Houdini, o Homem Miraculoso

'Houdini' was partly seen because Harry Houdini was a very interesting man and his life, cut short too early in tragic circumstances from peritonitis/complications from a ruptured appendix (although it is also believed it was caused by being punched in the abdomen), even more fascinating.

Found myself quite by accident seeing a number of Tony Curtis films and it's turned into something of a quest. It is interesting to see Curtis and then-wife Janet Leigh together on film, and 'Houdini' is the first of five pairings. It certainly serves them well and one can see what the appeal is. While 'Houdini' is very well made and entertaining on its own as a film, the man himself and his life, of which the film is very loosely based upon, are not as well served.

A longer length would have benefitted, so that the script could have gone into more detail and depth with what is presented while also including more. Houdini's life was much more colourful and interesting than this intriguing and fun if slightly "cliff notes" depiction, and with a longer length the film would have been more detailed and not as rushed structurally.

There are also liberties, some of them not hurting the film much but the more dramatic licenses do and distort a bit, especially the over-dramatic ending. Didn't see the point of the change, it would have been more moving if the truth was intact.

On the other hand, Curtis puts a lot of energy and passion to the title role and his performance is one of his best early ones. Leigh is incredibly charming and their romantic chemistry sparkles and moves, one does feel like they're in love. This is something very important, seeing as this is an element of the story that is focused on sizeably. Torin Thatcher is particularly good of the solid supporting cast.

Furthermore, 'Houdini' looks great, the sumptuous period detail and vibrant colours are a feast for the eyes. The story moves efficiently and still remains absorbing and easy to engage and identify with. The script is thoughtful, is a lot of fun and doesn't fall into cloying sentimentality, with elements of Houdini's life that do really intrigue (i.e. Houdini's campaign against anything supernatural) and the stunts/escapes are genuinely awe-inspiring and suspenseful, some edge of your seat stuff there. The characters engage, Houdini is a source of admiration and inspiration, and the direction shows visual and dramatic skill.

Summing up, good but not great, Curtis, Leigh, their chemistry, the visuals and stunts make it a worthwhile watch. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Even over 80 years after his demise the name Houdini is still the standard by which magicians of all kinds are measured. David Copperfield, Rick Blaine, these guys are nothing in terms of popularity that Harry Houdini earned. The tricks he did are still being performed or attempted by magicians who want to make a name for themselves.

Paramount obtained the rights to the Houdini story from the estate of Harry Houdini from the guy his widow Bess gave it to after she died in 1943. They shelled out some big money at the time to obtain loan out services for Tony Curtis from Universal and Janet Leigh from MGM. The two of them had gotten married the year before and as a couple were getting a lot of publicity as young Hollywood marrieds. Houdini turned out to be the first of five films they did together, six if you count the joint appearance they did in the all star Pepe.

Back then, young and in love, Tony and Janet function beautifully as a team as Harry Houdini and his beloved wife Bess. Angela Clarke plays Houdini's mother who was also important in his life. What's not shown is the tension between the two women, they were not friendly. But that's one of several inaccuracies.

In fact this biographical film is mostly a work of fiction. But it's pleasant enough entertainment and it was the first film that Tony Curtis starred in that could be considered an A production. In his memoirs he recalls the experience as a pleasant one because of Janet and director George Marshall who he says was a good man to work with and an under-appreciated talent.

One thing that is shown is Houdini's interest in the occult after the death of his mother in 1920. He did in fact go around debunking fakers in the field which is field that is saturated with them. One thing not in the film is the fact he came into conflict with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, and fervent believer in the reachable spirit world. That in itself would make an interesting film.

I'm sure if Harry Houdini were able to comment he'd probably say he liked the film. He'd have to wait for a more accurate film about his life in the Eighties from Paul Michael Glaser and Sally Struthers. But I'd be flattered all to heck to think Tony Curtis was my type.

The story of master magician Harry Houdini (1874–1926) becomes a glossy star-vehicle for Tony Curtis in the lead--and though the facts of Houdini's life are lumped right together with the Hollywood dross (as if this movie magazine-styled spread were one big true-life story), one is drawn in by Curtis' apparent commitment to the role. Director George Marshall stages some exciting set-pieces and a nice romance ensues between Tony's Houdini and assistant Bess, played by Curtis' real-life spouse Janet Leigh (doing appealing work). Philip Yordan adapted Harold Kellock's book, and the results are (surprisingly) entertaining despite all the requisite corn and clichés. **1/2 from ****

This film is a very enjoyable if not completely accurate rendition of Harry Houdini's life. Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh, young and in love in real life, do a great job of playing Harry and Bess Houdini. An amateur magician himself, Curtis gives a great performance in the first really good role of his career. There will be many to come. What's accurate about this film? Most of the escapes shown in the film such as when Houdini allowed himself to be hung upside down outside of a tall building while confined in a strait jacket, his offering and succeeding to escape from any pair of handcuffs that his audiences could produce, and his decision to go through with being locked in a box submerged in water while he himself is bound in chains.

What's inaccurate in the film? It's more a matter of what is omitted. The film does mention Houdini's running battle with spiritualists. What it doesn't mention is Houdini's tiff with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle over the whole issue. The depth and length of this disagreement is considerable, though, and it's understandable that in a film not of documentary length that it had to be left out.

It makes a good double bill with the1976 made-for-TV film "The Great Houdini" with Paul Michael Glaser in the title role. That 70's version of Houdini's life gives more details about what made the man tick, even if there is something about its atmosphere that transports one back to the days of disco.

If it wasn't for the movies and the books on Harry Houdini's life he would fall into a category of un-interesting performers who only could do one thing perform

He lived in a time where his talents were in great demand and despite the fact that this film is not accurate it is lovingly presented by Paramount a **Color Film** in a time where Black and White films were still commonplace, Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh at the peak of their building careers and George Marshall a veteran director of close to 120 films

They knew what they were doing when the movie partially fictionalized Houdini's life possibly because he was a one note person, a magician, an escape artist, a performer

The movie is excellent!! and that is all that matters, if I am not mistaken almost every remake has fictionalized his life in one way or another, this movie is a true gem!!