Tes habilités de critique... C'est de la vraie merde ce qui est écrit ici.

First things first… sorry for the bumpiness the past month. The site is now successfully moved to much much better hosting (cough – godaddy sucks – cough) and its nice to see the site responsive again. So with that, let’s get to talking about movies again!!

Here on THiNC. I make a concerted effort to try and bring you movie tips for movies worth your while. I consider myself something of a Thinking Man’s Movie Recommendation Service. Of sorts. So implicit in that? I don’t really talk about bad movies much. When I watch a movie car crash, I avert my eyes and move on. I don’t generally post a review and trash it. (Warcraft being an enormous exception to that particular rule… oh holy mother of all that is good and holy, what happened there? Anyway. I digress.)  But occasionally, read rarely, you come across Ishtar levels of bad and it is worth talking about. And Downsizing, is literally Ishtar levels of bad. And yet, it’s a really really fascinating car crash at the same time. So heck. I say we talk about what they did, and maybe what they were possibly trying to do.

First things first, this discussion is going to walk through the movie in detail. I personally don’t mind spoiling this movie for you, because I would be doing you a service to keep you out of the theater, and even averting disaster for you at the Redbox would be a win in my book. So no trailer. So no, you don’t have to leave if you haven’t seen the movie yet. But know, I plan to dive deep on this movie. Ok?

Downsizing Car Crash Overview

I’m sure you’ve seen the trailer for this movie already. Even if you haven’t seen the movie, you know what it’s about. A couple, not able to afford the house that they want, encounter this new, irreversible technology, that allows you to downsize to 5 inches tall. This in turn, would allow them to buy a McMansion and live the amazing life they always wanted for a tenth of the price. And when I originally saw the trailer, I expected sort of a funny, Honey I Shrunk the Kids sort of a movie with a social/eco consciousness message to it. Maybe? I expected a diatribe about the planet and harm to the planet our materialism and our myopic selfishness are causing.

Nope. Nothing could be further from the truth. But we’ll get to that in a minute.

Paul Safranek, (played by Matt Damon) and his wife, Audrey (played by Kristen Wiig) decide they are going to downsize in order to live a better life materially. Only glitch? When Paul wakes up from the fairly invasive procedure, Audrey backed out. And did I mention already that the procedure is irreversible? Right, so Paul is screwed. That’s juke 1.

Off Paul goes to his little people community. It’s a bubbled off universe where only little people are welcome. And from there, Paul then spends the next 30 to 40 minutes learning about this new little world, and sulking his way through the movie really doing nothing. Full disclosure – Now, please forgive me if I get some of the plot details wrong. I was completely in pain throughout, and may have been even checking my email, and trying to find other things to do as the movie rolled. – end Full Disclosure. But somewhere along the line (don’t think it was in the movie anywhere) Paul decided to sell his Barbie Mansion and get an apartment. (Did anyone see that actually happen? Did I just miss that?) And I think he did that because he was feeling lonely? Didn’t need the payments?

Paul goes to work as a call center rep for L.L. Bean? Land’s End? He talks to his fellow littles about the dangers of repetitive stress syndrome. He goes on dates and is rejected out of hand. Paul literally wanders through the movie bumping off of people left and right. Eventually he meets Dusan Mirkovic, a party animal socialite next door neighbor. The two strike up a bit of a friendship and from that, Paul meets Ngoc Lan Tran a Vietnamese little person that survived fleeing from Vietnam in a Television box when 25 others die horribly in the shipment. (No, I cannot help you here. You are on your own.)

Ngoc mistakes Paul for a doctor (he’s a physical therapist of sorts) and hauls him to come help her “friend”. Ngoc then basically kills her friend with a “funny” overdose of Percocet? And then Paul destroys Ngoc’s prosthetic leg, and is now indebted to Ngoc – and so he begins helping her with her cleaning business. And in the process, continues assisting all the other “friends” of Ngoc’s who have very sad needs brought on both by their smallness and by their poverty. Because, woah! There are poor people in Little World!?!? What?!

But Paul can’t tell Ngoc he’s done. So he gets his friend Dusan, to make a cover story that they are going to go to Europe for some odd reason or other. But wait! Ngoc has been invited to go and speak Europe as a dissident and activist, so she’ll come too! So they are now going with her, and who is she going to meet? But the inventor of the downsizing process. I kid you not. And so off they go on a European Vacation for little people to a little valley out in the real world where only little people live. And better yet? This weekend, was the weekend where all of the village was heading underground to avoid the coming apocalypse imminent from enormous levels of methane coming up out of the earth’s crust. (Did I even get that right? That makes no sense to me when I type it out.) And Paul, he’s falling for Ngoc now. But he just KNOWS he needs to go into this underground arc.

