Recensioni degli utenti

Saying that Wrong, the new film by French director and lover of all things non-sequitur Quentin Dupieux, is strange does the film somewhat of an injustice. Not because the movie surpasses the limits of strange (although, to be fair, it does), but because strange implies something nonsensical, content that defies explanation or logic. Wrong is a film that, despite being so bizarre, manages to come around full circle and make sense at the end. All its surreal imagery has purpose at the end, and the film is at its strongest at the last moments where one can step back and appreciate it as a whole.

Wrong begins with Dolph Springer, a man who inhabits a slightly off- kilter universe in which trees "make sense" based on their own unique place and offices shower their seemingly unaware employees with torrential rain. He is a simple man: he goes to work every day and enjoys the company of his gardener Victor, a man who seems to be forcing an unneeded French accent. Dolph wakes up one morning to find his dog has gone missing, and embarks on a journey to rescue his pooch from whatever peril it seems to have run across. To summarize the movie any more would be a disservice, as the best part of the film is the pleasant little surprises that come along the way.

What I can tell you is that the film is absolutely absurd. From William Fichtner's restrained but subtly outrageous performance as this world's version of a zen master to a strange sequence that refuses to define itself as reality or dream, there is enough outlandish content to fill any surrealists imagination. Although these elements are certainly bizarre, it still feels like they deliver a message. They contribute to a feeling that there is something deeper being said, and by the end one walks out with a feeling that Dupieux subtly and ever so brilliantly schooled the audience.

That being said, the movie has problems. For large chunks of the film, especially during a tour of a small animals digestive tract (don't ask), it feels like the director is treading water. In fact, I would go as far as to say that a good quarter of the movie loses its surreal edge, and becomes more than a little monotonous. These scenes clog the movie, and get more than a little frustrating as it holds back an otherwise breezy and enjoyably silly movie.

It's a shame I can't go deeper into the movie, to explain the emotions that built inside me by the end or the flaws that made the movie shy of greatness. It's a movie that works better the less you know about it, plain and simple.

"Wrong" is the new absurdist comedy by Quentin Dupieux a.k.a. Mr. Oizo the French house DJ who serves as the director, the writer, the editor, the cinematographer and the composer. "Wrong" is the follow-up to the 2010 movie "Rubber".

Jack Plotnick stars as a seemingly regular guy who wakes up one day to discover his beloved dog gone. With such a casual premise Dupieux sets out into a very weird journey, trying to deny everything the viewers would think they knew about storytelling. Through a series of bizarre encounters with increasingly insane characters and situations, the protagonist finds himself more and more lost, as the movie grows more and more illogical and surrealist. Jack Plotnick is well-suited for the role of a neurotic guy always on the edge of losing his mind.

But don't be fooled, "Wrong" is not just about wacky characters and non sequiturs (even if it IS very funny). Dupieux never loses the satiric edge, the writing never feels boring or forced, instead it's always quite witty and original. To Dupieux life a nothing but a series of chaotic unpredictabilities, strange inconsistencies, pointless formalities and surreal misunderstandings, all rarely explored in your typical movie, and even if you don't quite share this almost paranoid notion, I think Dupieux' vision is so strong and ingenious, it's very hard not to embrace it.

Wrong is a very unique movie that shows a lot of promise for Quentin Dupieux's future work. I'm actually quite excited to see what he does next, as I found this movie to be a surprisingly big improvement over his previous movie, "Rubber", especially in terms of writing. He really has found his unique style, which I could describe as Monty Python meets Michel Gondry.

Verdict: a pretty funny movie.

Dolph Springer is the main protagonist in 'Wrong' and a relatable normal guy. The actor, Jack Plotnick, was perfectly chosen and plays his role so well in this setting that I would want a whole series about it.

The camera work and colours are great, well chosen music and the plot has good moments. The opening scene already looks promising, well directed. Also the rest of the cast fits well for most parts.

The screenplay does have it's good moments and this movie honestly could have been a 10/10, but so many weird things, that don't make any sense and of which I don't know why they are in the movie, happen. Yes, there also are weird things happening, which DO have a purpose and that DO fit and made me smile, but there's probably more that don't.

