Death Defying Acts

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 makes fine movies: she is a director who knows how to tell stories and enhance what appears on the surface to be reality with a healthy dose of fantasy. Her sense of pacing and image creation adds substance to her tales that sometimes border on bizarre.

DEATH DEFYING ACTS uses the character of Harry Houdini as the stimulus of to tell a story about the folk of Edinburgh, Scotland at a time when stage shows were embraced much the way America was using vaudeville - an escape from the rather dreary state of living to a world of entertainment and love of magic. Mary McGarvie (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and her daughter Benji (Saoirse Ronan) survive in Edinburgh by picking pockets not merely for cash but for information to use in their act in the little theaters. Mary does exotic dances then uses her 'gifts' to see into the 'other world' of people in the audience ( Benji does the investigative work and is the prompter for the séance like acts Mary performs). Their idol is Harry Houdini (Guy Pearce) and when they learn Houdini is coming to Edinburgh to 'perform', they discover Houdini is promising $10,000 to anyone who can prove they have the ability to look into the future (or past). Houdini's manager Sugarman (Timothy Spall) arranges Houdini's water tank escape acts and other acts of 'magic', and when Mary and Benji arrange to meet Houdini, Sugarman is aware they are charlatans. How Mary and Benji work their way into Houdini's belief system and love life with their con game forms the meat of the sparing.

The atmosphere of the film is well captured by cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos who understands who to balance the mire of the streets of 1926 Edinburgh with the gorgeous fantasies used during Houdini's escape acts. The musical score by Cezary Skubiszewski is a terrific mixture of Scottish tunes and instruments with solid melodramatic mood music. Pearce, Zeta-Jones, Spall and Ronan turn in excellent performances. This is an unjustly overlooked film that, while not being a masterpiece, serves up a fine story well told. Grady Harp

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!

Another magician movie? But The Illusionist and The Prestige were great movies, so why not? Catherine Zeta Jones plays a foxy, yet poor, mother, scamming away through life pretending to be a psychic. When Guy Pearce's Houdini comes into town to prove or disprove the existence of the paranormal, they come into contact.

It is both a sad and a hopeful movie. A little too "psychic" for me and too little about the true nature of Harry Houdini except his fascination for his dead mother. The script itself does not lend itself to praise, but the atmosphere and realisation are top notch.

Bottom line: watch it when you are in a mood for a rom-drama, but you don't care much about the subject.

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