But he runs out at the last minute, and declares his love for Ngoc… the end.

WHAT THE HECK WAS THAT Downsizing Creators?

As far as scripts go, I have never seen anything like this script. It is rambling and lacking in point. But maybe I just missed some key tell? I mean, let’s just forget the fact that this movie is interminable, boring, and unintelligible… that is a different problem. I’m just trying to make heads or tails out of this thing philosophically.

The summary on IMDB calls it a social satire… but on what? A satire on our materialism? No. A satire on technology and our cluelessness as to its impacts? No. A satire on our society’s lemming mentality? Maybe. But, not really? If anything it was a character study of someone buffeted by the whims and speculations of society desperate for meaning and desperate for clarity.

Problems with Downsizing Special Effects

Can I say this, Rick Moranis and his Honey I Shrunk the Kids series of movies did more justice to downsizing than Downsizing did. In Damon’s movie, once or twice we see the effects of being small which are just played out with green screen overlays, but generally, the movie doesn’t address the impact smallifying yourself would have. Everything is perfect. That’s about it. But it’s all still real.

Let me put it this way, the creators of Downsizing assume that modern technology can create everything at normal sizes perfectly at smaller sizes. Houses aren’t barbie houses increased. Cars are plastic replicas, biggified. The sets are all just gorgeous neighborhoods. And that is the extent of it. Sure, we jump forward 15 to 20 years in time. But seriously? I’d expect to see some of the downsizing effects played out somehow more specifically.

What Does the Movie Downsizing Mean?

This discussion about the movie has so far been all over the map. Special effects. Script discussions. Zeitgeist chaos and questions. But here’s where it all pulls into a coherent bundle where we all, in Ishtar-like fascination, try and guess at what the heck the creators of Downsizing were trying to do. So, with that in mind… I have assembled a few of the best theories to explain this car crash of a script.

Theory 1 – The Eco Friendly Downsizing

The most obvious, elementary school reading of this movie is that Alexander Payne took the small house idea and flipped it on its head. Instead of just decreasing our global footprint square footage by buying less, farming more, etc. he surmised as to what would happen if we literally shrunk ourselves and smallified our global impact.

Problems with Theory 1 – Well, the first problem with the most obvious reading of this movie is that the movie counters this theory very well itself. There is one scene where a half drunk guy in a bar spews venom at smallified individuals for depressing the housing market, the job market, and the economy over all. By making 10 or 20% of your world population small you immediately decrease production needs by that percentage… or close to it. Which then causes markets to drag and even crash as a result.

Downsizing, the movie, also points out that no matter how small people become, you will always have the poorer, and the less fortunate among you. By shrinking you don’t guarantee that this world wide problem of the haves and the have nots will go away. It will always be an issue. So if I’m going to be poor, I might as well be big and poor simultaneously.

Theory 2 – The Counter Revolutionary Downsizing

Now let’s give this movie all kinds of extra chord… but will it hang itself with that much rope? What if Mr. Payne was writing a counter revolutionary pamphlet? Something on the order of Thomas Payne’s ‘Common Sense’ maybe? A call to revolution, a call to a massive change to the order of things in order to solve societal problems that Alexander Payne sees in the world. Not just pollution and ocean levels, but the inbound end of the world. And Mr. Payne has written here a treatise on how to avoid the obvious end of the world he sees clearly coming.

Problems with Theory 2 – Oh man, there are too many to count here. To say that this movie is serious on any front defies all sanity. But I wish Payne had gone the Payne route. (woah.) I wish he had gone all in on this movie and given us something meaty to think about. But Paul Safranek is such a unworthy vessel to carry this message. Paul doesn’t care about pamphlets or world cataclysms. He has a hard enough finding someone to take him or his troubles seriously. Let alone teach the audience how to live our lives in such a way as to avoid global catastrophe.  No. This theory isn’t even worth ones and zeros I typed it out on.

Theory 3 – The Suburbicon Misfire of Downsizing

This isn’t really a theory as its more of an observation. Suburbicon was fantastic as cutting social and racial observation of America at large. It took an amazing moment in history (the Levittown suburb housing complex incidents), folded in a fictional murder, and voila, Clooney had the workings of an amazing New York Times Op-Ed piece for thinking men and women everywhere.

