Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) in Movies
Nov 16, 2020
The first 10 or so minutes of Resident Evil: Apocalypse are quite good. Raccoon City in panic, Jill Valentine and Carlos Oliveira, a few mentions of this movies big bad - an adaption of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis is something I am keen for. The whole set up isn't too bad, and then we get to a scene set in a church, Jill Valentine surrounded by Lickers, completely out of ammo, and then...
Like a drunken gym bro shouting and flexing his way through a bar of people just trying to have a nice evening, Alice (Milla Jovovich) comes crashing through the churches paned glass window on a motorcycle, sub machine gun in each hand, whilst shitty rock music starts blasting out of the screen, and I am once again abruptly reminded why I hate these films.
I just about prefer Apocalypse over the first movie, but only because of the Resi 3 vibe. I also think Nemesis looks pretty badass when he finally appears, and the whole thing just feels closer to the source material than before, but other than that I find it hard to get on board with.
For starters, the editing is all over the place, and director Alexander Witt seems hellbent on adding a weird choppy slow motion effect to any scenes involving mass zombies. Later on in the film, Alice and Nemesis engage in hand to hand combat (ridiculous) where there are so many edits, it's genuinely hard to make out what the fuck is happening, and results in a stupidly underwhelming climax. (Some googling revealed to me that Witt's only other directing credits are Land Rover commercials, so this kind of all makes sense).
On the subject of Nemesis, yeah he looks the part, but I remember playing Resi 3 as a kid and it scared the shit out of me, and that was all because of Nemesis. A big, lumbering, unstoppable beast who just wants nothing more than to kill you dead. In this movie, he's more inclined to take the side of the good guys, and is sometime known to be called by his real name, Matt. I know they had to follow through on the "stinger" from the first film but come on, I don't want to hear Nemesis refered to as Matt.
Other than that, everything else is just a bit predictable and meh. It's way more action orientated than horror, and all the set pieces are uninspired and ripped off from other movies. None of the side characters are particularly memorable (and not even surprise Iain Glen can fix that) and in terms of plot, nothing really happens until the last 5 minutes. I will give props to Sienna Guillory who plays Jill Valentine. She honestly feels like she's straight out of the game series, which would usually feel a bit silly, but when she's the best thing Apocalypse has going for it, then I welcome her inclusion with open arms.
In conclusion, Apocalypse is a forgettable film that has fleeting moments of entertainment value. Maybe worth a watch just the once if you're a fan of Resi 3...
Like a drunken gym bro shouting and flexing his way through a bar of people just trying to have a nice evening, Alice (Milla Jovovich) comes crashing through the churches paned glass window on a motorcycle, sub machine gun in each hand, whilst shitty rock music starts blasting out of the screen, and I am once again abruptly reminded why I hate these films.
I just about prefer Apocalypse over the first movie, but only because of the Resi 3 vibe. I also think Nemesis looks pretty badass when he finally appears, and the whole thing just feels closer to the source material than before, but other than that I find it hard to get on board with.
For starters, the editing is all over the place, and director Alexander Witt seems hellbent on adding a weird choppy slow motion effect to any scenes involving mass zombies. Later on in the film, Alice and Nemesis engage in hand to hand combat (ridiculous) where there are so many edits, it's genuinely hard to make out what the fuck is happening, and results in a stupidly underwhelming climax. (Some googling revealed to me that Witt's only other directing credits are Land Rover commercials, so this kind of all makes sense).
On the subject of Nemesis, yeah he looks the part, but I remember playing Resi 3 as a kid and it scared the shit out of me, and that was all because of Nemesis. A big, lumbering, unstoppable beast who just wants nothing more than to kill you dead. In this movie, he's more inclined to take the side of the good guys, and is sometime known to be called by his real name, Matt. I know they had to follow through on the "stinger" from the first film but come on, I don't want to hear Nemesis refered to as Matt.
Other than that, everything else is just a bit predictable and meh. It's way more action orientated than horror, and all the set pieces are uninspired and ripped off from other movies. None of the side characters are particularly memorable (and not even surprise Iain Glen can fix that) and in terms of plot, nothing really happens until the last 5 minutes. I will give props to Sienna Guillory who plays Jill Valentine. She honestly feels like she's straight out of the game series, which would usually feel a bit silly, but when she's the best thing Apocalypse has going for it, then I welcome her inclusion with open arms.
In conclusion, Apocalypse is a forgettable film that has fleeting moments of entertainment value. Maybe worth a watch just the once if you're a fan of Resi 3...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
This little film has big shoes to fill
Alexander Payne was clearly vying for Oscars attention when it came to penning the screenplay for Downsizing. And why not, he’s certainly got form in the awards department. A two-time Oscar winner with a further three nominations, his films have been bold and topical.
