2017 "We are meant for something bigger."
5.8| 2h15m| R| en| More Info
Released: 22 December 2017 Released
Producted By: Paramount
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:

A kindly occupational therapist undergoes a new procedure to be shrunken to four inches tall so that he and his wife can help save the planet and afford a nice lifestyle at the same time.

Watch Online

Downsizing (2017) is now streaming with subscription on Prime Video


Alexander Payne

Production Companies



Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial
Watch Now
Downsizing Videos and Images
View All
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Downsizing Audience Reviews

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.
RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.
AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,
Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
crosbyp12003 I slept in the middle of the movie. Not grasping what I'm suppose to be getting waste of time, money and good actors.
ddelarueb Alexander Payne is definitely experimenting with this film. The result is somewhat a mixed bag. The concept is truly great. It is very interesting and it feels half baked once the film is over. This is due to the incredibly ambitious moves Payne chooses to make. Payne chooses to sacrifice some points of view or better introductions into some concepts rather than to dedicate time and smooth out some poor screenwriting decisions. An example is how Payne introduces the voting rights point of view. It is just a random man blurring out exposition. These instances provide some food for thought but are poorly introduced. The thing is that Payne does this so he can save time for other thematic decisions. He chooses to leave the audience wondering on how this idea would actually work. Payne brings up enough points if view to make the audience re-think such an idea would actually be plausible.The problem though, lies in a simple thing: time. A movie with such a concept can't have a decent runtime while still showcasing a very interesting concept as well as developing characters and building a strong story. Payne had the dilemma of choosing to leave some things out and leave others in. This concept would probably serve better in a tv show or in a variety of films. More time would let the film run more smoothly. Payne dedicated time at the beginning and that made it engaging, but as the film progresses, a lot of ideas start being introduces abs be can't help but be left wishing for more.An ending like the one it has was Payne attempting to bring even more to the table but the result is kind of a mess. Payne's very ambitious project succeeds in delivering relevant ideas and themes as well as making a satire on a lot of things on modern society. Where it fails is on trying it all together with strong characters, a well balanced story, and a sharp script that both doesn't feel forced and flows smoothly. I bet if Payne would have had more time, the film would have been flawless. I have to to give the film credit for its ambition, its creativity, and how it a entertaining, but in the long run, there are too many ideas, themes, and criticisms for one to stand out and make an impact. I could only wish for Payne to stick to one and develop it more. This could have easily been solved by taking away that ending and smooth the film out. Overall this was a very ambitious project with a lot of potential, but in order for all that's here to not be a mess, time is needed or things have to be cut. I give Payne credit because I enjoyed the film, I personally liked Hong Chau's character, and its themes were suprisingly interesting. Too bad the film could not speak for itself, develop it's themes, and make an impact on its own. This could have been a great film. I give it a 7.5/10
SnoopyStyle 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.
Thomas Joseph Depressing, pathetic waste of time. Matt Damon in his element as a loser wasting his life. No redeeming qualities to this movie, after they took an arguably thought-provoking premise and drove it over a cliff. Anyone who likes this movie has a downsized IQ. Do yourself a huge favor and AVOID this!!!