User Reviews

When Norwegian scientists develop a means to shrink living things down to miniature size, with the average human standing only 5 inches tall, the world sees it as great new opportunity. "Downsized" people use less resources, take up less space, and have a smaller impact on the environment. As an added bonus, their "full-size" bank accounts translate to vastly more wealth at smaller size, since less material is needed to build dream mansions or create fabulous jewelry. Within a decade, "downsized" towns are springing up around the world, and middle-class Nebraskans Paul (Matt Damon) and Audrey (Kristen Wiig) make the decision to join the "little people". However, when complications ensue, Paul finds his worldview shattered, and he's left looking for new direction in his life.

Director Alexander Payne (Election, Sideways, The Descendants, Nebraska) has a knack for character and the human condition. This movie, easily his biggest budgeted effort due to the special effects involved, loses a little of that thanks to the film's ambitions and the overreaching scope of the story. Payne seems to making some points about the lengths people will go to in hopes of achieving the upper class dream of many Americans, with the big house and country club aesthetics. Payne also spends time on the danger of climate change, and the last section of the film takes this to apocalyptic levels. Whether he's exaggerating for effect, comic or otherwise, he doesn't make clear, but it's also possible that he's being sincere in his fears. Damon serves his purpose well, as he's called on mainly to be a blank slate, a rather empty man looking for meaning in the world.

The stand-out performances are from Christopher Waltz as Damon's obnoxious neighbor, and especially Hong Chau as a one-legged Vietnamese former political dissident turned janitorial worker. She's phenomenal, and should have nabbed a supporting Oscar nomination. The movie was a flop with both critics and the box office, but I liked it, and continue to look forward to Payne's work.

Very much a movie of 2 halves. The first half is an interesting, funny and thoughtful look at what 'downsizing' is and its implications and seemed to set up what could have been an excellent movie. However, the second half goes off at a tangent and starts to explore something completely different - and not in a good way. The whole second half has little reference to the titular 'downsizing' concept and whole sections could have been cut out of it without affecting the movie. Left me feeling disappointed as it could have been very good.

From Sideways, to Nebraska, to The Descendants, and even Paris, je t'aime, I've pretty much loved everything that I've seen from director Alexander Payne, making Downsizing one of my most anticipated films of 2017. Having heard so little about the film aside from its concept, I went into the screening fairly cold. Sadly, the film doesn't have a whole lot more to offer than its brilliant concept and exceptional first act. I must admit that I left feeling disappointed, thinking they could've made this a better movie in many ways. When a film has so much promise and doesn't exactly deliver on much of it, I feel as though many people would be let down by that. Here is why I believe everyone should see Downsizing, despite it being slightly too mediocre as a final product.

In this dramedy, which also in part a social satire of its own genre, Downsizing follows a couple who believes their lives would be better if they were to shrink themselves and be transferred to a new world called Leisureland. This place exists to conserve the Earth and save the environment, by these shrunken people needed much fewer resources. With multiple meanings to the title, this is a concept that sounds incredible on paper but doesn't exactly translate into that great of a movie. Throughout the first act, I found myself immersed in this world and couldn't wait to be taken on its journey, but I soon found myself losing interest when political and religious elements began to take over. This is a movie that could've done so much more with its premise.

Without giving anything away, there are many characters that come in and out of this film in a heartbeat, pretty much leaving them in the dust, when in reality they were actually interesting and added a layer to the overall story. It felt as though Alexander Payne wanted to focus so much on the idea of the Downsizing concept, that he sidelined quite a few characters along the way. His films have always been about characters, and while Paul (Matt Damon) and Ngoc (Hong Chau) share some great chemistry throughout this film, it's hard not to wish that all of the characters throughout the first act were present throughout the entire film. This was a very curious issue I had while watching and definitely upon reflection.

As soon as you're brought into this other world that has been built for those who shrunk themselves over the years, you will find yourself kind of transfixed at how interesting the visuals are and how well the comedic aspects come into play, but what you don't expect is for the film to take a dramatic turn and really have you thinking hard about the world we live in and whether or not certain lines of dialogue are true about society in general. This is an eye-opening film in that regard and the third act is incredibly ambitious, but I just don't think it really sticks the landing that it strives to achieve.

