So much average

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

All in all there is little to fault in this stylish and well-made biopic.With heavily stylised visuals, anachronistic music, and very modern editing, this film presents its period storyline with a mind to 21st century audiences. But unlike most others that attempt this potentially hazardous balancing act, "Houdini" neatly pulls it off without injury.I watched it on Amazon as one long and very satisfying film, but apparently it was originally presented as a two-part miniseries, which I can't imagine helped the pacing or momentum. I'm glad Amazon joined the two halves together into a complete and uninterrupted telling of Houdini's life, with a beginning, middle, and end.Technically it is excellent. The performances are all top-rate. Adrian Brody shines in the title role, despite looking nothing like the real Harry Houdini.The story unfolds in a mostly linear way, but there are several flashback sequences which interrupt the narrative somewhat, despite giving important and relevant insights. I'd have, perhaps, preferred it to be more linear.Also, while I'm busy nit-picking, having already been aware of the circumstances of Houdini's death before watching, I was at first rather pleased with the early foreshadowing "moments" that this film inserted. But then it inserted them again and again. And then again. And then a few more times. Two or three evenly-spaced foreshadowing moments would have worked well. But by the time of his eventual death, I felt that I'd already seen it a dozen times. But this minor niggle did not mar an otherwise gripping and relentlessly enjoyable rideLiberties may have been taken with a few historical facts, but that is neatly covered by the opening caption, which playfully encourages the viewer to separate fact from fiction.Having thoroughly enjoyed the ride, I'll definitely be returning for more.

This movie may not have been exactly historically correct, but I really don't care. I enjoyed finding out how Houdini did his illusions. That was very interesting. Also, while I know the real Houdini was not nearly as good looking as Adrien Brody, I thought Brody did an excellent job. The fact that he is very handsome and somewhat sexy didn't hurt. The show was extremely entertaining and I look forward to a DVD. I would watch it again. It was not touted to be an accurate documentary. The History channel had another show that did that. This was a "movie" portraying Houdini's life. I enjoyed every minute of it. I was not interested in learning all about the real Houdini, I could get books if I wanted to do that. The movie did a good enough job.

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

This disgrace started with the late Bernard C. Meyer, a psychoanalyst at Mt. Sinai hospital in New York. His specialty, apparently, was to write books about historical figures based on his "analysis" of their characters. To do this he would cherry-pick facts and anecdotes written by others about his subject (and therefore hearsay) to gain "insight" into their true character.His work was then taken by his son, Nicholas Meyer, and turned into a screenplay for the History Channel. This is not, of course, history. It is a copy of a copy of an opinion based on little evidence. If the name Nicholas Meyer is familiar to you it may be because he is the author of "The Seven Percent Solution" in which he portrayed Sherlock Holmes as a delusional drug addict who hallucinated his deductions. Apparently creating fiction and passing it off as analytical thinking is a family trade.Please do not think that this pastiche has anything at all to do with the real Harry Houdini. It is a characterture created to enhance the reputation of two members of the family Meyer. There is no history here. There is very little fact here. There is NO legitimate analysis of the character of Harry Houdini here. There is nothing here.The History Channel should be truly ashamed.