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects it’ll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community — a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, there’s certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film I’ve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. It’s also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, it’s a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes – in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiig’s part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of “Leisureland” are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. I’m not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and that’s unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films you’ll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. It’s certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects it’ll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community — a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, there’s certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film I’ve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. It’s also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, it’s a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes – in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiig’s part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of “Leisureland” are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. I’m not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and that’s unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films you’ll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. It’s certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/
MisterMovieDude (2 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Dec 29, 2017 (Updated Dec 29, 2017)
Hong Chou (3 more)
The concept
The SFX
Has heart
Every actor except Hong Chou (2 more)
Run time
Pacing issues
Big Concept, comes up short
Contains spoilers, click to show
Going into Downsizing I was excited. I had seen all of Alexander Payne’s previous work, but couldn’t necessarily call myself a fan, but I had respect for him as a filmmaker. I had a feeling that this was going to feel more like stranger than fiction, or everything must go than the trailers and tv spots were making it seem. Unfortunately, I was right.
First off, the movie is obnoxiously long. I saw this and Jumanji as a double feature and while Jumanji was 15 minutes shorter, Downsizing felt like it lasted for about 5 hours too long. The pacing was way off as well. It felt like the movie was going pretty well, and then it just slowed to a crawl at times. I get why, because the writer and director were trying to set up story and tell an awards caliber story, but that was really unnecessary. We have a movie about shrinking people down to 5 inches and placing them into a whole new community. That is a great concept, and a concept that would have made a great comedy. It didn’t make a great dramedy.
Second, the acting was bad, well for everyone except Hong Chou. I don’t know who she is but I fell in love with her in this movie. They say that beauty is In the eye of the beholder, and man, she starts out rough, but by the end she ends up this sweet, beautiful soul. It was truly a “shes all that” type of situation, but internally, if that makes any sense. The other actors just played themselves. Damon played himself, Christoph played the same character as he did in the Green Hornet(I know, we all wish we can forget he was in that too). Jason Sudeikis and NPH were in it for literally two seconds a piece, which was unfortunate, and once Wiig leaves the movie, it slows to a crawl.
I didn’t hate the movie. It had its moments, but I feel like the could have told the same movie and leave out the downsizing concept, and have two pretty decent movies with them being separate. What this is, is matt Damon finding himself after his wife backed out. Thats it. How he copes with his irreversible decision, and his story in “Liesure Land”, the community he lives in after being down sized.
Jokes don’t land, it’s too long and its poorly acted, but Hong, she is something special. I’ve never left a movie I hated before and still wanted to see a sequel because I wanted to see more of her characters story, so for that reason I recommend this movie.
There won’t be a sequel, but it’s already basically a prequel to the borrowers. You’ll see why, if you see it.
First off, the movie is obnoxiously long. I saw this and Jumanji as a double feature and while Jumanji was 15 minutes shorter, Downsizing felt like it lasted for about 5 hours too long. The pacing was way off as well. It felt like the movie was going pretty well, and then it just slowed to a crawl at times. I get why, because the writer and director were trying to set up story and tell an awards caliber story, but that was really unnecessary. We have a movie about shrinking people down to 5 inches and placing them into a whole new community. That is a great concept, and a concept that would have made a great comedy. It didn’t make a great dramedy.
Second, the acting was bad, well for everyone except Hong Chou. I don’t know who she is but I fell in love with her in this movie. They say that beauty is In the eye of the beholder, and man, she starts out rough, but by the end she ends up this sweet, beautiful soul. It was truly a “shes all that” type of situation, but internally, if that makes any sense. The other actors just played themselves. Damon played himself, Christoph played the same character as he did in the Green Hornet(I know, we all wish we can forget he was in that too). Jason Sudeikis and NPH were in it for literally two seconds a piece, which was unfortunate, and once Wiig leaves the movie, it slows to a crawl.
I didn’t hate the movie. It had its moments, but I feel like the could have told the same movie and leave out the downsizing concept, and have two pretty decent movies with them being separate. What this is, is matt Damon finding himself after his wife backed out. Thats it. How he copes with his irreversible decision, and his story in “Liesure Land”, the community he lives in after being down sized.
Jokes don’t land, it’s too long and its poorly acted, but Hong, she is something special. I’ve never left a movie I hated before and still wanted to see a sequel because I wanted to see more of her characters story, so for that reason I recommend this movie.
There won’t be a sequel, but it’s already basically a prequel to the borrowers. You’ll see why, if you see it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Syriana (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Oil, is perhaps the most precious natural resource on the planet and also one of the most controversial. It powers industry and the economies of many nations, yet the regions that contain the largest amounts are often the most unstable, and this instability often results from the influences of the very nations that purchase the oil.
It is a tenuous situation where buyer and seller are wary of one another and at times regard the other as a necessary evil. The money paid for the oil has made suppliers and handlers rich and powerful, but many on the outside of this privileged circle believe that greed has caused both sides to lose focus on what is most important for the people of their nations.
In the film Syriana viewers follow the paths of different people from various walks of life who for the most part do not know one another, yet are all linked by the same cause, oil.
There is the C.I.A. agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney), who spends time in locales such as Iran and Beirut eliminating threats to national security.
A lawyer, (Jeffrey Wright), who is caught in the middle as he attempts to find, and if need be eliminate damaging material that can prevent a pending merger between two oil companies.
There is the grieving energy analyst Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), who deals with his loss by siding up with a powerful Prince, (Alexander Siddig), even at the alienation of his family.