In the end, this is one of the most original ideas I can recall in recent memory, but an idea doesn't make a film great. It's the film itself that needs to win you over as a whole, and Downsizing just didn't do that for me. On many accounts, this is a very impressive movie from a technical standpoint and it takes risks that I didn't expect it to, but the risks it takes will only work for a few audiences members that can relate to it.

This is a movie that promises a lot and tries to deliver on all of those promises, while also shoving in side plots that make this film too emotionally complex to really be invested in the satirical aspects by the end. I wish this film went through a few more rewrites, because there is a satirical masterpiece of a movie in here somewhere, but it's just not the product that you'll be seeing in theatres soon. Downsizing is worth your time in terms of originality, but I wouldn't get your hopes up on it being a favorite of yours.

This came up on my Prime feed for watching after a hard day of work.

At first, the concept was intriguing and compelling. Solve some of the worlds problems with overpopulation and resource straining by allowing people to be "downsized" to approximately 5 inches, or roughly the same size as an action hero doll. There is even a "Truman" style all-encompassing village for them all to live in luxury in downsized mansions that would fit onto a real life dining table.

The leads, Matt Damon and Kristen Wiig, are always bankable for bringing interesting characters to life, and the whole downsizing process for Matt Damon is breathtaking. That all happens in roughly the first half of the movie, but things go downhill fast after Christoph Waltz enters the picture as Matt Damon's obnoxious upstairs neighbor.

First off, earlier scenes show the Matt Damon character, "Paul" taking up residence in one of the Lilliputian mansions with his own yard around it. However, he later appears to live in some type of highrise with elevators without any explanation of why he moved (or maybe I missed it).

By the time the Paul character helps an Asian refugee and ends up visiting the "slum" of the small people neighborhoods to help a disadvantaged small person, I found myself clicking on the screen to see how much of the movie was left. Forty-five minutes? Ugh.

So chalk it up to bad execution or bad scriptwriting, but to me there's little wonder why the movie failed massively at the box office, reaping only a fraction of its production costs, bloated because of the breathtaking special effects from the first half. Eventually, I may see the final 45 minutes since Prime allows you to pick up where you left off, but I certainly won't go out of my way to do it!

If you came to see this movie because of the trailer or because of curiosity of what a world would be like if you were 5 inches instead of 6 feet, then you paid for about 45 minutes. The other hour and a half is a completely different movie that has minimal to do with downsizing and is not what the trailer suggests.

The easiest part to get of writer/director Alexander Payne's sci-fi comedy, Downsizing, is the allegory of shrinking ourselves and our possessions to miniature to save the planet from our excess yet become miniature plutocrats in the process. The more challenging part is to understand how he can pack climate change and economic decay also into his themes.

Paul (Matt Damon), an occupational therapist who at best is just a nice guy, and his ambitious wife, Audrey (Kristen Wiig), decide to have a richer life by downsizing, but contrary to our conventional use of that term. To shrink means to have a bigger miniature mansion, the kind he couldn't afford in a regular size that his shrinking paycheck keeps him from. Of course, in his decision to help out the planet, he is really helping to mitigate his envy of his richer friends in their McMansions.

Payne and co-writer Jim Taylor deftly move the Twilight-Zone story into a melodrama that stresses the humanity of a man who forsakes family and friends for a seemingly higher purpose such as saving the environment. However, it still comes back to greed.

At least until Paul experiences caring for those less fortunate than he, for those shrunk but still with relatively nothing, viz., the poor, the immigrant, and the sick to name a few disadvantaged souls living in a ghetto-tenement world far from the eyes of the advantaged. Once Paul witnesses real poverty he can never turn back to his truly shrunken life of excess and worthlessness.

Where Payne veers from the staples of his drama is bringing in an apocalyptic climate change, a danger not even appearing earlier. More than that misplaced motif is that he has nicely set up already the humanity that will save Paul, who must choose between survival and being together for however long with the ones he truly loves.

Downsizing is rare, a comedy in sci-fi mode with a toolbox of social concerns. It's a child of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids with a Twilight Zone spirit, and it's a pleasant holiday diversion.

