously.

Wow....this film really was truly awful! I never choose a movie unless I watch trailers of it first (or if it's a film I know I want to see), but goodness knows what I saw in the trailers to make me want to see this pile of boring-a** rubbish.I really don't know where to start with this film....the extremely dodgy acting, the nonsensical script, the editing, or the direction. All of it was really just as bad as each other if truth be told. Actually scrap that....I think the writing "wins" the award for worst part because while the general outline of the story made sense, the different elements to make up the story didn't.Also when you see things like someone knocking on the door of a house they know is empty and shouting out "Hello?"; the lights in said empty house being on ALL the time (spooks need to see where they are going do they?!); highschoolers who are all very obviously in their early 20s, then you KNOW it's bad. It's like it was written by a 10-year-old. Then again, a 10-year-old might have come up with something better.The editing was just as bad with it jumping from scene to scene the way it did as if a scene wasn't done before it suddenly went onto the next. They never led up to each other either....they just chopped and changed around aimlessly.As for the acting, well, to say that none of the performances were worthy of any awards would be the understatement of the century, and you know it's bad when one of the more believable performances is from Dean Cain! Whether it was from the wooden performance from Emily Brooks' (especially for the the possession scenes), the clichéd performance & look as a psychiatrist by Conroy Kanter, or the continual over-the-top moodiness from Will Wallace, absolutely nothing was redeemable. The only good thing about The Appearing is when the end credits started to appear.I generally enjoy a good possession type film, but The Appearing just made a mockery of that genre. Do yourself a favour...ignore this.

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. 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 him 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.