View Full Version : Bad Timing... opinions?
Bad Timing is on BBC2 in 40 mins, or a bit later due to the snooker. Anyway... is it worth a watch? I've never seen it, but I love Don't Look Now and The Man Who Fell To Earth for what it's worth. That said, Art Garfunkel and Theresa Russell don't inspire confidence.
Where is Mike when I need him? :)
never seen it, but i wouldn't mind knowing what The Groundstar Conspiracy on BBC1 is like - looks good and sounds like the best film on tonight (just from reading film descriptions)
They've both got to be better than Baddiel and Skinner Unplanned! So help us out people! :)
Originally posted by McD
They've both got to be better than Baddiel and Skinner Unplanned! So help us out people! :)
True! :D :D
Well just by having a quick look at the imdb.com scores Groundstar Conspiracy gets a 5.7 whilst Bad Timing gets a 7.0
Of course this is no indication at all if the film's any good or not but it gives you a slight indication at least :)
I think i'll personally stick with Groundstar Conspiracy as it sounds the most interesting to me (i love espionage :D )
Michael Brooke
04-05-2002, 23:36
<I>Bad Timing</I> is one of those films that's so incredibly rich, multi-layered and suggestive that you can hardly believe it came out of the British film industry, especially at a time when it was totally obsessed with bad softcore sex comedies. It's right up there with Roeg's other Seventies masterpieces, and arguably the last truly satisfying film he ever made (discounting <I>The Witches</I>, which I love, but it's not exactly <I>Performance</I>).
Do you want to know any more, or is that enough for you?
Oh, and thanks for the reminder - I'd completely forgotten it was on, and I haven't seen it in ten years!
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
Do you want to know any more, or is that enough for you?
Plenty. Thanks. I'll be giving it a watch now and, needless to say, will report back. :)
The film is now due to start at 12.45am.
I hope this gets a DVD release in the near future (I wonder if it will be more likely after "Don't look now" is released - in the UK- in June?).
That is, of course, unless it is released somewhere in the world already?
Anyone know?
Barney_Tabasco
05-05-2002, 01:47
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
<I>Bad Timing</I> is one of those films that's so incredibly rich, multi-layered and suggestive that you can hardly believe it came out of the British film industry, especially at a time when it was totally obsessed with bad softcore sex comedies. It's right up there with Roeg's other Seventies masterpieces, and arguably the last truly satisfying film he ever made (discounting <I>The Witches</I>, which I love, but it's not exactly <I>Performance</I>).
Couldn't agree more. Sorry McD, only just seen this thread or would have recommended earlier - hope you watched it!
Johnny Vodka
05-05-2002, 10:08
I saw it ages ago and loved it. Must dig out the video! If I remember correctly, there's one very unpleasant scene, of which I can only vaguely recall the details, should that be a recommendation to watch it!
Creamstick
05-05-2002, 14:53
The film is pure genius, and there's more than one unpleasant scene!
Gary Couzens
05-05-2002, 22:48
Much as I like <i>Bad Timing</i>, you have to wonder what effect it had on Roeg's career. Its producers (Rank) disowned it ("a sick film made by sick people for sick people" to quote one executive), removed their man-with-gong logo from theatrical prints and banned it from their own cinemas. His next film (<i>Eureka</i>, which at least in its first two thirds is Roeg's masterpiece, to my mind) was shelved by its own distributor. Did these experiences take something out of Roeg as shortly afterwards, the quality of his work went into decline? I like <i>Insignificance</i> and <i>The Witches</i>, but everything else he's made since then has, at best, lacked a vital spark, and at worst should be passed over in silence.
<i>Bad Timing</i> is one of the least chronological commercially-made films ever, though once you grasp that the flashbacks proceed by free association rather than by a more conventional time sequence, you can pick up enough to follow it all. Roeg tries out some different editing strategies here: he'll begin a key scene with a Who song ("Who Are You") and when we return to the scene later, he continues the Who track from where it left off. Roeg himself has said that changes in Theresa Russell's hairstyle should help you keep in mind where you are.
I didn't see the BBC screening last night, but I wonder which ratio it was shown in. <i>Bad Timing</i> was Roeg's second and final film in Scope, and as far as I know the only showings in 2.35:1 (apart, obviously, from cinema screenings) have been those on Film Four.
Rank did release the film on video (pan and scanned). Carlton now own the Rank back catalogue, but I see no sign of a <i>Bad Timing</i> DVD. I'm not certain, but Rank's rights may have expired.
Finally, <i>Bad Timing</i> was the film where Roeg met Theresa Russell, who became his regular leading lady and his wife (now separated). I wonder how his career would have progressed if <i>Bad Timing</i> had starred his original choice - Sissy Spacek?
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
I didn't see the BBC screening last night, but I wonder which ratio it was shown in.
it was shown cropped to 16:9
I have to concur here - "Bad Timing" is one of Roeg's greatest films and only surpassed, in my view, by "Don't Look Now". It's not for the squeamish or for anyone who resents having to work hard on following the various narrative threads weaving through the film. But it's visually extraordinary, brilliantly cast - Garfunkel is so right in the role it's astounding - and genuinely, painfully and moving (in much the same way as "Crash" come to think of it). I have watched this movie time and time again, working out some of the more obscure elements and finding pleasure in the smallest details - the use of Pachabel's Canon, the country song on the soundtrack as Denholm Elliott realises his situation, the picture Keitel and Garfunkel both have on their walls. It's emotionally exhausting and deeply unpleasant, but essential viewing.
