Dolph Springer si sveglia una mattina per rendersi conto di aver perso l'amore della sua vita, il suo cane, Paul. Durante la sua ricerca per riavere Paul e la sua vita, lui cambia la vita de... Leggi tuttoDolph Springer si sveglia una mattina per rendersi conto di aver perso l'amore della sua vita, il suo cane, Paul. Durante la sua ricerca per riavere Paul e la sua vita, lui cambia la vita degli altri rischiando anche la sua sanità mentale.Dolph Springer si sveglia una mattina per rendersi conto di aver perso l'amore della sua vita, il suo cane, Paul. Durante la sua ricerca per riavere Paul e la sua vita, lui cambia la vita degli altri rischiando anche la sua sanità mentale.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 7 candidature totali
- Painting Guy
- (as Zia Harris)
- Colleague Hugo
- (as a different name)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
5/10
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.
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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizIn the dog's bed, a Flat Eric puppet is visible. Flat Eric is a character created by Quentin Dupieux in 1999, with Janet Knechtel and Jim Henson's Creature Shop, and has been featured in commercials for Levi's, episodes of The Office (2001), and several shorts.
- Citazioni
Master Chang: ...I only realized I loved my face after it have been burned with acid. But it was too late. Before it was just my face! I didn't know I loved it! I only started loving it again when it have partially disappeared. Do you follow?
Dolph Springer: Not really.
Master Chang: Man gets accustomed in all to things rapidly. He gets used to everything. When you get a new jacket you are happy to wear it but that weal wears off. You get accustomed and after a few days, that jacket doesn't bring you any joy at all. On the other hand... if that jacket is stolen from you... desire ignites again inside of you. All of the sudden, you miss that jacket, and you love that jacket again. Same goes for shoes.
- ConnessioniReferenced in Wrong Cops (2013)
I più visti
- How long is Wrong?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Sai Lầm
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 46.021 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 20.424 USD
- 31 mar 2013
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 106.425 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 34 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1