Could it be that Alexander Payne was reaching for the stars of Op-Ed fame-dom and just wiped out along the way? Could the goal have been a societal commentary shedding light on our eco-unfriendliness and our societal chaos towards being anything other than me-focused? (To blend elements of Theory 1 and 2 simultaneously?

The Problems With Theory 3

Long and short of it? This theory gives way too much credit to Payne and minimizes the achievements of Suburbicon. Which, I doubt many enjoyed, but most could have learned from. Did you know that was based on reality? But Downsizing? What reality are we going after here? What windmill exactly is Payne tilting at? It is nothing and everything. There is no distinguishable idea here that can be spotted and identified here. It is a wandering miasmic chaos from beginning to end.

Theory 4 – Learning the Good Life – Downsizing

One of the problems with Downsizing, as I mentioned in the previous theory, is Paul Safranek. He is a horrible, witless person. He and his wife decide they cannot afford the plush life they deserve and so they head to the downsizing world. But Mrs. Safranek ditches Paul at the altar of the operating table.

Shouldn’t this story be renamed The Jilting of Granny Weatherall?

Then he begins his life of social obligation and frantic assistance of Ngoc who forces him to help out of social debt. It’s almost like he is a social showman forced into a life sentence of good works to pay off an ever growing debt he can never afford to pay off.

HRMMM.

Could it be that Paul is being mentored by Mister Miyagi? Wax ON! Wax OFF! Huh. Is Ngoc teaching him how to live the good life through repetition and senseless actions? Is the audience being taught muscle memory on how to make the world a better place? So that one day we’ll accidentally act instead of running for the cover our comfy couches and our bigscreen TVs? Could it be?

The Problems with Theory 4 – Ok, so this one is getting a little closer to something. The entire 2nd half of the movie follows Paul and Ngoc as they run around the Barrio of Smallville helping an endless array of people in need. It all starts with an assisted suicide. And quickly heads into providing meals to those who haven’t had a meal. And marches off into Paul becoming a full blow physician as no one else will make the effort to help the people who are so badly in need of it. This is something I can get behind. True religion after all is the widow, the orphan and the impoverished.

But to blow a hole in this theory wider than Texas, I have to wonder why if it really is about the needs of others first and the impoverished in every community, why did Downsizing abruptly leave this community? If it was really about finding those in need around you, why did they leave them when Paul was only just starting to learn this lesson?!? No. This is not the point of this particular movie… or if it is, they were horribly fickle with this particular point.

Theory 5 – The Noah’s Ark of Downsizing

As Downsizing crashes its way towards the meandering ending we leave Ngoc’s land of familiar and head to meet the creator of the Downsized world, Dr. Jorgen Asbjørnsen. In effect, Paul is going to meet God. Or, at least, a god like figure. The demi-god of Downsizing anyway. But when they finally meet him we learn that he believes that the world is about to end. Something about massive amounts of methane and gas being released? I literally have no idea, and couldn’t be bothered to figure out what it was getting at. The point here that matters is that Paul’s creator believes the world is ending.

Right? So much so that the littles (oh come on, that was funny) have created an underground ark to ride out the storm. And Paul?!? Oh my gosh! He’s in. He has to go! I mean, God is calling him. This can’t be a coincidence! (He literally says this. I am not, I cannot, make this stuff up.) So he tries to convince that Ngoc should come. But she isn’t having any of it. Oh well. Gotta go. Bye! But when he finds out that it’s 9 months of walking to get to the Ark, suddenly he thinks better of it and turns around.

Wait, WHAT?!?

So God spoke. And Paul tried to follow through but it was hard, and lonely, so he bailed? In this Ark theory of Downsizing we see that Downsizing really is about Paul’s learning to stop listening to everyone else but himself, including god. He listened to the whims of society and got 86’d and marooned in Smallville. He listened to the whims of Ngoc and unthinkingly was ordered around if even for a good cause. But his heart wasn’t in that either. Then with the ending, he listened to the god of the littles and followed their advice even when he knew it was wrong.

So this Ark theory means basically just argues that the entire movie, the littling, the Ngoc’ing, the Arking, was all about Paul just learning to make decisions for himself. To just stand up for himself and do what he thought was right instead of everyone else.

