![]() |
![]() |
|
At
The Shop
Click here to read the review policy of Visions "Haunted"
by Peter Eggink And you don't know how much it pains me to say that. I love the "Haunted Deck" plot, and I always have found Eggink's thinking to be superb when he hits on all cylinders; I fully expected a merging of the two that would knock my socks off. Instead, I just found some frustration. We're all up there on the plot of the "Haunted Deck" so I won't go into that except to say this is a single-card cut and you can check out the video here. Now, "Haunted" does have a ton going for it. It uses a normal, unprepared deck which can be examined before and after the effect. There are no angle or lighting issues to worry about, no hookups to fret over, the set-up and reset are extremely quick, and getting the gimmick in and out of play is very clever. This had all the makings of being a fantastic effect and a great take on the classic. But there are some things going against "Haunted", and they are weighty things. While there is no thread work per se, there is something very, very similar to that in play and it wears with each performance and each rehearsal and it will break. You're given two of the gimmicks, just in case, and instructions for creating your own, but this last is problematic. You see, it uses a certain something which can only be gotten from dealers willing to carry it, Paul Harris, or stores in certain European countries. No, I'm not making that up. But that's not what hurts "Haunted" so much in my eyes. Really, it's the lack of consistency. You see, the action, the motion of the animation, is not in your direct control. What does this mean? Well, despite your best intentions, the deck may cut too soon for your tastes, or too late, or not at all. This goes a bit beyond knacky, I'm afraid, and with things being the way they are keeping this working smoothly and as you intend can be a crapshoot. But when it works, brother, does it work. And that's the maddening thing here. If it worked but looked like - oh, I don't know - a gimmicked deck shoving a packet of cards around, this would be a complete waste of time, I'd throw it a rating of 1 or 2, and I'd go back to performing my favorite take on this one and you'd move on to something a lot more beneficial for your bucks. But "Haunted", especially the variation by Mark Traversoni, looks great. Eggink has thrown together a clever way of adding and removing the gimmick using the card box (though, honestly, there must be a million ways to divest yourself of the thing once it's done its job). Routined carefully, this can be a complete mind-blower. When it works. And we're back to the whole "consistency" thing. Yeah, we're on a merry-go-round that won't slow down with this one, so let's just put the brakes on ye olde carousel. Here's my thinking: If you don't mind putting in the work, and you can deal with the "misses" when they occur (about 20% of the time, by my figuring and totally anecdotal studying), "Haunted" can be one of those things that you just a huge kick out of and that plays just right for you. But for me, give me consistency or give me more room in my sock drawer cuz that's where "Haunted" is destined to be. Let's call this one "mildly not recommended". "Haunted"
by Peter Eggink Practicality: 2 Workmanship: 5 Documentation:
10 Effect: 8 Presentation: 5
Available direct from your favorite dealer. Dealers, please contact Murphy's Magic Supplies, Inc. toll-free at 1-800-853-7403 or visit Murphy's Magic Supplies website. |
All
content ©2008 The Visions Group. All Rights Reserved. Any duplication
without expressed written permission is strictly prohibited. The views expressed are solely those of the contributors and may not necessarily be those of TVG, its clients, sponsors, or affiliates. |