Wrong (2012) Poster

(I) (2012)

User Reviews

Review this title
31 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Wrong: because, you know, palm trees make sense
ianfarkas926 January 2012
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.
64 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"Monty Python meets Michel Gondry"
blbl113 January 2013
"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.
36 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Surreal, absurd, bizarre... and boring.
Bored_Dragon17 April 2019
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
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Where is my dog?
valbrazon15 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen the two other movies of Quentin Dupieux, "Steak" and "Rubber". A crazy thing with him it's i didn't like at all "Steak" but i really enjoyed "Rubber". I wasn't sure to go to cinema for watch "Wrong" because the critics had different opinions. After few days i've seen reviews of french peoples and they pretty liked so i watched it.

Quentin Dupieux is famous for direct movies who are different from what we are used to see, for example the clock radio of the main character goes to 7.59am to 7.60am. I mostly liked the movie the movie it's metaphorical side and it's critical scenes of the society. The director is famous for his career in electronic music with the name of "Mr. Oizo". He is the composer of his own films. The music is correct in "Wrong" but i prefer the soundtrack of "Rubber".

For the negative points, i think the story wasn't really interesting and there are many scenes where i thought it was over. There are also many boring moments and the movie becomes "long" even if it's only one hour and half.

When i watched the trailer of this film, i thought it was going to be as empty as "Steak" but no, Dupieux succeeded to do a correct movie and outside our imagination.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A lot of misused potential
mardalsfossen019 March 2019
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.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
quirky
smirnofred20 May 2013
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.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
"Sorry Quentin, that wrong answer is right"
StevePulaski8 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Dolph Springer (Jack Plotnick) lives in suburban L. A., waking up at 7:60am everyday, returning to his former place of employment where indoor rainfall occurs and he pretends to do work even after he was fired three months ago. He wakes up one morning to find his dog, Paul, is missing. After talking to his neighbor, who then departs to places unknown, Dolph dials a pizzeria's phone number to ask them details about their delivery service and why their logo features a rabbit on a motorcycle, when rabbits can run fast enough without the motorcycle. On the phone is a young woman named Emma (Alexis Dziena), who turns out to be quite the nymphomaniac, proposing sex to Dolph in a note secured in a free pizza, which is intercepted by Dolph's yardworker Victor (Éric Judor), who pretends to be Dolph when he finally meets Emma to get free sex. As Dolph aimlessly wanders the streets of L. A., he runs into Master Chang ("that-guy" actor William Fichtner), an author of several books about humans using telekinesis or some cockamamie process to communicate with the dogs he has kidnapped in order for their owners to show true appreciation for the beasts they take for granted.

All these characters will continuously pop up, with little rhyme or reason in Quentin Dupieux's Wrong, some of them even coming back to life, showing blatant disregard for inconsistencies and misconceptions, and deadpan so well (or so... deadly) that you may zone out for a few minutes and awake with a startle. If 2013 is not starting off as the damnedest year for films, then I do not know what to call it. I have yet to give a film released this year a positive rating, and the films I have been subjected to are either pitifully awful or beyond any reasonable comprehension. I felt the same way watching Roman Coppola's A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III, where I was desperately robbed of any connection or coherency with every situation and character. When I watch films I don't like to feel manipulated, excluded, or completely lost and both these films violated me in those three ways.

You may remember my bizarre fascination with Dupieux's last work, Rubber, a film concocted entirely off the premise of a tire, rolling (I suppose) through the desert, using its telekinetic powers to destroy bottles, crows, police officers, or anything else that stood in its way. It was a unique little film, quirky, pleasantly offbeat, albeit self-righteous and dry at times. Wrong is a film in the same category, but so tedious, unmoving, dry, deserting, and frankly, careless about its lead that it makes it a huge challenge to side with anyone or even sit with them through eighty-nine minutes of repetition.

In several ways, this feels like a screen writing exercise. Dupieux's lax approach must not have been too stressful and backbreaking to formulate from the ground up. It would appear he sat down one afternoon, took a few characters, made them all connect through interchangeable setups, not truly forming a relationship with them at all, and just threw situation after situation at them hoping someone will get meaning out of it. If I do not get or understand a film, I will be the first one to admit it, rather than throw some contrived meaning out there about the "satire" or the "social commentary" of it all. What Dupieux is essentially saying is... and that's where I become confused.

Perhaps this is a social critique or a satire on, I don't know, life itself. In an interview, Dupieux described the film almost as if it was a rebellion on convention, where nobody is telling you, "you're wrong for doing this" or "this isn't correct." If his goal was to show a film can be concocted off of simply anything and everything, then he succeeds at that. There isn't much else here.

Wrong is photographed crisply, edited efficiently, and its washed-out cinematography showcasing frequently vapid scenery beautifully and with a heavy touch of artistry, clearly shows that it's a competently made picture, aesthetically. Yet watching it is when the problems ensue. The characters are universally vacant, their motivations are unclear, the meaning or the reason we're supposed to stick around is nonexistent, and the result is tiring and frustrating. When the most challenging part of a film is to watch it, you should automatically know something ain't right.

