The Incantation

It's a B movie. I knew that and I often like B movies - sometimes they surprise you. There's a brief surprise at the end that took all of a second to register and then it was " of course". So not really a surprise at all. Really bad acting, although I wasn't sure if this was deliberate on the part of the director - certainly I've seen Dean Cain do better. So I'm not sure what the director was going for. But the whole thing was a mess, including the 'story' line.

Couldn't take it. Dean Cain should've been my first clue. What garbage. Don't waste your time unless you've got too much to spare.

There is nothing to see here folks. It's really, really lame. I'm okay with B movies, especially cheesy horror movies, but this one is just very bad. When Dean Cain is by far the best actor you have in the movie, you know it's not going to be good. This film has some of the worst acting that I have seen in years. I won't spoil it for you, because there is really nothing to spoil. Incredibly boring and pointless.

This "flick" offers nothing for the viewer - the dialogue is weak, the accents are forced, and the acting is - horrible. The camera replaces the inherent beauty of the scenery with a dull, flat landscape, making it look more like a washed out portrait of an old, dried out postcard. Trust me, the camera on your cellphone takes better pictures than this, so you have to question the eye of the director, who for some reason saw this as "cinema worthy." But if you read his bio, you'll see just how highly he sees himself in light of all his "accomplishments.'

Five minutes into the story, you're already picking out the bad parts - which are plenty,- convinced that anything good in this film was purely by accident, which brings me to the appearance of the only known actor in the mess - Dean Cain.

Look, Cain isn't an "Actors' actor" by any stretch of the imagination, but he does have the capability and the credibility of holding his own, be that in a film or the television screen. Which is why you'll spend less time watching the movie and more time trying to figure out why Cain is in it. Note: This is a blessing as it distracts from the bad acting, bad scenery, bad direction- bad everything. And so, here are the possible reasons we've come up with to answer the question:

1. He's related to the director by birth 2. He's related to the director by marriage 3. He's related to the director by a debt he owes to the mob 4. He's related to the director by a secret relationship between them that could involve anything from animal incest to possibly reviving his role as Superman 5. He's the father, godparent, benefactor, sugar daddy of the main character. 6. The main character is aware of the connection between him and the director, which guarantees her a role for life - or until the mob intervenes 7. He was offered an all-expense paid trip to Paris. For the sake of brevity, go with the last reason, as the former ones - though much more interesting, are more likely considered while under the influence. You already know the different themes within 98 minute directorial mental snuff film, but to recap - gothic, supernatural, religious, tradition, yadda, yadda, yadda - It's still one, big mess. Go watch "Dark Shadows." At least the scenery will give you something to appreciate on a budget much less than what this "Vicar/director" put out.

Have to agree with the previous reviewer; the girl at the flower stall ... oh my.... It really is an exercise in amateur acting.

Never liked Dean Caine myself, his acting is not much better and every time I see his name or Casper Van Has Been I know pretty much the movie is going to be of tv movie on a wet Sunday afternoon for bored housewives variety but this was considerably worse - what were they thinking???

The positives - the castle used was pretty amazing and there are some nice bits of photography, it used another old idea with nothing new and was actually quite funny if you take it as a comedy!