Houdini

'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

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!!

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 ****

Tony Curtis was the proper person to play Harry Houdini when this movie was made. He had the right attitude. Janet Leigh, his wife in real life then, was outstanding as Bess Houdini and the sparks between them show on this film. To me the problem is the script.

The real Houdini's life was much more interesting than the points of his life presented here. The story covers some highlights of Harry's life, and a little of the special relationship with his mom. It totally leaves out Harry's brother, the great Hardine. It doesn't get into the barn storming career or the great tricks Houdini did enough.

The film also fails script wise to show how well Erich Weiss promoted himself enough. I think the script was designed for Curtis & Leigh and misses the best parts of Harry's life. From what I have seen and read about Houdini, a much more interesting story is there to be told. This story does not tell it entirely.

I am glad they tried to do what they did here. For Curtis & Leigh fans this is a great showcase. If it were to be remade, there are more highlights of Houdini's amazing life that could be written to make a better film. I'd challenge Hollywood to tackle that. For now, this is the best we've got, but I have to wonder what could have been with a better script.