There is also a displaced Pakistani worker who after losing his job when a Chinese company acquires the refinery where he worked, falls in with a group of radicals with a militant agenda.
The above is just a small sampling of the characters as there are numerous business, political, and Middle Eastern citizens who all play very prominent parts in the story.
The main focus of the film is not only to illustrate the connectivity between the characters but to show how politics and big business influence policy in oil rich nations and how through secret deals, political intrigue, and treachery policy in and towards the same oil producing nations are set into place and maintained.
While this is not much of a shock to people who follow the news, it is the way that director Stephen Gaghan uses ordinary and in some ways unremarkable people to tell the story and how it affects those who deal with oil.
Even those who are supposed the big players are often simply being played by forces outside their control in a world where reality and perceptions are often miles apart. The complex nature of the story is actually a model of simplicity as cause and effect, as well as the ability of big business to influence lawmakers is what drives the film.
The cast is strong especially Clooney and Siddig who make their characters sympathetic while at the same time captivating. The contrast of the men who are a Prince and an agent, yet whose destinies often cause them to walk along the same paths is amazing.
Syriana is an amazing film that is so complex in its simplicity. The basic message is very clear, yet the layers that must be uncovered like a tangled web of lies in telling the story is a far reaching journey that will shock and anger most viewers.
Some may find fault with a so called liberal agenda to the film, but politics aside, Syriana is a very captivating and entertaining film that makes you think.
It is a tenuous situation where buyer and seller are wary of one another and at times regard the other as a necessary evil. The money paid for the oil has made suppliers and handlers rich and powerful, but many on the outside of this privileged circle believe that greed has caused both sides to lose focus on what is most important for the people of their nations.
In the film Syriana viewers follow the paths of different people from various walks of life who for the most part do not know one another, yet are all linked by the same cause, oil.
There is the C.I.A. agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney), who spends time in locales such as Iran and Beirut eliminating threats to national security.
A lawyer, (Jeffrey Wright), who is caught in the middle as he attempts to find, and if need be eliminate damaging material that can prevent a pending merger between two oil companies.
There is the grieving energy analyst Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), who deals with his loss by siding up with a powerful Prince, (Alexander Siddig), even at the alienation of his family.
There is also a displaced Pakistani worker who after losing his job when a Chinese company acquires the refinery where he worked, falls in with a group of radicals with a militant agenda.
The above is just a small sampling of the characters as there are numerous business, political, and Middle Eastern citizens who all play very prominent parts in the story.
The main focus of the film is not only to illustrate the connectivity between the characters but to show how politics and big business influence policy in oil rich nations and how through secret deals, political intrigue, and treachery policy in and towards the same oil producing nations are set into place and maintained.
While this is not much of a shock to people who follow the news, it is the way that director Stephen Gaghan uses ordinary and in some ways unremarkable people to tell the story and how it affects those who deal with oil.
Even those who are supposed the big players are often simply being played by forces outside their control in a world where reality and perceptions are often miles apart. The complex nature of the story is actually a model of simplicity as cause and effect, as well as the ability of big business to influence lawmakers is what drives the film.
The cast is strong especially Clooney and Siddig who make their characters sympathetic while at the same time captivating. The contrast of the men who are a Prince and an agent, yet whose destinies often cause them to walk along the same paths is amazing.
Syriana is an amazing film that is so complex in its simplicity. The basic message is very clear, yet the layers that must be uncovered like a tangled web of lies in telling the story is a far reaching journey that will shock and anger most viewers.
Some may find fault with a so called liberal agenda to the film, but politics aside, Syriana is a very captivating and entertaining film that makes you think.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Overpopulation is a growing problem in the world and two Doctors, Dr. Jorgen Asbjornsen (Rolf Lassgard) and Dr. Andreas Jacobsen (Soren Pilmark) have found what they believe is the answer. The have discovered how to shrink all kinds of living matter, including humans. Asbjornsen and a group of volunteers are shrunk and live for years before showing the world. They believe that they can help solve the worlds hunger crisis as well as overpopulation. When occupational therapist Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) first hears of this he is fascinated with the idea of doing something grand to help save the world. But it isn’t until years later when he and his wife, Audrey Safranek (Kristen Wiig), run into an old college friend, Dave Johnson (Jason Sudeikis), who has been shrunk that he realizes he might be able to have a better life at four inches tall. Because of how cheap everything is to build for new tiny people there is an opportunity to live lavishly on meager means. The Safrankek’s have been struggling to get by and really be able enjoy life. When they hear that their hundreds of thousands could be millions they see this as their chance to live the luxury life. The head out to Leisureland Estates, a tiny community, to see what the small world has to offer. After the visit they are convinced and decide to go through with the procedure and begin the irreversible process of becoming “small.” On the operation date they go to separate areas to get completely shaved and prepped. When Paul wakes up he is surprised that Audrey is not with him and she has decided she cannot go through the irreversible process. After his divorce he is left alone trying to find himself and where he fits in a whole new world, at a whole new size.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tiny People, Big Mess.
From the trailer this film looked quirky, funny and interesting and has been on my “looking forward to” list for many months. Oh dear, what a let down.
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!