Houdini

...but he can't escape mediocre movie adaptations of his life. This version is merely adequate when it could have been more. Huge amounts of his career are glossed over (his mixed-religion marriage, his brief movie career in Hollywood, his piloting skills, and even many of his escapes), and the focus is mostly on his romance with Bess Weiss. As such, much of this plays out as a soap opera rather than as the biography of the world's greatest performer. His wife's a drunk (until the end, when that plot element is forgotten), his mother is a harsh tyrant (except we don't see anything to really suggest that), and his brother is a whining ingrate. In other words, it's dreadfully rushed: we're left to assume much, both about Houdini's career and his family life, rather than be shown it. Oddly, the revelation of how Houdini did the milk bottle escape in the middle comes across as unnecessary padding when time could have been spent telling us some of the important stuff. The best parts are the bigger actors in minor roles: Rhea Perlman as a psychic, Paul Sorvino as a glory-hungry radio announcer, George Segal as Houdini's manager, and David Warner as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (although they screw up his relationship with Houdini as well). The ending, with Houdini appearing unseen at his wife's 10th anniversary seance to contact him, redeems much of the movie with a truly romantic ending, though - they actually spend about 12 minutes on it. Unfortunately, by that time we've seen so much of Houdini's Wife the Drunken Shrew that this touching ending is a bit out of place. But hey, at least they (mostly) got how Houdini died correct, which is more than one can say about the previous '53 and '76 versions.

It is not a biographic movie. It is not homage to a great artist. It is only exploration of a myth. With errors, good intentions and a lot of exaggerations. A film for Johnathon Schaech's charm and for beginning of childhood dreams taste. Delicate and sweet, for who knows than magic is an ingredient of existence. For dreamers. And for remember a name. Old, lost, fascinating. It is not a film about Houdini. It is a short story about a character with his name but others ways of life and different nuances of facts. May be a Rider Digest material. About a shadow of a strange time for who the limits are fiction. "Houdini" is not a bad movie. And not a masterpiece. Only a show, very delicate with details but , in fact, a beautiful stamp, it is first step to discover a impressive science to broke the limits and to understand the days more than a summer rain.

Below average drama which tells the real-life story of Harry Houdini, the man who was known as the greatest wizard of the world. Although the theme here is very curious and interesting, the movie goes on and on only developing a series of performances made by Houdini in his long career. The movie does not give a more deep look in the personality of the controversial magician and the last scene is a obvious and not original approach toward one of Houdini most important concerns: life after death.

I give this a 5 (five).

The biggest trick the writer/directer pulls on us is to hang this fantasy on one of the century's great showbusiness characters. Houdini, the short, wiry-haired immigrant, who spell-bound audiences with the intensity of his eyes and his haunting intimation of his'powers'; angry, petulant, vain and childish, the man puppy-loved his mother till the day he died, indeed, adolescent is perhaps the word to explain his emotional range; but so thrilling, so charismatic was he, audiences would sit electrified, staring at the theatre curtain for an hour, two hours, while behind it, Houdini was struggling manacles, boxes, milk cans... So far away from any attempt at showing us anything about the real man, and with Jonathon Schaech's bland performance not holding the film together, the writer then doesn't even seem to enjoy the world of vaudeville and illusion very much, but spends more time on the seances and the soap-opera domestics. I'm not angry at this movie because I'm a purist who believes Houdini's life is sacrosanct, but that the man and his life are so fascinating, and so full of episodes revealing and suspenseful, that a fictional version of the story can only fail by comparison.

This film did a good job creating the atmosphere of the turn-of-the-century show business world Houdini moved in when getting his start. I had high hopes at the beginning, which covers his early career performing with his brother, then later with his young wife, Bess, as they go from one fleabag music hall to another looking for their big break. Jonathan Schaech is very convincing in his portrayal of Houdini as a consummate professional and egoist, driven to succeed and be the very best at what he does. The movie starts to lose focus at the moment Houdini's career takes off; from this point on, it takes on a soap-operaish tone as it turns its attention away from his performing and towards his private life. The Great Mystifier turns into a slightly pathetic character, torn between his inflexible mother and his grouchy wife, and his fascinating career recedes into the background, where it serves as a mere backdrop to the story of his troubled relationship with Bess. Not only do the filmmakers ignore Houdini's unique position in the world of the theatre in favour of a rather hackneyed romantic drama, they go on to change the facts to fit their theme. Bess was not a perpetual wet blanket on Houdini's career; she was a theatre performer herself, and she often worked as his assistant. Though she must have been anxious for his success and safety in his work, it is inaccurate to portray her as frequently on her knees in a Catholic church, like the wife of a mafia don, imploring divine intercession to help an unendurable situation. By all accounts theirs was a generally happy marriage. Nor was Houdini's brother the incompetent and failure he is portrayed as here; as Hardeen, he was himself a successful magician, though never as celebrated as his older brother.

But these failures are as nothing compared with the ending, which completely turns on its head everything we know about Houdini, and depicts a seance succeeding in bringing back his spirit after death. It is well known that seances conducted for several years after his death were a complete failure, and Houdini himself had only scorn for the spiritualistic frauds who preyed upon the public. It is even more confusing to have the seance succeed, when at the same moment it is being proved that the medium in charge is a phony. I think that, in the end, the film makers simply did not know what really to make of Houdini, and threw everything they could lay their hands on at him, hoping that something would stick. A film with lots of opportunities, most of them missed.