You can watch this movie and absolutely love the good things about it, but prepare to be disappointed a lot as well.

Where to start on this one? ... Fate was my main reason for watching this film, but that's a whole other story! I can honestly say I probably wouldn't have watched this Wrong at all going by the DVD cover, but this is one of those occasions I'm glad I did take the time out to see a film.

Most of what you see in Wrong is wrong! If you try and make sense of it you'll just be frustrated, trust me. But amongst the weirdness of the stuff that's wrong there is a very good, humorous, story.

Its hard to compare Wrong to any other film... I'd put it in the same category as films like The Chumscrubber 2005, Lucky 2011, Careless 2007, etc... so if you like weird comedies that are filmed well on a lowish budget, this is one to watch.

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

Wrong is a strange movie, that's the least you can say about it. Nothing really makes sense in this movie and normally that's the ultimate letdown for me. But strangely it kept my attention till the end. I guess the dog did it, because I have a weak spot for dog movies, always hoping for a good ending. My wife on the other hand hated this movie, which I understand, as I wasn't a huge fan either. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the very positive reviews for this one, that is if you like your movies to be normal. Nothing is 'normal' in wrong, and I wonder why they did that. It wasn't really funny either. That Eric Judor had a role in this movie doesn't surprise me, he's known for playing in dumb movies, so no exceptions here. The acting and cinematography wasn't bad, the story was though. Bizarrely I rate this movie four stars, must have been the short appearance of the dog.

Let me start off by saying this, if you have taken a look at the movie poster and shown interest from that alone you will enjoy this film.

Yes its mental and most of the time makes hardly if any sense but still some how delivers.

All the seriously demented one star reviews must be clueless movie hunters to not have seen what was coming. Did they simply see the title with no trailer or poster and then watch the film. Had you no idea what you was getting into? I am a huge fan of movies from the likes of "Nohing (2003)" and although this is not as good its much more mental. The quality of the production was mint and the content is strangely amusing enough to keep you watching. Unless your a one star reviewer that can only live and breath on mainstream crud.

Overall if you have the time or want to freak out a party of friends that do have patients and don't fear the strange please watch this film.

"I want 90 minutes of my life back" Sure thing why not use your next 90 odd minutes to go see the fast and repeated 6 or Twilight 26 where i heard Bella gets neutered.

Wow, is this a tough one to review. I mean, you usually have a pretty clear idea whether or not you liked what you've just seen. But in the case of "Wrong," I'm just not entirely sure what that is.

The first hitch: it's directed by the same guy who brought you "Rubber." I HATED "Rubber." I wanted to like it, but I just didn't get it. I knew it was requiring me to think outside the box, but I went into thinking it was a horror comedy about a killer tire and nothing more. I shouldn't have to think any harder than that, and it made me mad that it wasn't what I expected. At least this time the description was a little closer to the truth, and I was better prepared. I thought.

It stars Jack Plotnik-who I generally like-as a confused man who has lost his dog, Paul. That's the only easy part to explain. The rest involves weird characters, rain inside office buildings, dog detectives, a crazy nymphomaniac pizza business girl, an aggressive cop and absolutely nothing makes ANY sense. So if you demand logic from your movies, just move along-otherwise you're just going to be frustrated.

But I was determined to try and appreciate what the others who highly rated this saw in it. And some of their insights really helped-especially the person who felt that all of the weirdness was a manifestation of Plotnik's sense of complete loss. They may be on to something. However, getting all the way through that weirdness is the hard part and why it's hard to review. Because it's not a bad film. It really isn't. It's well shot with decent performances. It is fascinating even if you're totally confused. By the time I reached the third act I was okay as it seemed a little less gloomy, and the ending was satisfying.

But it DOES take patience and an open mind. If you have neither, this will not be for you. This is not a comedy but it's not exactly a drama, either. It is a well made film, but certainly in a catagory that's hard to define.

This movie isn't for everyone; you will see many a 1-star review from people who like movies like "Bad Boys" and "The Expendables".

