SummaryDolph Springer wakes up one morning to realize he has lost the love of his life, his dog, Paul. During his quest to get Paul (and his life) back, Dolph radically changes the lives of others -- risking his sanity all the while.
SummaryDolph Springer wakes up one morning to realize he has lost the love of his life, his dog, Paul. During his quest to get Paul (and his life) back, Dolph radically changes the lives of others -- risking his sanity all the while.
In its wonderfully irreverent way, Wrong makes it clear that this reality is never to be trusted as anything more than a succession of strange moments that coalesce into an abstract representation of the subjectivity that traps us all. This is the essence of new film noir, which challenges our perceptions through a series of compellingly ambiguous moments.
I first watched WRONG when I was in high school. I had already seen Rubber and thought it was fun. WRONG was disappointing. I thought it was a boring incoherent mess, and I even fell asleep partway through. I re-watched it recently and it left a much different impression. On my re-watch I found it way more engaging and really funny. Most of the reviews classify this as a surrealist film, but I think Dupieux, whether intentionally or not, created an existentially comedic masterpiece. I'm not going to go into why this film works so well if you read as existentialist, because it'd be full of spoilers. The spoiler free version is that characters are constantly placed in an absurd reality that they take completely serious. There is one sequence near the end of the film that typifies this perfectly. The thing that makes the comedic aspects of this film work so well is that unlike most existentialist literature where characters would recognise the absurd futility of their reality and rebel against it, none of the characters in the film seem to even consider the absurdity of their situations, nor use their free will to do... anything really. The result is a tension between the characters and the story world that I found extremely funny. In summation, this film isn't for everyone, but if you have a high tolerance for the bizarre and enjoy dry humour, I think this will be a really fun treat.
Plotnick is an appealing actor. He has the same sweetly knit brow and watery blue eyes as Breaking Bad’s Aaron Paul, but his character here is as flat as a pancake. Moreover, if you’ve seen the trailer for Wrong, you’ve seen the movie.
A curious tale about a man searching for his missing dog in a suburban bubble where everything is a little askew, has some laughs, but it doesn’t take long for the absurdist humor to pall among a pileup of nonsensical ideas that would be funnier if grounded in a less hazy concept.
Wrong lets most of its random gags and view-askew premises twist in the wind like hamhandedly wacky improv comedy, punctuated with synthesizer effects. The film’s misguided flatness is perhaps its fatal flaw, not so much deadpan or existential as just monotonous.
Seems everything is wrong, but in a funny way.
Surely a much better film than the previous one by the director. 'Rubber' had the innovation, but the type of dark comedy was not for everyone, especially not for me, though I appreciated the effort. I liked this one, it was simple and slow yet they knew how to end it. It had twists and turns, but the small ones. Plus, the actors were very good. So it's a decent indie film, feels like I might have rated it low.
A man wakes up in the morning to find his dog gone missing. But as his neighbour advised him, he proceeds his rest of the day thinking the dog would come back and it does not. So he goes after some mysterious message and learns it has to do with his dog's missing. He follows all the instruction and waits for a good news, but what happens at the end is a little surprise.
Apart from the snail pace which actually deliberately done, definitely the film can be enjoyed. Not easy to understand the meaning of the title, but that's what this film is about where everything seems wrong. If you decide to watch it, forget the logics, sit back and enjoy it. Because you won't see films like this everyday. I suggest it for those who are looking for a break from the regular comedies.
6/10
C'est Gogol qui a perdu son clebs, alors il appelle un détective privé, le gars est un spécialiste du genre "profiler" qui se met à profiler la merde du clébard, une sorte de coloscopie à distance pour retrouver le fugitif. Le cabot accusé à tort est bien entendu innocent et ne sera, à notre grand soulagement, pas inquiété. Il n'a pour l'heure pas donné suite à nos demandes d'interview.
Bon là j'ai brodé et extrapolé un brin, car l'humour absurde n'est pas donné à tout le monde et certainement pas à Quentin Dupieux. Pour cela, il faudrait un petit peu de talent et demander conseil à David Lynch à côté duquel ce Quentin n'arrive pas à la cheville. Et pour ce qui est du "non-sens", il aurait dû se renseigner chez Kafka, un creuset inexpugnable.
Quentin Dupieux se débat donc tout seul dans son délire à deux balles et n'a pas hésité à recruter l'un de nos grand débiles nationaux en renfort, Eric Judor (Ramzy n'a pu se libérer, car les vécés en feu étaient fermés de l'intérieur). L'ennuyeux Quentin Dupieux délivre en fin de compte un étron filmique des plus vaseux et de surcroît très prétentieux : si absurdement con qu'on se hâte de tirer la chasse au plus vite.
Production Company
Realitism Films,
Arte France Cinéma,
Kinology,
Love Streams Productions,
Agnès b. Productions,
Rubber Films,
Backup Media,
ARTE,
Canal+,
Cine Plus,
Drafthouse Films,
Iconoclast