This is one of my all time favourite films - stupendous!
I've had it on pre-recorded vid since the mid- eighties.
One thing that puzzles me is how Theresa Russell gives such a fantastic performance - I've seen her in several other things (inc a lot of other Roeg stuff) and she's awful, can't act to save her life. How does this happen?
kerbcrawler
07-05-2002, 13:10
In my mind this is Roeg's masterpiece. The narrative is perfectly structured to add the menace and horror to what may otherwise have been a somewhat underwhelming drama.
By (IMHO) forcing the viewer in to the position of a/the shrink or a/the detective, so the viewer is drawn in to the role of an observer/voyeur of 'life' rather than feeling like they are somehow involved in it and living it. The film is so rich in possible meaning that the viewer must somehow decode and interpret it for themselves. Obviously (as with Cammel & Roeg's Performance) there are more references and symbols here than you could possibly shake a stick at and if you can decipher just some of these then perhaps you will be closer to understanding what the director "intended". That said, for me, Bad Timing or at least the motivations of one or two of it's characters, is relatively open to interpretation, and it's this active involvement of the viewer in piecing together the threads of narrative and the fragmented moments that make the pay-off all the more shocking - like 'you have been watching this, you are as guilty as Alex/Garfunkel, you too are guilty, how do you feel about that?'.
The way time is dealt with here this is terrific. A tutor once asked me to demonstrate the existence of 'flash forwards' in movies and I pointed him to this film. So often the narrative's point of view is seemingly objective or that of the camera/audience rather than of any one characters, and time is fragmented so much here that one may perhaps argue there is no one single narrative thread form which all the others flash back and forth. As such one of my favourite moments is when the Detective ansd Alex are in a squad car outside/or returning to 'the scene of the crime' and the Detective asks Alex what time it was that he turned on the radio or somesuch and the response is 'More or less like now'. I love that line in the contect of this film.
Anyway, for what it's worth, that's my incoherent rambling on the subject and what wouldn't I give to see a Criterion version of this.
hurrah!
9th June 2003 according to play.com (http://www.playserver5.com/play247.asp?page=title&r=R2&title=112352), just hope it's a decent presentation!
Looks like it's a Carlton release, so don't hold your breath.
Michael Brooke
15-02-2003, 17:28
I'm not at all bothered if it's a bare-bones release - the only absolutely crucial thing is that they get the 2.35:1 aspect ratio right, as this film is barely comprehensible in pan-and-scan!
kerbcrawler
17-02-2003, 09:19
This is brilliant news!! Thanks Richie.
kc
Paul Moran
22-07-2003, 16:36
Well, it was released on 16/6/03, and shouldn't cost more than £8 on-line. But none of the sites I've looked at show the aspect ratio - I can't read the rear cover picture aspect details on the Tesco site - and Carlton have a history of issuing pan and scan versions of widescreen films. Has anyone bought this title yet. Is it in the original 2.35:1 aspect ratio, or is it pan and scan 1.33:1?
I got it. It's non-anamorphic 2.35:1 :)
Michael Brooke
22-07-2003, 16:40
It's 100% definitely non-anamorphic 2.35:1 - I haven't watched it all the way through yet, but I've seen enough to confirm that at least!
John Hodson
13-01-2005, 10:53
Time to drag this one out of the archives ;)
Does anyone know the AR of the R4 of Bad Timing (released last year by Umbrella). It's showing at Oz etailers as being 4:3 (as the R2 is at Amazon) - I wonder if it's just a clone of the Carlton disc (complete with erroneous info?), or by some minor miracle it's anamorphic?
anephric
13-01-2005, 10:56
I looked at buying the R4 not so long ago and everywhere had it listed as 4:3 so I just ignored it...
anephric
13-01-2005, 11:01
There's a French R2 as well....
http://www.alapage.com/mx/?id=40621105539600&donnee_appel=ALAPAGE&tp=F&type=4&VID_NUMERO=565708&support=DVD&devise=&fulltext=&sv=X_L
EDIT: can find absolutely nothing regarding its aspect ratio and it would appear to be dubbed.
John Hodson
13-01-2005, 11:05
I looked at buying the R4 not so long ago and everywhere had it listed as 4:3 so I just ignored it...
The Umbrella homepage lists it as '2.35:1 widescreen'; it's a long shot, but it could be anamorphic (and there's no AR detail on the French release. Hmmm...)
anephric
13-01-2005, 11:10
If they're listing it as 4:3 at most R4 suppliers (Atlantic, Ezy), I'd imagine it must be 2.35 non-anamorphic at best.
Boo.
ooh! Great cover (http://www.criterionco.com/asp/release.asp?id=303) on the forthcoming Criterion release! :thumbs:
Any views on the Criterion release before I order? Should I avoid for any reason?
Any views on the Criterion release before I order? Should I avoid for any reason?
I've got it and it's a great release. Don't worry, just order it. :thumbs:
John Hodson
26-11-2005, 08:51
Seconded; check it out at DVD Beaver here (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews17/bad_timing_dvd_review.htm).
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.