Harlequin (1984)

Senator Nick Rast (Blowup, Barbarella, Deep Red) has a son, Alex, with leukemia and a loveless marriage to his wife, Sandy (Carmen Duncan, Turkey Shoot). In fact, a doctor goes as far to tell them that they should just let their son die as the film begins.At a birthday party, Alex meets a clown who makes him smile. That clown ends up being Gregory Wolfe (Robert Powell, Asylum, The Asphyx), a faith healer in the mold of Rasputin (hint: the name Rast is tsar backward). The more time he spends with Alex, the better the child feels. Sandy also falls in love with Wolfe, despite the fact that he does some insane feats, like holding Alex over a cliff to make him come to grips with death.Meanwhile, the senator is controlled by Doc Wheelan (Broderick Crawford, All the King's Men and you know the rules when it comes to Old Hollywood actors) and he warns him that Wolfe isn't what he seems and could be a danger to his family.Also called Dark Forces, Harlequin was to originally star David Bowie as Wolfe and Orson Welles as Doc Wheelan. Director Simon Wincer has quite the strange directorial history, with films like Free Willy, The Phantom (the Smash Evil! version), plenty of episodes of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles and NASCAR: The IMAX Experience.If you know the story of Rasputin, this film follows it, with Wheelan's men killing Wolfe over and over again, but the results of meeting the Harlequin makes Rast reconsider his life as his son takes over the mantle of that Wolfe left behind.This is seriously one odd movie, but Powell's performance (and frequent costume changes) make it something truly special. It feels like more viewings will unearth more hidden meanings, but upon watching it once, I'm hooked.Again - as seems to be a theme this week - this film should have a bigger cult than it does. Then again, the Alamo Drafthouse programming team shared it as one of their 2017 discoveries, so perhaps more folks will start sharing their love of this film. Has anyone reading this seen it?

"Harlequin" plays like, and for most of its run time actually is, a kid's movie about a magic man who comes through the TV screen to heal a sickly child and work other miracles. You fully expect a tear jerker ending in which the magic man has to go back to his home planet, or where ever he comes from, but the kid will never forget him and neither will his parents.Then it abruptly changes gear and expects us to be scared of the magic man. Does the movie think that we are as ignorant and stupid and corrupt as the movie's real bad guys, the politicians the child's dad knows?The plot: A sickly child of an up and coming senator is apparently healed by a mysterious stranger who performs as a clown at his birthday party. The stranger returns, "coming through the TV", and the child continues to get better. The senator doesn't trust him, but his wife, more interested in the kid's health, is prepared to let the mystery of this stranger be.People start asking questions, and the stranger performs more tricks, first as a magician, then a faith healer for an old lady at a party. The crooked politician's friends want to see him disappear however, and will clearly stop at nothing.It's like the story of Rasputin crossed with "Being There"."Harlequin" is a trite little horror-fantasy with little horror and little fantasy. For almost all of the runtime there is nothing surprising in the movie at all. You can see every plot point coming, until the movie's sudden insistence that I would be scared by a character it does nothing to make seem a force of evil. The twist ending doesn't work because from what we have seen, the main character is the LEAST evil of all the characters in the movie! Hence the moment when we realise he - of course - isn't really dead is not scary, it's reassuring. I don't know how they stuffed that up so badly; it's shown like something you are supposed to be truly shocked by, but the feeling it brings is, if anything, the exact opposite, coupled with that feeling of annoyance you get when a movie misses what it's aiming at completely.The actor who plays the kid is also singularly uncharismatic, and an awful actor. And why did they go out of their way to disguise the movie's Australian origin?

Harlequin is set in Australia where deputy governor Eli Steele (Jack Ferrari) disappears while snorkeling in the sea, a rescue team is dispatched within minutes but no trace of the governor is found. 4 year old Alex (Mark Spain) is the son of Senator Nick Rast (David Hemmings) who is next in line for Eli's high powered job, Alex has leukaemia & is no longer responding to treatment. One night the Rast's family home is visited by Gregory Wolfe (Robert Powell) who claims he can cure Alex, after just a few minutes with him Alex seems so much better. As Wolfe manages to work his way into Senator Rast's life & sleeps with his wife Sandra (Carmen Duncan) it becomes clear he has more on his agenda than just curing his son...This Australian production was directed by Simon Wincer & is an odd film which is sort of hard to categorize, I thought it was watchable but nothing particularly special. The script by Everett De Roche takes itself extremely seriously & is a uneasy mix of mild horror, fantasy, thriller, drama & political satire. There are two basic stories here, one concerning the mysterious Wolfe & one revolving around the back stabbing world of politics where it seems sinister unseen people other than those who stand in front of the cameras & give speeches run things. I think Harlequin is a film where the filmmakers want to leave entirely up to the audiences own interpretation as to whether you believe the supernatural angle or whether it's all a magic con trick although there are scenes which seem to suggest there are magical forces at work because there is no other explanation for them. I think the magic vs science plot here doesn't sit together that well & they don't compliment each other, in fact I think they take something away from each other. Just my opinion but overall I don't think Harlequin works that well & ends up being confusing.Director Wincer does OK but it has little style, the special effects won't impress anyone these days & it's just a bit on the dull side. Nothing that exciting happens, it's not scary, it has no tension & lacks any atmosphere. I don't know maybe I'm missing something here but Harlequin just didn't really do anything for me, it's watchable I suppose but I'll have totally forgotten about it by the end of the week. This film has helped me in one sense though, it has taught me not to keep acid in the bathroom, not to keep acid in the bathroom next to the shampoo & definitely not to keep acid in the bathroom next to the shampoo in exactly the same style bottle as the shampoo because that would just be silly wouldn't it?Technically the film is OK, some of the special effects look dated but it's reasonably well made for what it is. The acting isn't the best, Powell does alright but no ones going to win any awards.Harlequin is an odd film & one I'm not entirely sure who it's meant to appeal to, it's perfectly watchable & tells a story but it's forgettable & nothing special. Not really my cup of tea to be honest.

I saw this in 1983 and remembered it as a very haunting supernatural drama so I made a point in staying up late tonight to watch it on TV . Unfortunately it's one of these movies that disappoints after seeing it again after a very lengthy period . When it's good it's very good but there's not enough good moments . Thankfully the ending still compels when Wolfe returns to tell Rast what's going on plot wise but much of the movie revolves around long talkative scenes The major problem with HARLEQUIN is that it's an Australian movie . There's nothing wrong with that in itself but as well as being a supernatural drama it's also a political thriller but does the machinations of Australian state politics interest a potential audience compared to global American politics ? In other words just think of how more thought provoking the story could have been if Wolfe had befriended the family of a man who's running for party nomination for presidential candidate . Wouldn't that have made for a better , more thought provoking film ? We can all understand how powerful a potential candidate for US President is but for much of the movie I was scratching my chin as to what's the big deal about deputy governor of an unnamed Australian state Despite my disappointment HARLEQUIN is if not a great movie it's far from being a bad one . Robert Powell doesn't go over the top in a role that demands much subtlety while David Hemmings likewise plays Senator Rast in a cleverly understated manner . Despite the obvious parallels to the legend of Rasputin , directing that seems better suited to a TVM and some underwhelming special effects the last twenty minutes are nothing less than nail biting and I still recommend this movie as long as you've got the patience to stay with it