Houdini and Doyle

I've just got to the end of the first series and I'm really hoping there's going to be more.

When I started to watch this I wasn't expecting great things. In actual fact I only watched because of 2 things, I love Conan Doyle and Stephen was good as Dirk Gently.

I quickly have become a fan of this great show. The writing is superb and the sets and costumes are well done but not so elaborate they detract from the characters or the stories.

I love the way the characters are written and the actors play them very well. I particularly found Houdini cast extremely well with many complex layers to the personality showing through. Stephens portrayal of Doyle was also admirable with the nods to the techniques and skills that he used to create his character Sherlock giving the fans the homage they craved.

I will say if you are watching this series then please try not to see it as a Sherlock or a Penny Dreadful show. It is basically a murder mystery encompassing characters that are able to give it an entertaining twist. Take it with fresh eyes and enjoy it for the excellent show it is.

I was in free fall after the brilliant first season of Lucifer ended, only to be replaced with what looked like a Sherlock knock-off about Conan Doyle and Harry Houdini. What?

The first episode was a bit jarring, to be sure. Just kind of silly and ephemeral. You know? I know nothing about Harry Houdini. I do know a little about Conan Doyle because I've read all of his Sherlock stories. I didn't quite get it at first.

I thought the pilot odd and quirky. It kind of reminded me of the Murdoch Mysteries because it felt so "light weight" -- all air, no substance. But then... the show started to grow on me. I continued watching it and I started to appreciate the writing -- especially the snarky Houdini (he's given some of the best lines, dissing Canadians and bigots, for example, but really Doyle and Adeleide have great lines, too). Both the actor who plays Houdini and the actor who plays Doyle take their roles seriously and do a great job -- no matter that the premise itself is just kind of goofy.

And, in fact, it seems all of the people involved in making this show take their jobs seriously. It's quite good on many different levels, including the production values as well as the writing and acting.

I set my DVR.

And then we had episode four -- Spring-Heel'd Jack -- and I sat up and took notice. Now this is really quite good. The main mystery was excellent. There are some continuing subplots that are compelling. I was appreciating the characters more and more. There really seems to be chemistry between the three leads. And they are not one-dimensional but fairly interesting individuals.

This isn't great TV, but it is far more entertaining to watch than stupid reality shows. And I believe there's lots of promise here.

I keep thinking here at the end of ten episodes what's the use of writing this review if Fox is just going to cancel the show after the first season. But, hey. At least I am taking a stand. I really don't have anything terribly negative to say about it. The show falls into that amazing category of re-imagined fiction -- Robin Hood, Dracula, The Musketeers, Hannibal... they are really fun. And this show is fun. The TV version of comfort food. What could be better during a blisteringly hot summer?

If you watch this show, don't think too much into it. Yes, it's been done before. Yes, it's basically just ripping off the real Houdini and Doyle.

BUT it's cute and quirky. I happened to start watching it because there was nothing better on TV, and I'm glad I did. The script is pretty good. The dialogue is a little too modern, I think, but come on, it's a detective show with Houdini. Can't expect it to be accurate.

What it is is fun. So neat to watch a reimagining of the time period. And there is a great deal of chemistry between the actors. I felt immersed in the story. Would definitely recommend if you want to have a laugh and appreciate imaginative story lines.

Pretty good show,entertaining even if not factual. Houdini was married by 1894 and didn't meet Doyle until much later. It's sort of like watching a live version of Scooby Doo. What seems like supernatural causes turns out to be the equivalent of a a guy in a rubber mask with just a hint of doubt that maybe something really strange could be going on. Sets are a little too nice for London at the turn of the century. Modern music is often used in scenes but somehow it works. Cotumes are pretty good. The characters are likable and the acting is generally very good. I especially like that they did not make the chief inspector a total buffoon as it first seemed.

This reminds me of Ioan Gruffudd's Forever (2014-15), an edgy, yet cozy, murder mystery story that has likable performers, and is filled with anachronisms and good taste in clothing. (Except Conan Doyle's suits, which get louder as the series goes on, a possible sign of growing confidence in the characterization of the character.)

The hook is that Harry Houdini and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle have partnered to solve murders that have some connection to the supernatural and/or spiritual. It's set in the wrong time period for Houdini and Doyle to have been associated. A choice was made to make it Edwardian rather than in the more accurate 1920s. They use modern language and the modern music is intentionally unsettling. The series relies heavily on the old theater maxim of "a willing suspension of disbelief."

And it's highly entertaining. The actors are personable and talented. It's definitely an ensemble cast that works well together. The sets and costumes are well done (suitable for the time period),and highly detailed.

The story line doesn't explore any real substantial questions of politics, culture, war, or social values...yet. It's enjoyable, mindless entertainment, excellently done, with great potential for more robust story lines. Although the episodes might not have been filmed in the release-date order, the staging, story, and characters appeared to mature as the first season progressed.

But there is one travesty: They do a disservice to a good actor, and to women everywhere, by not giving their excellent female star better billing.