I wouldn't describe this movie as a comedy. Actually, the script touches a very important topic in my opinion. The trailer only showcases the first half of the movie, but all the exciting stuff comes after that. I would say this movie is actually about more than the fun aspect of being able to live life at a perspective from 10 centimeters tall. It's about the way life can be cruel, love and making decisions. Nice movie, absolutely worth the watch.

In my opinion the biggest problem and the reason for all the down votes of this movie is it's trailer. I also thought this movie was going to be a full-on comedy. Seeing Jason Sudeikis,Kristen Wiig in the trailer; all the jokes made me believe this is going to be funny to watch. Well, both of them were in the movie for like 7 minutes. Also there was this anticipation of experiencing how the "small" world would be but that also is a really tiny part of the movie.

This movie is much more than the trailer offers but unfortunately it also is much less than it too.

Watch this movie but change your expectations.

Basically an attempt to "holly-splain" global warming, downsizing is a very thinly veiled metaphore for lowering our carbon footprint. Not necessarily a bad thing, but one thing Hollywood is bad at is educating the public.

After seeing the trailer and prior to that not knowing a thing about this movie, I took the wife last night. I loved the concept and saw many funny people (Kristin Wiig, Jason Sudeikis, among others) in the trailer and thought it would be fun. While I wouldn't say it was a bad movie, it was SLOW and really didn't provide many laughs. Seemed to be another movie trying to push down an agenda regarding global warming and conservation rather than being a fun escape for 2 hours. If you like the actors, you might like the movie, but if you're expecting something with a comedic slant, I'd say you'll be disappointed.

I was actually surprised by how much i enjoyed this movie considering all the negative reviews. It starts out slow but once the stage is set, the director takes it to this beautiful place. In a movie starring Christoph Waltz and Udo Kier, two very talented and experienced actors, It's Hong Chau who shines brightest.

Houston we have a problem : Too many people in Planet Earth and The solution : Downsizing the human. I love the premise of the movie and part of the problem that wil carry " the solution" It could be more powerfull the script but i enjoyed the movie un tío end.

Downsizing initially drew me in with its groundbreaking concept of miniaturizing humans to combat overpopulation and environmental issues. The first 30 minutes were truly captivating, introducing us to this intriguing world, and Matt Damon's performance was engaging.

However, the film took an unfortunate turn in the second half. It seemed to lose its direction and veer off into an unconvincing social commentary and environmental message. The potential for exploring thought-provoking themes was there, but it was squandered with heavy-handed storytelling and a lackluster script.

The character development fell flat, and I found it difficult to connect with the protagonists as they embarked on their downsized journey. The narrative became muddled, and it felt like the filmmakers were unsure of what message they wanted to convey.

Visually, the film was impressive, with its intricate details of the downsized world, but even the stunning visuals couldn't salvage the disappointingly weak second half. The humor, which was promising at the start, became sparse and uninspiring, leaving a void where it could have added depth to the characters and the story.

In hindsight, I regret not heeding the warning signs in the second half and halting my viewing experience after the initial 30 minutes. Downsizing had the potential to be a thought-provoking and original film, but it ultimately failed to deliver on that promise.

There was a lot that drew me in to seeing 'Downsizing' in the first place. The trailer looked good, the concept was one of the most fascinating and ambitious ones of the years and for any film seen in a while, there are some truly talented actors on board and really like Alexander Payne's previous work (especially 'Sideways').

'Downsizing' is far from being one of the year's worst, in a year with a fair share of bad films. Certainly didn't think it was that bad. At the same time, a huge part of me was expecting so much more. It looked so good and the potential was enormous, but it is one of the year's most disappointing (one of those films that should have worked) and one of the biggest wastes of potential in recent memory. As far as Alexander Payne's films go, 'Downsizing' may be his most ambitious and conceptually original film but it's also his worst by quite some way.

It's not all bad. The film looks great throughout, being both stylish and audacious. The first half is very promising and well done with some fascinating ideas. There is Payne's trademark wit and warmth evident, and there is some nice insight and satirising and human relationships and real world issues.

Matt Damon carries the lead role well, not one of his best performances but he is well suited to the material and engages nicely with it.

Christoph Waltz (in a departure role) and especially Hong Chau bring fun and energy to the pretty much only colourful roles of the film, sadly that is saying a lot.

