Houdini (1953)

Powerful

Awesome Movie

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

I saw this many years ago and now recently. Having read a great deal about Harry Houdini, the complexities of the man were pretty much overlooked in this film. Not much was made of the stocky, feisty, combative guy. We are mostly looking at his talent for escapes. This is is a movie with great suspense and excitement. How could it not be with so many potential catastrophes. Houdini was at war with the metaphysical. This is not covered. His experiences with Conan-Doyle are overlooked. I guess if the movie had not been called Houdini, and some guy with virtually any name were portrayed as the greatest escape artist in the world, it would have been just as exciting. I've always had a little trouble with Curtis's voice and acting style. Still, this is a lot of fun. It just scratches the surface of the character.

Houdini (1953)You might think this is an odd pairing in an odd biopic, Tony Curtis as the brilliant escape artist and Janet Leigh as his assistant and wife. But it works. Yes, it is a somewhat glitzy, and totally entertaining version of the man's life, but it is solid and well done. And the colors are dazzling throughout. There's no escaping that.Curtis is a true star already, and he is his usual charming self. I don't have a clue what Houdini was like in person, but there is a suspicion while watching that Curtis keeps it all a little light and breezy. In fact the whole movie is kind of airy, even when the young couple struggles to get their lives going. Leigh is cheerfully supportive, most of the time, and ends up in a formulaic role. Luckily she gives it enough energy to make it work.When it comes down to it, there is little to say without comparing this to Houdini's known biography. And in fact the movie keeps pretty close to what is widely known. But of course the details are all a mush in order to make a kind of fairy tale of the whole thing. That's okay as long as you see it as such.If you want lots of detail on all this you should find the TCM article, the long one, on the web. I hope they'll forgive me stealing this one paragraph:--Casting newlyweds Curtis and Leigh was a publicity coup for Paramount, as the public was fascinated by the young marrieds and was eager to see them together on screen. Both were under contract to other studios, so Paramount had to negotiate loan-outs, Curtis from Universal, Leigh from MGM. As a result of the complex contracts, according to Curtis's autobiography, "The studios got a lot of money for it, but we just got our regular salaries."--This is a true Technicolor job in the old academy 4:3 format, one of the last before widescreen swept the industry in the next year. Behind the camera is the well respected Ernest Laszlo ("Impact," "D.O.A.," and "Stalag 17") who does a great job with the camera but for some reason lit everything brightly and evenly. The result is lack of mood--and many of the scenes are begging for mood, like the flea-bitten carnivals. There are some notable sequences, like the underwater stuff, and the magic tricks required some photographic slight of hand as well.So director George Marshall, known for cranking out lots of well made if unimaginative films, has another. It's good, and if you like the two main actors or the subject--or all three--you'll really enjoy it.

Not very good. I did enjoy this movie when I was a teenager and, at the time, had recently read Houdini's biography. But upon viewing this film again (on Turner Classic movies), it's obvious how poorly it was done. Aside from the fact that virtually nothing in the film has anything to do with the actual life of Harry Houdini, the performances are unconvincing, the directing and writing sophomoric. Curtis playacts each emotion, his performance totally lacking any naturalism or semblance of reality. The Director, George Marshall, forsakes true emotion for sentimentalism. and, most importantly, as I said before, none of the scenes are historically accurate. Watch it only as a trivial tribute to a great person.

The story of master magician Harry Houdini (1874–1926) becomes a glossy star-vehicle for Tony Curtis in the lead--and though the facts of Houdini's life are lumped right together with the Hollywood dross (as if this movie magazine-styled spread were one big true-life story), one is drawn in by Curtis' apparent commitment to the role. Director George Marshall stages some exciting set-pieces and a nice romance ensues between Tony's Houdini and assistant Bess, played by Curtis' real-life spouse Janet Leigh (doing appealing work). Philip Yordan adapted Harold Kellock's book, and the results are (surprisingly) entertaining despite all the requisite corn and clichés. **1/2 from ****