Au-delà de l'illusion

I really did not care that this was not a factual account of Houdini's life. There are some truths in the depiction of Harry (some actual B&W footage is used of his acts and his debunking of mystics). It was enjoyable, had beautiful cinematography, elements of humor a story of love and life...however implausible it may be, it does not detract from elegance of watching Catherine Zeta Jones(Mary McGarvie) try to support herself and her daughter, matching wits with the great Houdini.

Catherine displays a grace and style combined with fire and drive. Her daughter provides moments of comedic relief and there is tension between Catherine and Guy Pearce - should she win the money at any cost, allow herself to fall in love, what is in the afterlife? This was entertainment based on Houdini, a platform to tell a story which I thought was well done.

Gillian Armstrong's 'Death Defying Acts' is somewhat of a letdown. It tells the fictional story of a poor but beautiful psychic-wannabe and Houdini through her daughter's point of view. One must be warned that this film is fictional and thus, Pearce's Houdini does not bear much resemblance to the real one. This one lacks the enigma that made the real Houdini so fascinating. Nor does 'Death Defying Acts' stay true to the historical facts. The focus is much more on the psychic aspects (which wasn't that well explored either). The romance between Houdini and Mary is a little repetitive as it moves back and forth between trust and mistrust and then it becomes confusing. There was something lacking. On the plus side, Timothy Spall, Saoirse Ronan and Catherine Zeta-Jones perform well. The sensual Zeta-Jones does part of a scintillating dance as well. Guy Pearce performs good sometimes but he looks confused in many other scenes. The visuals and cinematography are stunning. The background score is whimsical and pleasing. Overall, it is an average movie that could have been better. One ought not to watch 'Death Defying Acts' as a true account but rather try to enjoy it as a work of fiction.

i do not know why this film is flushed with negative reviews. First of all this is not a film about Houdini, there is no reason why this film should dramatically display the amazing acts and potentials of the artist himself; Secondly, i do not see why 'there is no reason for the creation of this movie' is justifiable, this film is just a testimony on how characters carry on with their lives and that itself is enough to make a film meaningful...in fact films like 'Atonement' (where the girl is also in) deserves this statement better where everything is just so FAKE. Third, i haven't watch the illusionist but i have to say this is richer in detail, and thus better than the Prestige--a film which displays too much magic 'action' but no depth to the characters or the plot at all, like an eggshell without the yoke inside...Lastly, this is a decent film where everything is well-made, well presented, well acting performances (exception of Catherine's dramatically 'fake' acting at times), and a good score

This film is about a woman who works as a con artist trying to deceive Harry Houdini into believing that she has psychic powers.

"Death Defying Acts" sounds like an action movie, but the poster looks more like a romantic film. In fact it is neither. It is a slowly unfolding drama about how Mary attempts to con Harry, and how harry falls for her.

As Houdini is the greatest escape artist of all times, a film about him should have been exciting, thrilling and even death defying. However, this film has none of these attributes. The plot is slow, plain and not exciting at all. There is not much tension or drama to captivate me. I do not care about the characters, and whatever relationship they have between them. There is little chemistry between Guy Pearce and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Frankly, I think they are both miscast. Fortunately, Saoirse Ronan is delightful as the psychic sidekick. She is the one who save the film.

"Death Defying Acts" turns out to be a bore. I am quite disappointed by it.

It might be the weakest of the latest "Magicians" movies (see Prestige and the Illusionist, the latter being overseen at the Box office), but it still has one strong central performance by Guy Pearce. I'm wondering when he will be in some top rated material again. Because the book does let him down a bit here.

He tries everything and he is pretty good in it, but does not have so much to play with, as Ed Norton, Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale. All are great actors and the others have the opportunity in their movies to shine. This being based on "true events" (some of them I guess, without having the complete background scoop on it), it does fall flat on it's back at times (no pun intended). Plus it might be a bit too much worried about the love story, than actually the story of our main character. At least that's how I felt ... still it can make a nice watch!