Wrong

Wrong

2013 ""
Wrong
Wrong

Wrong

6.2 | 1h34m | NR | en | Comedy

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.

View More
Rent / Buy
amazon
Buy from $12.99 Rent from $2.99
AD

WATCH FREEFOR 30 DAYS

All Prime Video
Cancel anytime

Watch Now
6.2 | 1h34m | NR | en | Comedy , Mystery | More Info
Released: March. 25,2013 | Released Producted By: Realitism , Country: United States of America Budget: 0 Revenue: 0 Official Website:
Synopsis

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.

...... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Cast

Jack Plotnick , Eric Judor , Alexis Dziena

Director

Zach Bangma

Producted By

Realitism ,

AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime.

Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

MisterWhiplash Quentin Dupieux's WRONG is about how people, I guess, can go wrong about things, small and big. The premise is simple enough, and a great starting point: Jack Plotnick is Dolph Springer, a working man (though he's actually been fired for three months but still goes to work, where it rains all the time indoors), and he's lost his dog. Where could he be? As it turns out, there is an answer to that, in the form of a sort of dog communications/telepathy expert in William Ficther's character, who may or may not be Indian or Asian of some sort (his accent's kinda convincing, for what's required here). But Dupieux has some sub-plot/weird strands going on here as well, which include Dolph's gardener, and a girl on the other end of a phone for a pizza place - Dolph is rather confused about a rabbit on a motorcycle as a logo - who finds his questions attractive and sleeps with the, uh, gardener instead thinking it's Dolph and then... aw hell, you should see it for yourself.A lot of the great things in Wrong are from the awkward, very surreal interactions and environment that are set up. This could easily go into the realm of more absurdist-comedy-of-manners style of Curb Your Enthusiasm, but Dupieux is just so off-kilter that you know you're in for a something... special here. If I have a general criticism it's that Dolph perhaps should've been a little more of an everyman; he is, for the most part, except for the whole thing of him being at work even though he's not really working there anymore, and a couple other small things. This would make all of his interactions stronger, but, luckily, people like William Fictner pull off dead-pan humor wonderfully, and his few scenes are delights as he first puts Dolph through the rigmarole to see him, and then gives him a book on how to talk to his dog through his mind.Some other very strange developments happen, such as with Emma, the character Alexis Dziena plays (you might know her as the girl who memorably goes naked for a quick flash in Broken Flowers), who, if one is taking her on as a 'real-world' person, may be brain-damaged. In Dupieux's world, she may be simply... wrong. Or right, who knows. But she's kind of like his own satirical take on the Manic-Pixie-Dream-Girl, which makes for a lot of spot-on comedy (oh, and she's pregnant, whoops, it happens!) If there's another problem though there may be times where, if it doesn't work on a comic plane, it kind of just sits there like a lump until it's over; the sequences for me involved the neighbor, who we meet at the start as denying he's a jogger ("I HATE running!" he states emphatically) and then decides to go driving for a while... in the desert... or somewhere else... That part, I don't 'get it', I guess. The stuff with the Dog Detective as well is hit or miss (it's either very funny, or, you can feel the improv and it struggles).But if you're looking for something off-kiler and playfully surreal - the kind of experience where a character has a dream taking place on a beach and involves warped talking, but mostly presented as straightforward - this is a welcome offering. It's kind of like what Luis Bunuel might offer up for the Comedy Central network.
OrderedChaos 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.
Steve Pulaski 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.
Andrew Osta Watched the first 23 minutes, hoping for a moment of some sort of meaning or satisfaction or anything that could be classified as "good". It never came. That 23 minutes was lost time of which I didn't enjoy any... After that, I fast-forwarded to the middle, then towards the end.. Very stupid and boring... Worst thing I have "seen" so far this year, and possibly one of the worst moves ever made, even though the actors are pretty good. It doesn't matter how good the acting is, however, if it is all just a bunch of nonsense that was created for no reason I can think of, other than with the objective of being absurd. I'm completely in agreement with the other two folks who gave this a one. I think anything about 2.5 or 3 is misleading. I was expecting this to be great based on the rating and was disappointed.