Kenton Knepper's
"Krystal Visions"

Peter Marucci's
"Bizarre Bazaar"

Craig Browning's
"Cranial Consternations"

Michael Matson's
"My Magic - My Way"

Michael Jay's
"Thoughts on the
Passing Scene"

Rich Tenace's
"Stage Stuff"

Scott Guinn's
"Pro-Files"

Jon Thompson's
"Thinking Allowed"

Shane's
"One Eye, Inward"

Dan Paulus's
"Real Magic"

Michelangelo's
"Stages of Illusions"

Andi Gladwin's
"Close-Minded"

Andy Leviss's
"Shared Thoughts"

Tyler Wilson's
"More Than Words"

"At The Shop" Reviews

"In Your Hands" Effects

"Proving the Impossible"
 Challenge

"Other Visions"
Guest Contributors

Free Visions

Visions Store

Visions Links

Contacting Visions

Submitting an Article

Privacy Statement

Administration Info

"Can-Tastic" by Sam Lane
Suggested Retail USD$55.00
Available from direct from your favorite dealer
In a Blink: 3 Out of 10

You can categorize bad magic tricks usually two ways: a great idea that was poorly executed, or the great execution of a poor idea. Then there's the other way, which, unfortunately, Sam Lane's "Can-Tastic" is, and that's a poor idea poorly executed.

The basic effect of "Can-Tastic" is very straightforward. I'll quote the ad so you get the idea: "Take any object that will fit inside the can, and it may be produced at will, from the inside of a completely sealed tin can! Only by using the can opener is the object able to be retrieved!"

One good thing you can say about "Can-Tastic" is that it is certainly flexible. Shoot, you can even change the label on the can! But as far as pluses go, that's about the only thing that can be said for it.

First off, we're talking gimmicked can and gimmicked can-opener here (no tipping here, folks; that's what it says in the ads). The problem is with those gimmicks.

You can't let a spectator handle either one, let alone examine them. Forget about it. The "completely sealed tin can"... ain't. Not only does it require handling to prevent the spectators from getting a good view of the top of the can, but too much handling can cause problems (carrying it can cause problems -- if you put food in the can, as suggested, you're in for some leaking if you're not very, very careful; on the flip side, if there's nothing in the can, then you've got problems loading the thing and getting away from a tell-tale "thunk"). So there's no way the spectator is going to open that can -- you've got to do it.

What do we have, then? We have an object disappearing and reappearing inside something that nobody but you touched and and nobody but you can open. That's a huge flaw for something like this, where a hands-off approach is almost demanded.

But it gets worse.

With the sketchy handling given in the skimpy directions, you can't open the can in front of them, either. Where a normal can's top would raise as you open it, this one doesn't (which is where the gimmicked opener comes in) and any way you try to get the lid off comes across as juggling.

Okay, so maybe this is supposed to be a stage bit, not close-up as the routine would suggest. In that case, yes, Virginia, you could get away with opening it... but you're still stuck on who handles what when and you'd pretty much have to be alone on stage (can't have the spectator seeing the can too closely, remember).

So, in the end, you've got an impossible location for a teleportation or transposition with just way too many restrictions to be feasible in handling or magical appearance.

There are just much better ways of accomplishing this effect, and most are much cheaper.

Lane started off with an interesting idea for a gimmick, and it is fairly neat, but the routine which the gimmick requires is just too lacking for any good real-world work. That makes the end gimmick not as interesting as it is poorly done. A little more thought, a little more ingenuity, and this may have been something. As it is, "Can-Tastic" crumples.

"Can-tastic" by Sam Lane
In a Blink: 3 Out of 10

Practicality: 1
Don't let the spectator handle the can, don't let them handle the can-opener, don't let them think about using the can-opener to open the can, don't pack the can with liquid, don't think about a quick reset, don't think about this being practical.

Workmanship: 5
The workmanship is good. Not bad, not great, but good.

Documentation: 1
One sheet, which also serves as the packaging label for the product, and not well-written at that. No detail and a weird description of the key move sank this one.

Effect: 4
This had all the makings of a killer effect, a complete stunner. In the end, though, all the performance restrictions hurt it badly. Spectators may laugh a bit, but they'll make the all-too-correct logical leap in a heartbeat.

Presentation: 4
The workings make the presentation so much less than it could be (and usually is, in other versions).

Originality: 5
Tough call. Neat idea with the gimmick which I haven't seen before, but a bad idea nonetheless.

Shane