I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The first must-see film of the year.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

The acting in the previous four Witchcraft films hasn't been anything to write home about, but David Huffman's turn as Satanist Cain in part five is the worst performance yet, every line delivered as though he were a pantomime villain. It's quite fitting, then, that he looks like a pantomime villain, with his long, receding hair, manic grin, wild eyes and silvery sequined cape; hell, in one scene he even appears on stage in a puff of smoke (oh no he doesn't! Oh yes he does!).Cain's dastardly mission is to collect enough souls to release Satan from Hell (or some such nonsense), and for this he enlists the help of big-breasted blonde Marta (Nicole Sassaman) and white warlock William Spanner (now played by Marklen Kennedy, Charles Solomon Jr. having wisely jumped ship). Under Cain's hypnotic power, William is sent to kill those who owe Cain a debt and harvest their life-force, all of which puts a strain on his relationship with big-breasted blonde Keli (Carolyn Taye-Loren).Though none are quite as terrible as Huffman, the acting throughout this chapter is pretty bad, the special effects are pathetic, and the direction by Talun Hsu is extremely poor, with even the frequent soft-core sex scenes proving rather tiresome. For the record, Marta has sex with William twice, William has a steamy romp in a leaky basement with his girlfriend, and some old, possessed dude bangs his personal assistant (who also happens to have big breasts).

Rather than comment on the lack of (insert any number of obvious points on what makes for a 'good' film here) as so many people often do with this flick, I shall try and elaborate on it's luster. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending it's honour, since it doesn't have any. On the other hand, 'Dance with the Devil' is slammed so often that it just breaks my heart. I am, as some may know, a real and in-the-flesh fan of this film series but I do not expect anyone to sympathize with me for any of my kind words towards these pictures. I'm simply exercising my right to free speech and so now I shall...Forget about the story, the acting & dialogue, the FX (as they would be called were this a film with any sort of budget) and the myriad of other distractions. The focus here is very evidently on the sex and the copious sex scenes which drive the movie (right into soft porn land).In addition to said sex element, what I find delightful and most memorable about this movie is it's tone- especially in the early scenes- where the use of soft (mostly blueish) colours and what I find to be a VERY, VERY seducing musical score by Miriam Cutler (yes, really, I am actually a fan and know who did the music. Just lay off me man!) create a mood & finesse that the earlier instalments simply didn't have. The costumes in the movie are brilliant, from Marta's slutty tight dress and sheer night gown to 'homo-esque Hoffman's' see-it-to-believe-it Warlock garb. It's a visual orgasm I tell you. And that's before we arrive at the sex scenes... believe it!The movie barely hangs together as it chugs along, but the intermittent sex scenes do provide a timed release of interest in an otherwise drab muddle of what is either ultimate camp or just sad film-making... maybe both.But with scenes that feature lines like "I bet what you've got is real nice too!", how can you beat up on such a lovable mess of sexy entertainment? Somebody please, tell me?? And check out that artwork on the VHS box cover- it's f*****g lovely!!! (Check out my review of Witchcraft X too!)

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)

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.