feakes Houdini isn't going to pass as fact. Actually it isn't going to pass as a truthful account. Seeing that everyone associated With Harry Houdini is long dead. this is only speculation. Entertainment if you will. Houdini is an immortal larger then life. So if you were to tell the story how would you do it ? Tell the story that might not be nearly as compelling as the Myths around Houdini. Or tell the Myths and legends that made Houdini great and immortal and a legend. Cue John ford in the man who shot Liberty Valence. When the legend becomes fact print the legend.Anyone that argues that this is incorrect or not factually based must understand one thing. Houdini in the end was a showman. This biopic tells us that over and over again. And its true. Adrian Brody is fantastic as Houdini. I am a fan of Adrian Brody's and liked his movies but this one is his best yet. People might bash him or this movie and they have no reason to. If you know anything about Houdini This movie is not going to disappoint. If you're a fan of Houdini you get a new appreciation for the man . And remember this is TV This is a movie. They are not real life. this is entertainment. and like the Great Houdini there are slight of hands tricks that'll trick you. Houdini a spy ? Houdini a womanizer Houdini a pilot Houdini a movie star and writer of pulp novels . Houdini a spiritual investigator busting fake mediums . Houdini a Mama's boy Houdini The Master escape artist and master Showman.He was all of these things and more. And if this movie isn't fact then it's fiction. And if its fiction then its entertainment. And its grand entertainment and fun.What more can you ask ?The direction is good the acting superb. and its watchable. what else are you looking for? Sit back and enjoy the greatest master escape artist that ever lived tell his story.

jc-osms I actually had quite high hopes for this two part Bio-pic of the great escapologist Harry Houdini. For one thing, being in two parts should give the narrative plenty of room for detail and development. It was also a "History Channel" production which I presumed meant it would focus on factual and not fictional incidents in Houdini's life. I even thought that the casting of Oscar-winner Adrien Brody would confer some gravitas on proceedings. Well, sorry to say I was wrong on every count. I've done a little background research and can't see any evidence of Houdini's secret spy-work across Europe prior to World War I (far less break into the German Embassy's safe for valuable papers, during his own act), ringing the Kremlin bells for Czar Nicholas and his family, far less meeting Rasputin or do the bullet-catch trick in front of Kaiser Wilhelm. Houdini surely had such a fascinating life that there was no need for these fictitious sensational-isms. Even real-life events such as his exposure of the fraudulent medium Margery (with gratuitous seduction scene, natch!) or thevfall-out with the Conan-Doyle's seemed souped-up, to say the least.I also hated the production values with its trendy post-"Sherlock" use of jump-cuts, time-compressions, internal anatomy close-ups and worst of all the booming cacophonous soundtrack employed presumably to accentuate dramatic scenes. Then there's Adrien Brody himself, that's tall, gangling Adrien Brody playing short stocky Harry Houdini. And just what were those far from platonic kisses with his adored mother all about?No, I really hated this, it really did, for me encapsulate all that's bad in Hollywood representations of supposedly factual events. One day, we'll presumably get an accurate retelling of Houdini's fascinating life and times, but this assuredly wasn't it, not by a long chalk.

Sebastian Heron Now I want to say before I start that this show is actually a mixture of fiction and non-fiction. Not all of it is real, most of it is speculation and some of it is completely made up, however all of it is picked, to give the watcher the best experience possible. That being said, this show was nothing special.People see the topic of Houdini bashed about now and again, however what we know of Houdini's "real" life is so little it becomes a topic which struggles to live and dies sour.This is why most of us were so shocked when we heard there was going to be a Houdini biopic, I mean it had to be done, one of the greatest figures of the late 19th/early 20th century was going to get his screen time.But from the first day it started to go down hill. The initial cover art and the poorly chosen cast were the first of many mistakes which lead to this mediocre expo. The second mistakes made, were the poorly written (and acted) dialogue and lack of attention to details which really shone through in the finished piece. Finally it has to be the airing of the show on the "History Channel". Now I'm not sure if this was planned from the start or a change made in production or maybe the original channel who produced it didn't want it, but I couldn't have picked a worst channel to air this on, surely history is something true and honestly, to be fair, barely any of this is actually true. However "luckily" for me and my 64 million neighbours the show was aired on channel 4, a TV- channel known for airing interesting and provocative dramas.All in all the finished product was rather average and most definitely disappointing, the latter episode being the worst of the two. My rating 5/10.

lasherxl The production was well done, cinematography spot on and well acted but it felt slightly disjointed all along the way. The performances mostly Adrien Brody kept things entertaining and charismatic, that and witnessing the creation and execution of some of his death defying stunts.More foreshadowing of future events aside from the x-ray shot of his repeated gut punches probably could have held things along and taken this from good to great.Now don't get me wrong you'll most likely enjoy this as a casual nights watching, but to fall short of greatness when your subject matter is Houdini and your lead is Adrien Brody, well its disappointing.