SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Armand It is not a biographic movie. It is not homage to a great artist. It is only exploration of a myth. With errors, good intentions and a lot of exaggerations. A film for Johnathon Schaech's charm and for beginning of childhood dreams taste. Delicate and sweet, for who knows than magic is an ingredient of existence. For dreamers. And for remember a name. Old, lost, fascinating. It is not a film about Houdini. It is a short story about a character with his name but others ways of life and different nuances of facts. May be a Rider Digest material. About a shadow of a strange time for who the limits are fiction. "Houdini" is not a bad movie. And not a masterpiece. Only a show, very delicate with details but , in fact, a beautiful stamp, it is first step to discover a impressive science to broke the limits and to understand the days more than a summer rain.

auntyeri I'll be honest- I only sat to watch this movie because I ADORE Jonathan Schaech so I would've been fine with whatever came on the screen. Fortunately, it was an entertaining story even as the previous reviewer mentioned it did feel very rushed. I at least learned a little bit about his illusions.

lads The biggest trick the writer/directer pulls on us is to hang this fantasy on one of the century's great showbusiness characters. Houdini, the short, wiry-haired immigrant, who spell-bound audiences with the intensity of his eyes and his haunting intimation of his'powers'; angry, petulant, vain and childish, the man puppy-loved his mother till the day he died, indeed, adolescent is perhaps the word to explain his emotional range; but so thrilling, so charismatic was he, audiences would sit electrified, staring at the theatre curtain for an hour, two hours, while behind it, Houdini was struggling manacles, boxes, milk cans... So far away from any attempt at showing us anything about the real man, and with Jonathon Schaech's bland performance not holding the film together, the writer then doesn't even seem to enjoy the world of vaudeville and illusion very much, but spends more time on the seances and the soap-opera domestics. I'm not angry at this movie because I'm a purist who believes Houdini's life is sacrosanct, but that the man and his life are so fascinating, and so full of episodes revealing and suspenseful, that a fictional version of the story can only fail by comparison.

Gislef ...but he can't escape mediocre movie adaptations of his life. This version is merely adequate when it could have been more. Huge amounts of his career are glossed over (his mixed-religion marriage, his brief movie career in Hollywood, his piloting skills, and even many of his escapes), and the focus is mostly on his romance with Bess Weiss. As such, much of this plays out as a soap opera rather than as the biography of the world's greatest performer. His wife's a drunk (until the end, when that plot element is forgotten), his mother is a harsh tyrant (except we don't see anything to really suggest that), and his brother is a whining ingrate. In other words, it's dreadfully rushed: we're left to assume much, both about Houdini's career and his family life, rather than be shown it. Oddly, the revelation of how Houdini did the milk bottle escape in the middle comes across as unnecessary padding when time could have been spent telling us some of the important stuff. The best parts are the bigger actors in minor roles: Rhea Perlman as a psychic, Paul Sorvino as a glory-hungry radio announcer, George Segal as Houdini's manager, and David Warner as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (although they screw up his relationship with Houdini as well). The ending, with Houdini appearing unseen at his wife's 10th anniversary seance to contact him, redeems much of the movie with a truly romantic ending, though - they actually spend about 12 minutes on it. Unfortunately, by that time we've seen so much of Houdini's Wife the Drunken Shrew that this touching ending is a bit out of place. But hey, at least they (mostly) got how Houdini died correct, which is more than one can say about the previous '53 and '76 versions.