User Reviews

First it's important to note that, as I said, I'm going to compare/contrast Houdini & Doyle to other shows that are currently airing or available to watch. I don't believe I'll be giving anything away about the show that isn't in the promos for it; but that doesn't mean others might not interpret it as such so better warned than sorry right?!

Houdini & Doyle is well written. Which is as good a place as any to start because the best actors in the world have a hard time doing their jobs well if they have nothing to work with right from the start. That, thankfully, is not a problem here. It's also quite well cast. An equally important point to the success or failure of any show. You need a good script and a good cast to bring it to life. It is also helpful to have great sets and costumes to make everything else within the story really "pop out of it" so-to-speak. It appears that the producers have been very respectful in capturing the elements of the period in London within which the story takes place and it also seems very respectful about remaining true to what we, the public, already know about these two great men. Both of whom are genuine historical icons and both of whom have specific character traits of which most are aware. I am genuinely pleased that what I've seen coincides with what I know. I also respect that the few surprises they've thrown in are both plausible and serve very well to make the show more interesting. So with all that in mind, here's what you really need to know about Houdini & Doyle the TV show.

First, unlike Jekyll & Hyde, they do not appear to be under the impression that what they are trying to create is "breakout television". This isn't Penny Dreadful and they know it. What's more, while they are creating a beautiful environment, that environment isn't designed to do anything more than be a place in which the events will unfold. Jekyll & Hyde, at least to me, seem to have created a spectacular collection of sets but given their actors very little to do within them. This is definitely not the case with H & D.

Also, unlike a wide variety of shows, they are not trying to take themselves too seriously and they're not going for either great depth or tremendous intensity. H & D is not necessarily "edge of your chair" viewing. But it works quite well for them because it's clear that this was something they were never going for in the first place. At it's core H & D is smart and funny with just a dash of intentional "fluffiness". So while it may not be "must-see TV", it is also most assuredly not a "guilty pleasure". H & D, to my way of thinking and seeing, is a show that's fun to watch, includes some great surprises along the way and is a new take on the notion of "English cozy" murder mysteries. The characters are quite human and all have interesting flaws. But they remain highly likable in spite or because of those flaws and it becomes clear in a hurry that while they may never admit it, they also genuinely like each other.

What really sets it apart from other procedural mysteries is that, although they assuredly want to solve each case and determine how each death occurred, they are taking entirely separate but scientific approaches in reasoning. And it is this fact that generates both the fun and the interest in what might otherwise be a fairly ordinary "murder of the week" mystery show. Plus, while Houdini might be sitting on one side of a "see-saw" so to speak, and Doyle sits at the completely opposite end, there is a quite fascinating and unusual third character sitting in the middle of them both. A character that makes everything come together for an entirely different set of motivations.

In the end, I like it! We're only 3 episodes in but I've made the commitment to ride through the first season with them because I'm truly intrigued by what I've seen so far. Remembering that this is a show to watch FOR FUN! They're not hiding anything, there are no secret pasts or agendas to figure out and it's not the story of "the everlasting great struggle between good and evil". If that's what you're looking for, go somewhere else. But if you're tired of waiting for the "agendas" to play out and sick to death of waiting for something important to finally happen on some other show… go watch H & D and relax! It's a little bit of fun, a little bit of mystery with a little bit of surprise thrown in to keep the mundane well out of the picture. It may not be brilliant programming, but since it isn't trying to be, it's able to do it's own thing well and more than satisfactorily!

So watch a few episodes and make up your own mind. In the meanwhile, I'm just going to be sitting here fervently hoping I have given you just enough information to make an informed choice. But not so much as to be blacklisted and thrown into an IMDb "black hole", never to be heard from again! ; - )

Watched the latest episode tonight. I like the show, but ever since the first or second episode, Houdini's part could have been played by anyone. Houdini was an escape artist and magician. We haven't seen any of these skills since the first couple of episodes. Why not? If you going to have Houdini as a character you have to show case what he was famous for. Now he seems like a poor mans Watson. Write more Houdini skills to bring us back for more. Doyle is very likable, some times sort of a wimp, but he is a writer not a fighter...The stories have been very creative with adding notable characters from the era the stories take place, i.e. Bram Stoker, Edison,etc. The show is entertaining, and I am a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, so this show has been fun to watch, but hoping they will do a little better and get Houdini doing Houdini thing.

Just saw the first one, and if watch another it'll be because there is absolutely NOTHING else to watch. Everything played so low-key, there is no excitement, no suspense, no passion, no energy at all. Formulaic. The words "Go fetch Constable Stratton," were all I needed to bet money the Constable would be a woman. No takers. Houdini and Doyle don't exactly have a lot of 'chemistry' (of the non-sexual kind). They barely seem to tolerate each other. The solution to the murder comes out of left field at the last minute, and the 'supernatural' element gets such a ridiculously unbelievable explanation you'd think they would have thrown out the script if they couldn't improve it. A "buddy film" without buddies, a murder mystery without a satisfying motive, a supernatural thriller that ends with an illogical "logical explanation"--this thing fails on every point.