Like Rubber, Wrong is shot in a very artistic fashion, and if you appreciate such, the movie is a joy to watch for that alone.

It has a great story to go along with the cinematography though; it's full of quirky, off-beat humour (and not like anything by Wes Anderson, for example - it's another beat removed from "off-beat" entirely) and the characters are brilliant.

I felt that William Fichtner stole the show in terms of the characters on offer; every line he delivered was fantastically strange.

As I said - it's not one for everyone; but if you are a fan of unique cinema, you'll watch this with a half-smile on your face for the entire 90-odd minutes.

This movie is not only about a man who lost his dog and the emotional turmoil he feels in missing his companion. But also gives interesting insight and consideration into the lives of dogs and not only how they exist with humans but how they perceive the world with humans.

You know what? I will start to post this comment for all pseudo- intellectual rubbish that overwhelming us in the last decade. It is time to be honest about this kind of movies and say that "emperor has no clothes": boring to death, confusing, force you to try to find sense in stupidity. In the first half of movie you are expecting that something will eventually happen, just to realize that you are wasting ~two hours of your lifetime. Some time ago I was suspicious that maybe I'm too stupid to find a hidden message, but seems it is just a simple junk and I do not care any more. When I'm watching Hollywood blockbusters at least I know what I can expect!

I can't say that I fully understood a lot of the happenings in Wrong, I am not sure if I was supposed to, but I enjoyed it none the less. It is an emotional journey; the central premise of a man loosing his dog is something that I could identify with as a dog lover as being an incredibly harrowing, discomforting and disorientating experience and the imagery of the film does a lot to reinforce those feelings. Wrong feels like an art house film, abstract, beautifully shot with a surreal edge that somehow never feels random or out of place and never goes too far with weird for weirdness sake. There is a point (as opposed to the directors last feature -Rubber).

Wrong avoids alienating the audience by virtue of the great characters, they're actions given the context of the film seem perfectly understandable and you will identify with them.

Also, the film has made me reconsider my relationship to my dog, in a way that no other film has done before.

I cried.

This film had a bit of potential, and honestly I like some good surreal movies(I'm huge Jean Pierre Jeunet fan and love Lynch), but there is nothing here but strangeness without motive. There are no hidden meanings, and whatever meanings there are, are literally spoon fed to you, which seems a bit counter-intuitive considering how far out of the way they go to make this movie as strange as possible.

Shock effect is good if it stirs you to realization, and surrealistic strangeness is good when there's a deeper meaning, but this is just strangeness for the sake of strangeness, and sadly that takes whatever potential this film had and wastes it, leading to what is ultimately a pretty boring and pointless film.

Surreal, absurd, bizarre... and boring. I wonder if he really had something to say, or he just wanted to be surreal, absurd and bizarre. If he had, I missed it.

5/10

This movie was a complete waste of time.

Comedy class?? There were no funny moments.

I have no idea how it has received a 6.8 rating by IMDb at the time of writing. I think anything higher than a 3 would be generous. 3 only because you can't blame the actors for their parts.

I think just because a movie has some quirky characters doesn't mean it is good. The storyline should be at least interesting which in this case is far from close.

If you have absolutely nothing else to do in the world…. Perhaps stare at a wall, after which I still wouldn't watch this movie.

I don't see many original movies, but with a drink in your hand this movie is fantastic. There are so many garbage movies nowadays but this film really took me by surprise. I found it good from cinematography all the way down to it's narrative. Random, confusing and worth watching if you're sick of the trash in theaters nowadays. The acting was great, had lots of witty lines and for a low budget film it really keeps your attention. Doesn't really have much of a plot but it does have a story to tell. So if you're sick of movies you've seen before, redone in a different style with different characters then give this film a try.

