Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaDolph Springer wakes up one morning to realize he has lost the love of his life, his dog, Paul. During his quest to get Paul (and his life) back, Dolph radically changes the lives of others ... Ler tudoDolph Springer wakes up one morning to realize he has lost the love of his life, his dog, Paul. During his quest to get Paul (and his life) back, Dolph radically changes the lives of others -- risking his sanity all the while.Dolph Springer wakes up one morning to realize he has lost the love of his life, his dog, Paul. During his quest to get Paul (and his life) back, Dolph radically changes the lives of others -- risking his sanity all the while.
- Prêmios
- 7 indicações no total
- Painting Guy
- (as Zia Harris)
- Colleague Hugo
- (as a different name)
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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.
5/10
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.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesIn 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.
- Citações
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.
- ConexõesReferenced in Os Maus Policiais (2013)
Principais escolhas
- How long is Wrong?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Sai Lầm
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 46.021
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 20.424
- 31 de mar. de 2013
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 106.425
- Tempo de duração1 hora 34 minutos
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1