(possible small spoiler)

I like mystery-thrillers with a hint of the supernatural, much more so if they historical mystery-thrillers. The keys for me are simply stated. Whether it is ancient Egypt, medieval Shrewsbury, or Victoria, Australia in the 1950s, a genuine effort at setting is important. This includes not only close attention to set decoration and costuming. but also mood, lighting and music. The second key is story. All the production values in the world are meaningless if the driving narrative is trite, manipulative, or completely senseless. The latter is especially true in the case of mysteries - the solutions have to work. The third element is chemistry between the principals. Setting and narrative go to waste if the people being portrayed wouldn't really hang out together in real life.

Houdini and Doyle fails on every count. And does so quite badly.

Everything seems at least a tad off, from the wonderfully clean and bright London to the modern music. London in 1901 was a dirty, dark, smoky place. The Thames stank of refuse, and the city was in the grip of its famous "London fog", which was actually not fog at all, but the sulfurous, yellow fumes of the Industrial Revolution in full tilt. The H & D London is just too spic and span to be believed.

As far as music is concerned, the use of jaunty tunes from what seems to be a much later period is distracting as hell. At best, the musical score feels like a hastily contrived after-thought, which, often, doesn't really fit what is happening on the screen.

Contrived applies also to the story lines. To be fair, I have only seen the first 3 episodes, and I suppose it is possible that the creators saved the stronger story lines for the latter portion of the ten-part mini-series. One would hope so, as the first three mysteries didn't work at all. For example, without going into details that might spoil things, a cloud of dust in the air does not actually manifest itself into a particular recognizable face because of the workings of the subconscious mind. It really doesn't.

Equally contrived is the third principal character. Women were not permitted into the Metropolitan Police Service (Scotland Yard) until 1919. Okay - so the creators threw out historic accuracy in order to throw a female character into the mix to appeal to modern audiences, but... would a woman who presumably fought and earned her way onto an all-male police force really be as helpless and deferential as portrayed here? Yeah, I get it - it's supposed to be about Houdini and Doyle, but one would expect a woman in such a situation to be a tad more formidable (see the Watson character in Elementary, for example).

Somewhat related is that, even now, I can't imagine Scotland Yard would allow an American stage magician and a writer of mystery stories anywhere near their most important investigations, no matter what high-placed friends that writer might have. The basic premise makes no sense, and it is a fatal flaw.

The final straw is the characterization of the principals, and the chemistry thereof. Letting go that they actually did not meet until the Roaring 20s, it is hard to understand why this particular Houdini and this particular Doyle would hang out -- they have different views, and different approaches. Doyle was an avid spiritualist - and often fooled by hoaxes (see the "Cottingley Fairies" case for one). Houdini was a an uncompromising debunker. As history shows, they only met a few times, briefly, and eventually quarreled. The characters on the show clash as well, on many levels, which is too bad. One only needs to read the excellent novel, "The List of Seven", by Mark Frost, a mystery-horror story featuring Sir Arthur as psychic investigator, to get a sense of how this project could have been both riveting and compelling - not to mention creepy. But "creepy" isn't happening here.

In the end everything seems off, and very little makes sense.

Later addition: Last night's episode (Episode 5 "The Curse of Korzha") was greatly improved over the previous episodes. Finally, the music was adjusted to something tolerable - opting for a "basic mystery thriller" soundtrack rather than the jarring non-historical pop they had been using. The plot was tightly packaged and actually worked! For once the solution wasn't some nonsense coming out of left field. London is still way too clean - note how clean the Thames River is, in the last few minutes of the episode. The Thames in 1901 was both garbage dump and sewer. Think about that a moment. The water would not be clear nor clean, and would have tons of... ummm.... offal floating about. Also, it is clear that the series was only allowed permission to shoot on one street, but at least in this episode they made a real effort to make it look different. Dialogue and chemistry are still problematic, but this episode marks a big step forward for this series.

A great non-factual premise completely untrue or a non-factual-sequence of events. Yes, they did know each other during the period from 1920-1940, depending upon when Doyle and Houdini died. Yet, it is "set" in Victorian England some 20 years earlier! They actually met after the death of Doyle's mother. Doyle was a Spiritualist and Houdini thought it all to be "hokum". Doyle did not consider himself a Christian! His sick (first) wife died of Tuberculosis and there is no mention, that I can find, of his sick wife's "fainting spells" or ever awakening from a coma. So, enjoy it for what it is. A highly fictional account of two charismatic characters. Very well written, quite enjoyable. A Canadian-British co-production! This is not to be confused with that other "PBS" recent "Sherlock" series. We may see anything, as Doyle also wrote science fiction about the 21st Century!

The series premise is that Harry Houdini and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle team up to solve crimes.

The pilot episode certainly did not impress me, but I gave it a chance and watched episode two and found it just as bad.

Now, the real Conan Doyle claimed that his Sherlock Holmes character was based on a Professor Bell, but I have read that he himself had the same skill at observation and deduction. The series pays little attention to this attribute.

Though the actors gives it a good try, the writing is just not there.

I gave this one star because there was no option for no stars.