Quentin Dupieux's WRONG is about how people, I guess, can go wrong about things, small and big. The premise is simple enough, and a great starting point: Jack Plotnick is Dolph Springer, a working man (though he's actually been fired for three months but still goes to work, where it rains all the time indoors), and he's lost his dog. Where could he be? As it turns out, there is an answer to that, in the form of a sort of dog communications/telepathy expert in William Ficther's character, who may or may not be Indian or Asian of some sort (his accent's kinda convincing, for what's required here). But Dupieux has some sub-plot/weird strands going on here as well, which include Dolph's gardener, and a girl on the other end of a phone for a pizza place - Dolph is rather confused about a rabbit on a motorcycle as a logo - who finds his questions attractive and sleeps with the, uh, gardener instead thinking it's Dolph and then... aw hell, you should see it for yourself.

A lot of the great things in Wrong are from the awkward, very surreal interactions and environment that are set up. This could easily go into the realm of more absurdist-comedy-of-manners style of Curb Your Enthusiasm, but Dupieux is just so off-kilter that you know you're in for a something... special here. If I have a general criticism it's that Dolph perhaps should've been a little more of an everyman; he is, for the most part, except for the whole thing of him being at work even though he's not really working there anymore, and a couple other small things. This would make all of his interactions stronger, but, luckily, people like William Fictner pull off dead-pan humor wonderfully, and his few scenes are delights as he first puts Dolph through the rigmarole to see him, and then gives him a book on how to talk to his dog through his mind.

Some other very strange developments happen, such as with Emma, the character Alexis Dziena plays (you might know her as the girl who memorably goes naked for a quick flash in Broken Flowers), who, if one is taking her on as a 'real-world' person, may be brain-damaged. In Dupieux's world, she may be simply... wrong. Or right, who knows. But she's kind of like his own satirical take on the Manic-Pixie-Dream-Girl, which makes for a lot of spot-on comedy (oh, and she's pregnant, whoops, it happens!)

If there's another problem though there may be times where, if it doesn't work on a comic plane, it kind of just sits there like a lump until it's over; the sequences for me involved the neighbor, who we meet at the start as denying he's a jogger ("I HATE running!" he states emphatically) and then decides to go driving for a while... in the desert... or somewhere else... That part, I don't 'get it', I guess. The stuff with the Dog Detective as well is hit or miss (it's either very funny, or, you can feel the improv and it struggles).

But if you're looking for something off-kiler and playfully surreal - the kind of experience where a character has a dream taking place on a beach and involves warped talking, but mostly presented as straightforward - this is a welcome offering. It's kind of like what Luis Bunuel might offer up for the Comedy Central network.

Watched the first 23 minutes, hoping for a moment of some sort of meaning or satisfaction or anything that could be classified as "good". It never came. That 23 minutes was lost time of which I didn't enjoy any... After that, I fast-forwarded to the middle, then towards the end.. Very stupid and boring... Worst thing I have "seen" so far this year, and possibly one of the worst moves ever made, even though the actors are pretty good. It doesn't matter how good the acting is, however, if it is all just a bunch of nonsense that was created for no reason I can think of, other than with the objective of being absurd. I'm completely in agreement with the other two folks who gave this a one. I think anything about 2.5 or 3 is misleading. I was expecting this to be great based on the rating and was disappointed.

Wrong is probably one of the worse movies I have ever seen. You realise within 20 minutes with absolutely nothing happening that the movie is going to be a total failure.

If you are into finding meaning in things which don't exist this may be the movie for you.

The only positive to come from this movie was that I will refuse to watch any more useless movies like this beyond 10-20 minutes. It is best just to switch them off.

I agree with all those realistic reviews who gave this a one.

Overall,this is an extremely poor quality movie and I would not waste your time watching it.

People describing this as quirky are on the spot. If you don't know by whom this movie is, you should check his resume. The last movie being "Rubber". So while it might not seem that way, there is method behind it all. There's structure even in chaos. Which doesn't necessarily mean you will like the movie. Quite the contrary it might mean, your view might be completely different from some of your friends.

Talking about a story wouldn't be much of a spoiler, though I still won't say much just in case. But we do follow the life of a man who goes through a lot during the course of the movie. Asking questions that others wouldn't and not taking things for granted (see Pizaa delivery service). It gets tricky more than once and you might not be sure what the characters are actually thinking. But if you like your movies to be different, you'll be more than delighted with this one