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.

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!

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.

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.

Hong Chau performance was amazing, the story was universal and went beyond the science Fiction touching that human part we all hide inside. Truly enjoyed this film, felt it very human.

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 don't really understand why it has such low ratings. And I was truly puzzled by that during the first half of the movie, as I thought the premise was original and interesting, the plot was engaging, and the actors were all great; I was loving it. But then it starts declining in quality and pace, and towards the end it feels like the story doesn't quite know what it wants to be or convey. That's a real shame because it could have been truly great from beginning to end. So it would be a bit difficult for me to recommend unless you're just a fan of any of the actors as they are giving they're best here.

After seeing "Downsizing" I now understand where the bad reviews originate from. This movie was marketed to the masses as a funny miniature movie, while it's message of how to deal with global warming, is probably only engaging for an arthouse movie crowd. It is truly an intelligent, righteous, thought provoking and caring movie. Like ALL movies from director Alexander Payne are.

But however good (7 stars) this picture might be, lots of people went to see it expecting something entirely different. Just to avoid more frustrations based on the wrong expectations, I have made a short list by which you can check if this movie will annoy you depending on your expactations. You probably WONT be pleased if you are someone who doesnt believe global warming is caused by oil and coal companies that burn fossil fuels in massive quantities. It is though. 98% of the climate scientists say so, based on decades of research. You WONT be pleased either if you are expecting a fun movie with Kristen Wiig because she only performs a meager 10-15 minutes. You WONT be pleased either if you expect a straight story with Matt Damon whom you so admire from his Jason Bourne actionhero movies. Because in "Downsizing" Matt Damon plays a humble and sensitive normal person, who wants to take care of poor and foreign people in need. You WONT be pleased either if you are expecting a funny miniature movie. It is NOT about that at all.

"Downsizing" is ALL about global warming and the dangers it exposes to us as humans. And it is about the choices we can make. It truly is a unique piece of work. Hilarious at only a few moments, because it is not a real comedy. Jokes are made tongue in cheek, in a satirical way. That sort of humor/drama isnt understood by the masses. This movie is really intelligent and heartwarming. But what it really is, is baffling. Because "Downsizing" depicts OUR world. We live in it. We have responsibilities to act upon the dangers global warming exposes our children to. We can choose to make a difference. Or we can stay indifferent.

"Downsizing" is a mirror to our consumer society which runs on oil and coal and if we dont act soon the CO2 emissions will destroy the world as we know it through global warming. I love people who dare hold up mirrors to our society at large. Most people dont like to be told something is wrong with the way we live nowadays however. Alexander Payne is one of the very few directors who dared to try to hold this mirror up to our way of life. I recommend this picture VERY MUCH to all those who DO wanna care about our children's future, who DO wanna care about stopping global warming. These pictures are very rare nowadays, but we need them NOW more than ever before...

It took Alexander Payne 10 years to get this movie made, because the subject of the story is not very popular. It is certainly not his best work, but it is his most RELEVANT one. Because in the end we all have to ask ourselves the question WHAT we can do to guarantee a prosperous and safe future for our very own children and grandchildren. This picture was director Alexander Payne's most personal one. He dedicated it to his late father George, who died on the very day this movie premiered...

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

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.

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.

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 ?

Regardless of other aspects. The moral aspect of the movie is a breathtaking and wonderful character of Paul who has warmed my heart I think I want to be like him in the moral aspect not only he but all the main characters.

So I have never reviewed a movie before, but OMG, what just happened here. The trailers looked entertaining and Jason Sudeikis and Kristen Wiig are comedy heavyweights, so I figured "hey, shrink down some people and commence with hilarity and comedy hijinx". WRONG. Both actors combined have about 10-15 minutes of screen time. The movie started out promising, but then it started to get strange and preachy. After the credits rolled, my wife and I just sort of stared at each other for an awkward amount of time waiting to see who would blame who for picking this movie. The conspiracy theorist in me is concerned that I was baited with a fun comedy movie then switched into a global warming nonsense hit piece.