Adrian232 It seems in the interest of inspiring awe, the creators of this series removed all of the actual awe around this legendary person and replaced it with annoying effects and hurried editing. The voice-over narration is uninspired, and makes the genius Houdini sound like a nitwit. The relationship between him and his family is reduced down to clichés and is indicative of lazy screen writing.The worst part is that the actual history and character of Houdini is astounding and truly awe-inspiring. It doesn't need bells and whistles to be entertaining. All of this extra fluff was completely unnecessary and removes from the entertainment.

A_Different_Drummer ... which is both a good and a bad thing.It is a good thing because over the course of the 2-parter you start to realize that the intensity comes not from the escapes, but rather from Connolly simultaneously delivering her dialog with that machine-gun rasp of hers, at the same time those extra-wide "cartoon" eyes pause for emphasis. I don't mean to make light of this, it is very unusual, and very effective.The bad news is that, as interesting as Connolly is, she should really not be able to steal the entire film. That she can, speaks to the weakness of the script, and meandering self-indulgent arc that passes for a plot.Brody tries hard. In fact, Brody is one of those actors who seems to be merely tolerated by his audience during his actual career but, I suspect, will become a cult idol to nextgen viewers. Here he does the best he can with what he was given.If you bring no expectations to this film, it is entertaining, although truth be told I think the History Channel should set its standards a bit higher. (With Hatfields/McCoys, which I reviewed here, they nailed it AND were factually accurate to boot).Never liked the Curtis film but I did read Houdini's autobiography, so I empathize with the angry reviews in this list.In the end, it is true, Houdini was able to escape everything but his own ambition.

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.

NormJohn 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.