|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Index||19 reviews in total|
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.
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.
"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 (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.
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.
*** This review may contain 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.
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.
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.
*** This review may contain 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.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This movie is not just another "comedy/drama" and surely not intended
or suitable for everybody. I sat through the whole movie just to get a
grip and understand what was going on in every scene. At first, when
the movie was over I thought "What the hell?". The more I thought about
it I came to realize several things that didn't actually make sense as
in sense per se, but how it winds up your brain and triggers different
thoughts and situations that might be compared to real life and the
type of world we live in. I'm way too far from being a movie critic,
but I'll write my thoughts of a few different scenes just so you catch
my drift about this metaphorical movie.
The first and last scenes show a man looking for his dog gone missing and finding him. I think this is an intangible relationship between both and how we sometimes communicate better with pets than to other humans.
When Dolph's neighbor is leaving, I had a feeling that he was hiding something (apart from the fact that he denies jogging and Dolph knows he does). His attitude was a bit gay towards Dolph which I think is what he's hiding (in the movie a "closeted jogger"), in the end he's trying to find his direction and make sense of things.
Master Chang is one of those "entrepreneurs" who creates a bulls**t company that kidnaps dogs so their owners have the chance to know what they have taken for granted so they can appreciate things better.
The cop is the insecure type of person who uses his uniform "power" to wade his cockiness to anybody who communicates with him. Just like real cops that feel powerful just because they have a gun but have a great sense of low self esteem and feel under-appreciated.
Emma, the girl who "falls in love with Dolph" is the type of girl that would do anything to find love no matter what: overlooking change of appearance of Dolph/Victor, desperation to be with someone, moving out of his ex's and in with Dolph even though she doesn't know him at all. Getting pregnant right away and trying to fulfill her dream of giving birth on the beach.
The beach scene is pretty much about Victor and how he's into Emma only for the sex but ends up entangled in a relationship he didn't want.
Of course, this was my interpretation of the movie which I think is completely metaphorical with a psychological subtext about our society.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|