Downsizing - Movie Review

Downsizing looked like an interesting film from the trailers. I have anxiously been waiting to see it. If nothing else, I saw it as potential redemption for Matt Damon after the flop of his last film, Suburbicon. Downsizing premiered yesterday, so my wife and I went to the theater to catch it on opening night. We were the only people in the theater. Not a good harbinger of things to come.

Story summary does not give away any major plot lines
Paul Safranek (Damon) is an educated working-class stiff. He was studying medicine, but returned to Omaha to care for his ailing mother. He took a job as an occupational therapist at Omaha Steaks to pay the bills. Safranek lives in the house he grew up in with his wife, Audrey (Kristen Wiig). Audrey has expensive tastes. The Safranek's look for a nicer house, but their debt-to-income ratio makes a move an impossible dream.

Several years earlier, Dr. Asbjornsen (Rolf Lassgard) discovered a solution to overpopulation and climate change. The solution? Downsizing. By miniaturizing people, the impact on the climate would be exponentially reduced. When Safranek's friend describes to him the standard of living increase created by miniaturizing, he and his wife decide to visit a popular planned community called Leisure Land. Their net worth is calculated at 152,000 dollars, which translates to more than 12 million dollars in Leisure Land. Champagne dreams are just around the corner. After Paul undergoes the irreversible treatment, he learns his wife chickened out at the last minute. The subsequent divorce leaves Paul with a far more meager lifestyle than he bargained for. Nothing seems bound to go right for Paul. But his big heart and gentle demeanor may open new doors, as well as his eyes, to opportunities right under his nose.

Downsizing is a tough story to dissect. It is a hodgepodge of ideas that feel like they were hastily thrown together to create a plot. Yet there really isn't a plot. The film is part love story, partially a commentary on current events, part political statement (maybe) and part rambling. The film is all over the place. Particularly after Paul downsizes. The story meanders around, leaving huge plot holes as to how things became the way they are and why. I say that the film "may" be part political statement. I use the qualifier because the point was really never connected to anything tangible. The story was parallel to the statement and not wired to it. Much of the film felt that way. Like there is a point to be made, but we never get around to the point of the film. It just sort of meanders around and then ends after too many extended scenes that lack interest.

Matt Damon was solid in this film. His working class stiff portrayal seemed genuine. His ability to adapt the likability of a hard luck loser was evident in this film. He helped shore up a story that simply was not worth telling. He meets a friend in this story, Ngoc Lan Tran (Hong Chau), who helps guide his understanding of the world around him. Chau was the highlight of this film. By far. Her performance was exceptional and her character was interesting. Chau has a staccato delivery of her lines, with broken English that doesn't really feel "put on." Her ability to be blunt, demanding and sweet (simultaneously) is a testament to Chau's performance. She made this film more enjoyable than it might otherwise have been.

Downsizing is substantially too long at two hours, fifteen minutes. There are scenes in Norway that involve a hippie-like commune that become self-absorbed. It was horrible. I could feel the seconds ticking away. The film could have easily cut twenty minutes and not lost much impact, if any. In fact, it may have helped Alexander Payne focus his story. The film attempts a bit of shock value for what it lacks in plot. The film has full frontal male nudity (lots of it), sexual content, lots of F bombs thrown together (which was a character inconsistency for me as well), drug use and death. This is not a film for children. The R rating from the MPAA was well deserved.

Downsizing had incredible potential. The film could have explored a million different opportunities of viewing the world from five inches tall. Instead, the story never found a focus. It meandered around, introduced interesting characters that never did anything truly interesting, and ended without delivering any substance. Lots of films have "open" endings. They allow the viewer to cogitate on what they have seen and determine what they think happened in the end. To be successful, a story like that must be focused first. This one was not. It was weak. The concept was brilliant, but the delivery lacked cohesion, focus, consistency and even credibility at times (given that you accept the broader premise). I am not going to recommend this film. It had some redeeming qualities, but not enough for a recommendation. I am dead even on this one. 5/10.