Wrong

I live in a country that's gearing up to decide between which of two octogenarians is best suited to lead the country. Oh, we have younger people, we just aren't going to even consider the possibility of choosing one of them. I'm sorry, I'm supposed to be talking about this fictional story that is at times surreal. I got off track there.

Although it ran out of steam towards the end, freshness of Rubber was a pleasant surprise for me. Wrong, on the other hand, is boring, self-indulgent wankery from start to finish. It serves no purpose, it doesn't tell anything, and it doesn't even get self-reflective about it's lack of reason like Rubber did. It looks good, and it's kind of weird, but that's it. Sophomore slump, alright.

Calling this a movie is like calling a pile of dog poo a sausage sandwich. I find it incredible that I was able to watch it to the end, but come to think of it, I did fall asleep for a few minutes, not that doing that made the slightest differences in how incredibly awful this was.

Not quite as absurd, surreal or self-referential as Rubber was but there's enough to here to warrant a look. What it lacks in flat out constant ridiculousness it makes up for in well constructed scenes of ridiculousness (pine tree, the office, Mike). Sometimes dry but often funny.

Didn't finish watching it.

I like absurdist movies, I really do, but absurdism doesn't necessarily make a movie good. This movie has nothing to say, and tries to hide that by coming up with absurd situations, conversations and characters. Sometimes it's legitimately funny, but sometimes it's just outright annoying. On top of that comes the dull directing and amateurish visual style, which, for me, separates this movie from other pointless absurdist movies like Survive Style 5+. That and the lack of actual humor, that is.

Pastel surrealism.

Top badass moment? The point where Dolph’s new and really, really, REALLY annoying girlfriend starts to drill into a wall; it just cracked me up. This is the sort of movie you need to watch more than once to get the full value from the humour. It was great to see gardening being given a prominent position in it and the lovely dog, so fluffy and cute! However, I couldn't find any copies of Master Chang's books on Amazon or eBay, which was disappointing. No cats, chainsaws or decapitations.

Sometimes a bit lost

This kind of weird shit is probably what some people like, but it's more than wasted on me...

Dupieux's contemporary technique, simple dialogue, and classically French eye for surrealism are a good match; Wrong is less focused but more refreshing and less self-conscious than Rubber, though ultimately just as silly.

I'm not even sure why i keep watching Dupieux's stuff, it's like i can sense the potential even though all of his films so far are pretty bad. That said, this is easily my favorite (not really saying much), even though it basically seems like something a thirteen year old boy who really likes Charlie Kaufman movies and who just started smoking pot and watched After Hours really high would make.

Didn't sink deep into my mind, but I really liked watching it.

Not great, but somewhat fresh

Surreally funny.

I loved all the little throwaway jokes like the clock flipping from 7:59 to 7:60, or Dolph's permanently precipitating office. Buñuel would be proud to see that surrealism is still alive and carving out a niche on cinema screens internationally. The plot had some pleasingly Lynchian themes to it, although I must admit that, like Dupieux's last film Rubber, it did drag after the first 30-40 minutes. But asking for perfection is too much; absurdist comedic talent like this deserves to be seen.

If you like weird, bizarre, surreal movies, this is a must watch; if you don't you won't get it or like it. The story meanders here and there seemingly incoherently but then wraps up nicely by the end.

Is Wrong about finding self-worth before being able to move forward or is it a homage to mental health issues. Either way, the film is low on substance and high on surrealism, some may deem pretentious. Plotnick is a discount a Sean Penn, Fichtner's accent was on a world tour, and Dziena was delightful. Weird!

http://thehub.typepad.com/...36bb8970b-800wi

Being unique doesn't mean being great, and Dupieux deserves some credit for creating such a strange aura -- will there ever be an opening with a fireman taking a dump on duty in the middle of a road while the brigade helps to move away a burned van in cinema? or will we ever see a workplace where it's always raining (inside)? No. And no. But still... Rubber looked way more confident than this collection of WTF scenes -- some are good, but I still can't think of them as part of the whole.

The writer was thinking , "Let's make a movie where people do random, weird stuff in a slow and random way, with no interesting talk." I'd rather stare into a wall than watch movies like this.

Wanna know how palm tress change into pines? How to investigate dog poo consciousness or how does it feel like to work in an half-outdoor office? Search no more and another of Dupieux's surreal flicks!

Quentin Dupieux so desperately wants to be Charlie Kaufman that I kind of feel bad for him.

W as weird, wabsurdist, wry and wsurrealistic

Very surreal and original, but also quite random and incoherent. All those bizarre moments are funny, but don't serve any other purpose than beeing weird. Still entertaining, but not as good as Rubber.