Wrong

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.

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.

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.