Houdini & Doyle

The mysteries at the respective centers of the two episodes made available to critics are engaging enough, but it’s the interplay among Doyle, Houdini and Stratton that holds our interest.

While historians may struggle with these early-century equivalents to rock stars as busy sleuths, Houdini's unshakably scientific stance can be refreshing, and it's entirely possible that the real Houdini and Doyle would have loved this--while they were still friends.

Whatever their era, Houdini and Doyle are the show. More interesting than the cases they worked on in the two episodes I've seen, they start out more as frenemies than friends, but it's a relationship with promise.

Houdini & Doyle has some honing to do, but it’s sharpest when it honors its heroes: thrilling and chilling, with a dazzling sleight of hand.

While Houdini And Doyle is exactly as light as that sounds, and is a little uneven in its early episodes, it also wisely aspires to nothing greater than a good time.

As is often the case with buddy-cop shows, the quality of the mysteries on Houdini & Doyle varies considerably week to week—some not bad, some so strained that even the Gerber baby would spit them out in disgust. What keeps matters interesting is the byplay among the characters, so philosophically at odds that they're often working against one another.

Though lightly entertaining, the series needs a bit more character grounding. So far Weston and Mangan are quite good as the flamboyant famous characters, but the scripts will have to flesh them out more. That may never happen.

The series gets off to a sloppy start, but with two solid leads and an intriguing premise, Houdini and Doyle is worth investigating.

It’s not necessarily bad, understand, just surprisingly underwhelming considering it’s called Houdini & Doyle. One expects fireworks; instead we get consternation.

Houdini & Doyle likely won’t set anyone’s heart aflutter or the ratings on fire. But it looks like a passable spring/summer diversion and also just a bit of a history lesson on what these two guys were all about.

A dusty, ghostly imitation--theme-park TV at its most square and earnest. [6 May 2016, p.50]

Unfortunately, the mix for Doyle too often also includes “dim-witted,” thanks to the script, and “lethargic,” thanks to an unenthusiastic performance from the usually more animated Mangan.

The sets and costumes are great. Now, the mysteries need to rise to the occasion.

It is less exciting than it sounds.

From the music to the dialogue, Houdini & Doyle seems laughably flashy given the characters involved and time period (London, 1901). But the plot is fairly standard in its procedural trappings.

Fox has shoved Harry Houdini and Arthur Conan Doyle into a crime-solving partnership that anchors a 10-episode series which aims for a generally light tone, but too often is merely amiably pallid.

There are decent performances buried in Houdini & Doyle (especially the always-good Weston) and the design values aren’t bad for network TV, but the writing isn’t memorable enough for the program to stand out in an increasingly-crowded landscape.

It’s a forgettable time-filler that doesn’t aspire to anything more.

An interesting, compelling idea for a TV series. Too bad a boilerplate cop procedural had to be the series they got instead.

The depictions of Houdini and Doyle never seem authentic. The mysteries aren't particularly riveting. And the mix of fact and fancy is anything but magical.

The mysteries--involving nuns possibly murdered by a ghost in the pilot, and deaths connected to a faith healer in a subsequent episode--are too thinly constructed to hold your interest, and the characters are likewise one-dimensional and dull, quite a trick considering how interesting the actual Conan Doyle and Houdini were.

They may sound like a jokey law firm, but any amusement to be had in the fictionalized odd-couple crime solving partnership of Harry Houdini and Arthur Conan Doyle is sadly short-lived in this stilted Canadian-British import. [2-8 May 2016, p.19]

The period trappings are cool. The show looks great. But it feels false. And for science fiction to work--for drama to work--you have to be able to buy into the premise. That's pretty much impossible with Houdini & Doyle--a crazy idea that just doesn't work.

Unfortunately, you won’t need to get past the second commercial break of the pilot episode to realize you’re watching the most banal type of procedural, dressed up in garish period costumes and clogged with faith-versus-science questions that get explored with all the depth and nuance of a political debate on The View.

The point is, everything seems off about Houdini & Doyle, including the casting and pairing of Michael Weston (House) as Houdini and Stephen Mangan (Episodes) as Doyle. There's not much chemistry between the two.