The main asset of "Bad Timing" is the way it composes its story about a messy relationship between a psychiatrist/teacher (Art Garfunkel)
with a sensual beautiful married woman (Theresa Russell) in Vienna, and a critical aftermath where she lies in a hospital after an alleged
suicide attempt that its investigated by an inspector (Harvel Keitel).
Yale Udoff's script only comes in a favorable light due to director Nicolas Roeg's decisions in putting all together with great style, countless flashbacks and some usual tricks on his sleeve as he captures elements, characters, objects to give this a thrilling substance that it's almost non-existent. To some it might be a festival of boredom and headache, to others it's a mysterious story that has some intriguing elements that makes everything look interesting. I'm somewhat in between those groups, though I liked it. Not as much as Roeg's other films but it worked for me as long as there was things to get investigated rather than seeing an odd couple's dynamics.
It's a slightly gripping puzzle of a movie where we try to understand the reason behind Theresa's character suicide attempt, if she'll make it through, if she did it herself or maybe the doctor/teacher was involved in some way. And the story isn't told in a linear fashion, there are countless of flashbacks and flashforwards as Garfunkel's mind hides facts from the inspector, or at times we are seeing through the beautiful woman's thoughts as she keeps coming back to life on and on, and such technique helps the movie in becoming a memorable experience; had it been told as linear beginning, middle and ending it would be just a simple little movie.
It might sound that "Bad Timing" is pompous just because of this device since the story itself only presents more of the same while dealing with sexual obsession, love, fantasies, troubled relationships. But it's curious to see some intelligence in it, since some cliches are avoided - the beautiful woman sure has plenty of troubles of her own, she's quite mysterious but very depressive and she's also an addict.
On the other dr. Alex, for a man in control of everything around him, and a man of many knowledges in his field, can barely deal with other people around him - either his sexual obsession with the woman, which drives him nuts if she wants to stay at home with him, just chatting; or either the way he deals with the inspector and his assistant where he challenges them during questioning, never answers them quite exactly. He's completely erratic.
And on the issue of him again, why on Earth we had Art Garfunkel playing this lame character? The man has a charimsa and the sexiness of a folding door, and one wonders what a girl like Russell would see in a guy like him. It can't be for his brightness and eloquence since they barely have some intelligent discourse about pyschoanalysis or anything. But they deal great in the art of seduction - as amazingly shown at their first meeting at a party where she uses of her long legs to stop him from leaving the room. They also go extremely fine in bed and Art proves it well that he doesn't need body doubles for some spicy sequences. Yet I couldn't stand that character, it feels like he's going at war with everyone he meets.
A sub-plot that could be discard or better developed comes with the ex-husband, played by the great late Denholm Elliott. It's hardly ever discussed why their marriage fell apart or why he graciously accepts her decision to leave him and he takes her to cross the border to Austria. When the doctor discovers about this previous marriage, there's a whole investigation he does, some small info is thrown to us almost as if that were some Cold War secret plan but it amounts to nothing. Surely it creates an aura of mystery but it just prolongues the story.
Though I had a hard time during the viewing (some attempts to finally reach it fully), I end up liking it. What Mr. Roeg does with his camera, the way it moves through characters and sequences, Tony Lawson's editing and even some moments of the score, made the experience a quite intriguing puzzle that I felt the needed to be solved. It doesn't answer everything, audiences can theorize about many things - specially Keitel's conclusions of what went down that night in that messy room. And if a director allows you about possibilities instead of explaining everything, then you can have a decent film, despite some obstacles. 6/10.
Yale Udoff's script only comes in a favorable light due to director Nicolas Roeg's decisions in putting all together with great style, countless flashbacks and some usual tricks on his sleeve as he captures elements, characters, objects to give this a thrilling substance that it's almost non-existent. To some it might be a festival of boredom and headache, to others it's a mysterious story that has some intriguing elements that makes everything look interesting. I'm somewhat in between those groups, though I liked it. Not as much as Roeg's other films but it worked for me as long as there was things to get investigated rather than seeing an odd couple's dynamics.
It's a slightly gripping puzzle of a movie where we try to understand the reason behind Theresa's character suicide attempt, if she'll make it through, if she did it herself or maybe the doctor/teacher was involved in some way. And the story isn't told in a linear fashion, there are countless of flashbacks and flashforwards as Garfunkel's mind hides facts from the inspector, or at times we are seeing through the beautiful woman's thoughts as she keeps coming back to life on and on, and such technique helps the movie in becoming a memorable experience; had it been told as linear beginning, middle and ending it would be just a simple little movie.
It might sound that "Bad Timing" is pompous just because of this device since the story itself only presents more of the same while dealing with sexual obsession, love, fantasies, troubled relationships. But it's curious to see some intelligence in it, since some cliches are avoided - the beautiful woman sure has plenty of troubles of her own, she's quite mysterious but very depressive and she's also an addict.
On the other dr. Alex, for a man in control of everything around him, and a man of many knowledges in his field, can barely deal with other people around him - either his sexual obsession with the woman, which drives him nuts if she wants to stay at home with him, just chatting; or either the way he deals with the inspector and his assistant where he challenges them during questioning, never answers them quite exactly. He's completely erratic.
And on the issue of him again, why on Earth we had Art Garfunkel playing this lame character? The man has a charimsa and the sexiness of a folding door, and one wonders what a girl like Russell would see in a guy like him. It can't be for his brightness and eloquence since they barely have some intelligent discourse about pyschoanalysis or anything. But they deal great in the art of seduction - as amazingly shown at their first meeting at a party where she uses of her long legs to stop him from leaving the room. They also go extremely fine in bed and Art proves it well that he doesn't need body doubles for some spicy sequences. Yet I couldn't stand that character, it feels like he's going at war with everyone he meets.
A sub-plot that could be discard or better developed comes with the ex-husband, played by the great late Denholm Elliott. It's hardly ever discussed why their marriage fell apart or why he graciously accepts her decision to leave him and he takes her to cross the border to Austria. When the doctor discovers about this previous marriage, there's a whole investigation he does, some small info is thrown to us almost as if that were some Cold War secret plan but it amounts to nothing. Surely it creates an aura of mystery but it just prolongues the story.
Though I had a hard time during the viewing (some attempts to finally reach it fully), I end up liking it. What Mr. Roeg does with his camera, the way it moves through characters and sequences, Tony Lawson's editing and even some moments of the score, made the experience a quite intriguing puzzle that I felt the needed to be solved. It doesn't answer everything, audiences can theorize about many things - specially Keitel's conclusions of what went down that night in that messy room. And if a director allows you about possibilities instead of explaining everything, then you can have a decent film, despite some obstacles. 6/10.