Wrong (2013)

Simply A Masterpiece

Just what I expected

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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

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.

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.

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.