Witchcraft V: Dance with the Devil

This was a simple and stupid film. An evil warlock tries to collect enough damned souls (using naked women in various ways to achieve this means) to bring the devil to earth. He uses this super-hot blonde lass (one of many throughout) to get a young warlock to do his bidding, and... Do I have to describe this to you? Many times the dialogue was laughably bad, and the special effects were cry-ably bad. The plot was so thin many times I forgot what was supposed to be happening. But there was a lot of naked, gyrating flesh, and be honest, that's why someone would check this out. Isn't it? It was all so rushed and amateurish and cheap, but, unlike the first "Witchcraft" (which had all those qualities), I kinda liked this one. And why not? It wasn't unspeakably bad. The women were attractive. I didn't go into looking for "Halloween," or even "Halloween 5," so I enjoyed the heaving bosoms and barely-memorized lines. If you're one of those people who like this kind of stuff, you will too.

Lets just forget part 4 ever happened and say this film picks up after #3. This time lawyer Will Spanner(From parts 2-4.)is enslaved by evil warlock Kane who wants to open the gateway to Hell. Spanner's girlfriend and a few others try to help him resist this evil power, but at the cost of their own lives. Good story, and o.k. acting. *** out of *****.

They just keep getting worse and worse. This offers all the bad direction, acting, script, special effects, poorly plotted situations, etc. that one could ever want. But it does offer two good things: plenty of naked blond haired women and a whole lottaaaa sex. If you don't like either one of these two things ( is something wrong with you if you don't find that appealing? )avoid this at all cost. Rating: 3 out of 10.

Witchcraft V: Dance with the Devil (1993)

** (out of 4)

I'm not even going to try and give a plot outline for the first 18-minutes of this movie but if there was a "B" Movie Hall of Fame then they'd certainly be inducted. Once we get past this the film centers on Will Spanner (now played by Marklen Kennedy) who comes under the hypnotic spell of Cain (David Huffman) who has bought a rock bar so that he can steal the souls of people with the help of a sexy blonde (Nicole Sassaman). WITCHCRAFT V is without question the best of the series so far and I was really surprised at how entertaining it actually is (as long as you can put up with this type of film). The movie really changed the pace from the previous four by clearly hiring women based on their breast size. Yes, this one here is going for a lot more of the softcore sex stuff but I'm not going to complain because most of the scenes are extremely sexy. This is certainly the case whenever Sassaman is on the screen as she's certainly incredibly beautiful and her body speaks for itself. Another plus comes from the before mentioned 18-minutes that start things off. I'm not going to try and explain what happens but there are about five different events that take place and each of the five must tie together or else there'd be no story here. The way all of these events just happen to take place and connect everyone together is just so silly and so campy that "B" movie fans will be howling. The William character here is certainly the least interesting of the five films but thankfully for him there's a pretty fun villain. Huffman is actually pretty good in the role of the villain and I must admit that I got a big chuckle out of his evil speeches. The film offers up several sex scenes and like most skin-flicks that appeared on Cinemax back in the day, there's really no story around them, women just get naked. Those wanting the work of Bunuel or Welles would probably be best served to stay away from this movie but in regards to what the series has offered so far, it's a mini miracle.

I can go on and on and on about what's wrong with this film, but why bother? It's no fun pointing out the flaws of a movie that's supposed to be bad. And if the makers of this crap thought they were doing a masterpiece--may God have mercy on their souls.

I am just gonna be frank. I read a review for the movie in my Blockbuster Video Guide saying that it contains "exposed breasts galore." Well...they were right. Lots of gratuitous shots of large, surgically-enhanced (I'm guessing) breasts. What's a crappy horror movie without the gratuitous nudity? Exactly!

The acting and f/x (if that's what you call 'em) are so inexplicably bad that I had to wrestle my hand off the "Stop" button. Maybe it's because I'm an aspiring filmmaker and actor myself. A low budget is no excuse. Look what Kevin Smith did with the micro-budget comedy "Clerks." John Carpenter's pockets weren't exploding with cash when he made "Halloween." But when he did the killing sequences, instead of explicitly showing us the blood and gore, he left it up to the audience's imagination. And he still scared the pants off many viewers! In one scene of this movie, the villain sticks a sword through this guy's stomach and we suddenly cut to this stupid close-up shot of the blood dripping off the sword, as if we're supposed to believe it actually got pushed through his body. As for the computer-generated f/x...what the hell was that! They must've stole 'em off someone's screensaver!

If I have anything good to say, this film is good for a few laughs. Unintentional laughs, that is. They should've at least used a tongue-in-cheek approach. That way we can be laughing WITH them. And of course, if you wanna watch some good nude scenes that's a plus. But you can always save yourself the trouble and rent a flick from Surrender Cinema. That way you won't have to wear out the "Fast-Forward" control as much.

My score: 2 (out of 10)