Starring: Jack Plotnick, Éric Judor, Alexis Dziena, Steve Little, and William Fichtner. Directed by: Quentin Dupieux.
29 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
For once ignore the serious one star reviews!
OrderedChaos8 February 2013
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.
44 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Seems everything is wrong, but in a funny way.
Reno-Rangan14 December 2016
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
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Weird is an undertatement for this one.
deloudelouvain10 October 2021
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.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Delightfully quirky and beautifully shot
LynchpinHags11 May 2013
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.
24 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Surreal and Entertaining
mreil-341641 August 2021
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.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Avoid!
mihvel28 July 2013
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!
28 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Just plain Wrong
cbgb20026 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Why do I have this very strong feeling that this writer has issues with women? I really enjoyed this movie... at first. I watched it almost three nights in a row halfway through right before falling asleep because of its refreshing dreamlike quality (and containing a handbook much like Grandma Death's from Donnie Darko)......... until I realized that this guy is a hater and that every single woman in this film is either a cold b**** (ex-coworker & ex-boss) or a warm w**** (girlfriend) who apparently deserves(?) to be stabbed in the gut in the end with a broken wine bottle for no reason at all. It doesn't make sense. Honestly there seems to be little point to it except that the guy/writer really loves his dog; and is crying out for help and needs some therapy in a locked down facility.
17 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Unusual, human and very moving.
mk_doogs22 January 2013
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.
27 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Waste of time
ian-968-58047922 January 2013
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.
36 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Absurd, Charming, and Dog-Gone Funny!
rsj62422 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
--WARNING: There may be some spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen the film, so just a heads up. In order to accurately review this film, it may be necessary to talk about some key moments.--

Wrong is exactly the kind of film that is made to polarize both the audience and critics alike. It's dry take on absurdest humor thumbs it's nose at the big budget and sensible films of today. Having seen Rubber already, I knew the nature of Quentin Dupieux in terms of his film making trademarks and surreal narratives. Thankfully, Wrong manages to be a charming entry into his already extremely unique take on movies.

The film is in short, is about a man who's Dog is kidnapped and what ordeals, however random they may seem, he goes through to get his pet back. The film is rarely uninteresting if for any reason simply for it's absurdity.

However, if there is one thing that hurts a film like this, it's in how predictable it can be at times, since it's absurd events are almost expected too much so. For a film that seems to go all in on the ridiculousness of it's narrative, it feels like a one trick pony. As the film progresses, it falls comfortably into a series of haphazard incidents with a simple story laced in between each segment that struggles, willingly, to tell a complete and competent story.

Many things are never explained, and the movie, just like Rubber, has you ready from the get go to not get too emotionally invested, given the lack of sense that piles on during each segment. Only Wrong doesn't spell it out at the beginning like Rubber did, however, I would recommend this film as an introduction into his work rather than Rubber, which is far less accessible.

It's hard to knock Wrong it for it's broken structure, since it's sort of the point of the film. It pokes fun at logic, sensibility, work place dynamics and perceptions of self-worth, as well as making light of social issues; but does so in such a way that it's hard to gain any clear insight into any of it's intended message, if even there exist any.

Watch Wrong if you want to see an art-house experimental film on perhaps one if it's more easily digestible and charmingly demented levels, but if your not much for movies that merely exist to send you on a head trip, then don't watch this one. I enjoyed it, but it's not hard to see why many won't.
13 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I had to join IMDb just so I could try and justify my lost 90 minutes of life
robc-594-2745328 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Wrong is one of those movies that I started watching and started thinking WTF? I did sit the whole way through thinking somehow that everything would tie in at the end. It didn't. Unless you are a big drug user or indeed a mental case, I doubt anyone could make sense of the movie. Yes there some humorous moments, but the movie as a whole does not Gel. Someone dies, comes back to life, a girl gets pregnant and is in labour a few days later and the kid is suddenly like 10 years old. All this takes place on the SAME time-line. Save yourself and take the dog for a walk instead or anything other than watching this crap. How the hell it got such a high rating on here is beyond me. I'm guessing the PR people for the film submitted them.
25 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I couldn't even finish watching it
a-osta29 January 2013
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.
32 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
pretty damn good
zakstrong8 November 2013
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.
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Avoid - Waste of Time
joewise80808020 November 2013
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.
12 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
One mans wrong is another mans right
kosmasp27 April 2014
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
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Okay I get it, you like surrealism, but what's the point?
luckythday29 November 2021
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.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Boring to death
Tomadour22 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Really I cannot believe the reviews in IMDb. Probably friends of the cast or the director.

The film has a good premise but they forgot the humor. They even try to make some funny moments but fail. It would be funny an office where rains but the way it is shown is not funny. Probably the cast is wrong.

William Fichtner tries to be funny bus the lines are not enough to make me laugh.

Maybe with a more developed script it could be a good movie. I only liked the guy that pants the cars without authorization.

but the director should continue trying. Maybe in his next film I will give him a 4. He should try to read more and see more films or perhaps works with most experienced directors to learn how to make a fun movie.
21 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
nothing deep - it just wants to be funny, and it is
Quinoa198410 May 2015
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.
12 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed