The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

'Wrong' gets it right...sort of

Indie film hits mix of sweet, sour notes

For those of you who had the chance to see the absurdly strange movie Rubber on Netflix, here comes another bizarre film from oddball director Quentin Dupieux, Wrong. A nonsensically comical movie and definitely not one for theater audiences, Wrong provides a quirky adventure through the mind of Dupieux. Palm trees turning into pine trees, telepathy with dogs, and even the visual memories of a dog turd are just a few of the oddities of this film. Wrong is an unusual comedy, and it offers a few laughs, but it ultimately comes across as a bit self-indulgent and quirky-for-quirk’s-sake.

In the odd universe that Dupieux has created stands a very confused man named Dolph Springer (Jack Plotnick). Springer is hopelessly searching for his beloved dog, Paul. When he dials a pizza delivery joint to take his mind off this mission, Springer inadvertently starts a misguided relationship between his gardener (Eric Judor) and a clingy pizza delivery girl (Alexis Dziena) that ends with the birth of an adult child and an absurd take on the meaning of love. Dolph then meets the psychic and philosophical Master Chang (William Fichtner) who informs him that he has kidnapped his dog in order for Dolph to become closer to his canine, under the pretense that “you need to lose something in order to truly understand the importance of connecting with that which is lost”.

Unfortunately however, Dolph’s pet seems to have escaped the clutches of Master Chang, who politely employees the hilariously awkward Detective Ronnie (Steve Little) to find Dolph’s dog. His method of inquiry: the memories locked within the canine’s fecal matter. Throughout the whole situation, Dolph’s unconditional love for his dog keeps him pushing into a world he can’t control or understand.

While Wrong’s eccentric movie style and plot make for an interesting and sometimes comical experience, the absurdity eventually becomes predictable. By the middle of the movie, we come to expect any outrageous or odd twist to happen, detracting from its original enthralling effect. The unconventional plotline, while giving the movie originality, also becomes disconnected and distracting. By the end of the film, Dupieux is just having fun. Written and directed by him, the movie is more like the visually excited hobby of Dupieux that other people just happen to be able to watch. If you like, good, and if you don’t, who cares?

Ultimately, if you’re in the mood for a movie that departs from the traditional big box office style films and offers its own unique interpretation of the world by hyperbolizing its absurdity, then by all means watch this film. If you’re looking for any other kind of movie experience, please don’t waste your time. And above all, don’t make the mistake I did by watching the preview first.