It is a shame that 'Downsizing' didn't live up to the trailer. As good as the trailer was on its own it was also very misleading, and made the film much more interesting, bold and original than it actually turned out to be. The first half was promising and good, the second half takes a complete 180 with a jarring change of tone that abandons the concept and completely forgets what was set up before.

Wit is replaced by clumsiness and a preachy tone and warmth is replaced with a clinical coldness and dumbing down. It no longer becomes insightful or fun to watch, and the talking down to the audience feels completely misplaced and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The more melancholic edge in other places is cloying and doesn't connect emotionally. The story badly meanders, both in increasingly sluggish pacing and coherence where things get confusing and increasingly nonsensical.

Of the supporting characters, only those of Waltz and Chau are memorable or used well. The others have far too little screen time in sketchily developed roles, Kristin Wigg, Jason Sudeikis and Udo Kier were on paper perfect for this film and should have worked here but their talents are completely wasted as characters either underwritten and underused (Wiig and Sudeikis) or just off kilter strange (Kier). Payne's direction is uneven, the first half is distinctive Payne while the second half could have easily been mistaken for any other director.

To conclude, not awful but a big disappointment. Potential was enormous, the execution downsizes even more than its shrunken characters far too early. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Norwegian scientist Dr. Jørgen Asbjørnsen invents miniaturization of human beings, shrinking people down to five inches. It is sold as environmental altruism and a way to live big on a budget. Married couple Paul (Matt Damon) and Audrey Safranek (Kristen Wiig) decides to do the downsizing but at the last minute, Audrey backs out and the couple eventually divorce. Paul is bitter and alone. He befriends his noisy neighbor Euro-playboy Dusan Mirkovic (Christoph Waltz) and Dusan's maid Ngoc Lan Tran, famed Vietnamese activist who was forcibly downsized.

Ngoc Lan Tran says something compelling about facing death in the ending. That's the big point of the movie. Director Alexander Payne certainly takes his sweet time. There's no reason for this movie to be more than two hours. The point can be streamlined without Audrey. The first half is really bloated. Matt Damon's everyman does not help. His lack of drive infects the movie. He makes the first half aimless. It should have been a fifteen minute introduction and then get to Dusan and Tran quickly. She's a breath of fresh air and actually gets a few laughs. The Norway part is lacking something and the ending premise is also lacking. I would rather they do something with the slums outside the dome for the ending. There is already some rooting interest built up with the inhabitants of the slums. Going to Norway is a distracting side trip. There is a lot of world building that I question in this movie. There is a compelling movie inside this bloated film somewhere and I enjoyed that movie.

After watching this film and then seeing the low rating for it I was really surprised, did I see the same movie ? this could have been a silly film about being small in a big world a bad borrowers concept maybe? I saw an interesting and emotional drama about an under achieved man , Paul (Matt Damon) looking for a better life, he is betrayed by the one person he wanted an improved life with. There is a message about mankind here too , our planet is overpopulated and we need to find a solution, the downsizing concept actually makes a lot of sense. As usual in the real world good ideas can be abused in the wrong hands or turned against humanity. Big or small there will always be a class system, winners and losers . Ok the film is far from perfect and loses its way a bit in the second half with the under explored imminent catastrophe angle. The quirkiness highlights come in the Vietnamese girl , Ngoc Lan Tran (Hong Chou) who takes over Pauls disappointing new life and his neighbour Dusan (Christoph Waltz) who adds a new spark, together they give Paul new purpose, a chance to make up for unfulfilled aspirations, at the end of the day what do we all want out of life ?

Here I am in 2020, having watched Contagion made in 2011 and now this movie made in 2017 with both movies either extremely good predictions or today's evil people are cherry-picking from past movies to suit their narrative, either way I'd like to have a long chat with Matt Damon as she appeared in both movies. One thing for sure the events of 2020 were planned

This script has traps everywhere, literally at every page. The film has been accused of many things and, sure enough, it wanders awfully close to all of them, but Payne stays masterfully in control. It avoids being too full of itself, gets to each point slow but steady and it´s funny all the way.

It´s a weird film indeed. I don´t mind the political implications and see it as a fairly straightforward fairytale, a hero´s journey or a search for destiny or identity. I can understand how the "he´s a small guy but he has a big heart" pushes people away but I don´t think the story felt cheap at any point. Quite the opposite, it has all the right kinds of balance.