Houdini (1953)

Too often, films take a fast and loose approach to biopics. So, it didn't surprise me that much of "Houdini" was pure crap. Sadly, however, the discerning viewer is left wondering what is crap and what was really true about Houdini. I investigated a bit and found SOME of the movie was true--such as Houdini playing a wild man at a carnival early in his career. Unfortunately, Houdini's early death had nothing to do with how he died in the film. There is a line by an old magician (Ian Wolfe) who says "It will make you famous BUT it will kill you"--and the rest of the film went about proving that this man was prophetic. However, he was wrong--none of Houdini's tricks killed him! In another example, it made it seem as if the man believed that he would somehow return after death at the end of the picture--while he actually fought throughout his life to expose such things and felt it was all nonsense. So, you really cannot take this film as Gospel....it is a very, very broad view of Houdini's life and many, many liberties were taken with the truth.Obviously, the film loses a few points for these untruths. However, apart from this, is it entertaining and worth seeing? Maybe. It is nice that Curtis was cast, as although he looked very little like Houdini, his ability to do magic and make the tricks looked good sure helped. It's just too bad you never learn much about him as a person in this portrayal. Not bad---just far from what it should have been, as Houdini's life was amazing (such as his career in films which was never mentioned) and it all is so sensationalized you never really get to know him. A flawed time-passer and that's about all.

Houdini (1953) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Highly entertaining film has Tony Curtis playing Harry Houdini, the legendary escape artist. We see Houdini's early life in the circus, the meeting of his future wife (Janet Leigh) and some of his most famous tricks. It goes without saying that a lot of things are made up in the film, including the bizarre ending, which changes how Houdini died. That one change never made much sense to me as it's pretty common knowledge how the man died but outside of that this is an incredibly entertaining movie that features a pretty standard story but a remarkable performance by Curtis. When I say standard story I'm meaning that the screenplay really doesn't try too hard to get into the mind of Houdini or tell us who he was. Instead of giving us much story depth we instead get to see countless tricks being performed by Curtis and Leigh. Everyone knows that the two were married in real life and that certainly rings true as they have no problems playing husband and wife here. Leigh is very good in her role, which is pretty much just a supporting one but Curtis is where the true magic is. Even though he's one of the most recognizable actors in the history of cinema there isn't a second in this film where I didn't see him as Houdini. Curtis does a brilliant job at transforming himself and he even looks very good while performing the various stunts in the film. I'm not sure how much work he actually did but all of the tricks look very real with the exception of the scene where he cuts Leigh in half. There are many dramatic moments in the film full of suspense and this is true in the best sequence where Houdini is performing above the Detroit River when the ropes break and sends him through the ice. We then get a long sequence with him under the ice trying to find his way out. If people are wanting a hard look bio of the man then they'd be recommended to get a book because they aren't going to find anything here. If they want to see an excellent performance with the master's tricks being performed then this film offers that along with a lot of entertainment.

Even over 80 years after his demise the name Houdini is still the standard by which magicians of all kinds are measured. David Copperfield, Rick Blaine, these guys are nothing in terms of popularity that Harry Houdini earned. The tricks he did are still being performed or attempted by magicians who want to make a name for themselves.Paramount obtained the rights to the Houdini story from the estate of Harry Houdini from the guy his widow Bess gave it to after she died in 1943. They shelled out some big money at the time to obtain loan out services for Tony Curtis from Universal and Janet Leigh from MGM. The two of them had gotten married the year before and as a couple were getting a lot of publicity as young Hollywood marrieds. Houdini turned out to be the first of five films they did together, six if you count the joint appearance they did in the all star Pepe.Back then, young and in love, Tony and Janet function beautifully as a team as Harry Houdini and his beloved wife Bess. Angela Clarke plays Houdini's mother who was also important in his life. What's not shown is the tension between the two women, they were not friendly. But that's one of several inaccuracies.In fact this biographical film is mostly a work of fiction. But it's pleasant enough entertainment and it was the first film that Tony Curtis starred in that could be considered an A production. In his memoirs he recalls the experience as a pleasant one because of Janet and director George Marshall who he says was a good man to work with and an under-appreciated talent.One thing that is shown is Houdini's interest in the occult after the death of his mother in 1920. He did in fact go around debunking fakers in the field which is field that is saturated with them. One thing not in the film is the fact he came into conflict with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, and fervent believer in the reachable spirit world. That in itself would make an interesting film.I'm sure if Harry Houdini were able to comment he'd probably say he liked the film. He'd have to wait for a more accurate film about his life in the Eighties from Paul Michael Glaser and Sally Struthers. But I'd be flattered all to heck to think Tony Curtis was my type.

As I see, many posting members speak of an ending which portraits his death after an emergency rescue from the torture tank, and one speaks of another in which he lays on the floor, breathing deeply and telling his wife he'd do it again! I also remember in the firstly-mentioned version he unmasks a spiritualist who'd just told him she was his mother and how she used to caress him as a child --- by shouting his mother would never caress him for she believed that should make him a weak child, and also in this same version he performs an escape for the royalty in Hungary, there are also many dialogs in one missing in another. It seems his mother spoke only yidish in one, and for the other one I feel sorry for having watched a Spanish-translated, so I can not tell.Are we talking about two different movies?