Houdini, l'illusionniste

Viewed as a work of fiction this film is entertaining and worth watching. I say that as at the beginning of this picture it is made clear that the play contains fact and fiction, yet at the very end credits it is stated the movie is fiction.

Yet we all surely know that Houdini was historically a most famous "escape artist" and illusionist and forerunner to the likes of David Copperfield and David Blaine.

It would interesting to hear from a historian familiar with the real life Houdini to learn how accurate or otherwise this film is in its depiction of Houdini. From my knowledge much of the major incidents in the picture are factually based.

Where the movie scores heavily is, firstly, that it illustrates in detail the amazing escapes and illusions performed and for the most part shows how these tricks were done. Secondly, following the death of his mother, Houdini became a skeptic of spiritualists who were all the rage during this time period, and the movie handles Houdini's contempt for that very well.

The acting, direction, sets and music are all of a high quality and despite the film lasting over 2 parts @ 3-4 hours in total it had my attention throughout.

Well done History Channel!

7/10

Harry Houndini was a great magician, showman, and at least according to his own legend, a fascinating character. But this doesn't mean that his life story is actually a single great narrative. This glossy renditioning of his biography leaves (too) little to the imagination; yet it's continuously straining, trying to find a uniting theme that means something more than the birth, extraordinary career, and death of one man. In places, the over-stretched story makes little sense: it's understandable that Houdini's assistant should have been grief-stricken by news of his death, but not that this should make him want to destroy all of his master's equipment. Aiden Brody has been good in other stuff, but in this role, there's a lot of screen time and not much to do with it. I could imagine Houdini playing a role in a clever-clever drama not unlike Nic Roeg's 'Insignificance'; but as a biographic hero, this is obvious and surprisingly dull stuff.

It seems in the interest of inspiring awe, the creators of this series removed all of the actual awe around this legendary person and replaced it with annoying effects and hurried editing. The voice-over narration is uninspired, and makes the genius Houdini sound like a nitwit. The relationship between him and his family is reduced down to clichés and is indicative of lazy screen writing.

The worst part is that the actual history and character of Houdini is astounding and truly awe-inspiring. It doesn't need bells and whistles to be entertaining. All of this extra fluff was completely unnecessary and removes from the entertainment.

While the merit of some set designers, some actors and some cinematography (what little of it actually which is melded with some cheesy computer set designs) can be commended, modern influence of abrupt and noisy scene changes, bad edits, and absolutely horrible soundtrack (inspired by that noise band from the 90s Nine Inch Nails ie distorted sawtooth waves and jarring effects) helps bring this 'bio' pic down to the average spectrum of creativity. But this is modern Hollywood and about famous Jewish guy. So be it. It was funny seeing the 'jealous' Rasputin though. That made the series for me. Oh Houdini's main squeeze is one terrible actress - doesn't even bother to try to conform to dialect and nature of a lady from over 100 years ago. Adrian Brody - a good actor but IMO not a good choice as Houdini was stalky and had no nose of a vulture.

... which is both a good and a bad thing.

It is a good thing because over the course of the 2-parter you start to realize that the intensity comes not from the escapes, but rather from Connolly simultaneously delivering her dialog with that machine-gun rasp of hers, at the same time those extra-wide "cartoon" eyes pause for emphasis. I don't mean to make light of this, it is very unusual, and very effective.

The bad news is that, as interesting as Connolly is, she should really not be able to steal the entire film. That she can, speaks to the weakness of the script, and meandering self-indulgent arc that passes for a plot.

Brody tries hard. In fact, Brody is one of those actors who seems to be merely tolerated by his audience during his actual career but, I suspect, will become a cult idol to nextgen viewers. Here he does the best he can with what he was given.

If you bring no expectations to this film, it is entertaining, although truth be told I think the History Channel should set its standards a bit higher. (With Hatfields/McCoys, which I reviewed here, they nailed it AND were factually accurate to boot).

Never liked the Curtis film but I did read Houdini's autobiography, so I empathize with the angry reviews in this list.

In the end, it is true, Houdini was able to escape everything but his own ambition.