The Problems with Theory 5 – I got nothing to say this theory is wrong. Save for the rest of this scatter shot movie. If this was the point, then they could have done it without the Downsizing. That literally didn’t even need to be in the movie. He and his wife could have purchased a house out of state, and she just decided she didn’t want to go. But financially Paul couldn’t get himself off the hook so he goes. And then Ngoc obliges him to help others, which he does. And then, Paul meets his favorite author, a Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Jorgen Asbjørnsen, who tells him of his Ark that he’s built… Downsizing doesn’t have to be in this movie. And it would have removed a highly distracting aspect of an already distracted movie. I don’t know. I got nothing for you.

Final thoughts on Downsizing

3,000 words. I have spewed 3,000 words of vitriol at a movie I disliked very much. But why? Solely because I wanted it, very badly, to have a point. ANY POINT would do. Pick one. The acting was nigh on irrelevant. The script was worse than Pirates of the Caribbeans 5… which is hard to do. The “humor” was humorless. The special effects were irrelevant and unmemorable.  But at the very least, if you are going to make a satire, make it about SOMETHING. I still literally don’t know if they were making fun of the small house fad, or even if they were making fun of eco-friendly crusaders… which, makes no sense to me whatsoever. I’m still left guessing as to its point. But I think this quote from Payne succinctly summarizes the problem of this movie:

“We’re not political filmmakers per se. We weren’t setting out to make a movie about overpopulation and climate change. But I thought
 it would only be decent of me to do something with some kind of political consciousness to it…”

So apparently Payne thought it decent to spend 70 million on a half assed movie with “a bit of a political consciousness to it”? So maybe it really is about over population and climate change? Gack. Awful. Is that really what it was about? Do you have any ideas?

Related Posts

25 Responses

  1. Jetta

    You, sir, have exercised all the plot-theory demons that wanted to infest my brain after watching Downsizing. Whew! So simple. I can breathe again because there was no plot, there was no theory! I am not stupid, the film was. Props to you for a valiant effort of trying to root out any teeny, tiny semblance of messaging within this film.
    P.S.: have no idea who or what taylorholmes.com is, but I am intrigued. Began my own rereading of bible 5+ years ago (raised Lutheran), and my life has never been the same – in a good way.

    Reply
    • Taylor

      Hey Jetta,
      Super cool on both fronts. But first,yeah, I’m not quite sure what it is either, but it has become a great way to meet cool people (like yourself) and dialogue about a million different intriguing things (even if one of those intriguing things are just about downsizing’s LACK of any common sense). Personally didn’t expect this post to ever see the light of day by anyone. Assumed the SEO gods would curse a post like this. Or heck, I have half a reason to believe that Damon himself would walk down from on high and smite this posting somehow someway. (Which would have been enjoyable to watch happen.)

      So woot woot! This post got a comment!! And triple woot, it was by Jetta! Hahaha. Anyway… thanks for the comment and for the PS. Which is the best PS ever by the way. Congrats to you! Don’t be a stranger! We talk about lots of actually GOOD movies out here. Find one, watch it, and join in.

      Thanks again for the comment. Made my day.

      Reply
  2. Aaron

    Great article. I came here looking for answers, and even though you gave me loads, i still haven’t got the answer I want. I simply don’t think there is an answer to this movie as to what is really going on.
    However at the start you mention about his moving to an apartment. I think it was the scene with the divorce lawyer saying ‘you should, have taken our first offer.’ I assume he lost a lot of money in the divorce settlement and now had to work at the call centre, and couldn’t afford the lavish mansion.
    Keep writing, i enjoyed reading.

    Reply
    • Taylor Holmes

      Hey Aaron,
      Thanks for the encouragement. To be 100% honest with you… I really don’t think there is an answer here. Personally? I believe that the writers and creators of Downsizing, mainly Alex Payne, were wanting to create an eco-friendly satire attempting to comment on the world and this obsession. That’s it. Full stop. But in making it a satire, they were seemed as making fun of those that were eco-friendly and who were literally attempting to downsize their eco-footprint, which they probably began to realize too late, and then this attempt to get this back on track only rippled into other chaos and other chains of events that just became nonsensical in the extreme. That’s what I think happened.

      But no one can really know for sure. It’d be interesting to try and track down different versions of the screenplay in order to try and see where the changes and iterations were, in order to see how they got to this steaming pile. At the end of the day though? I just can’t even see it being worthwhile.

      Just my two cents.

      Reply
  3. Geoff

    Taylor- you nailed it.

    We watched it wondering if it was a failed comedy. I guessed the Vietnamese women and a couple of the Norwegians were non actors, or at least directed to be so.

    Half the time you forgot they were miniature-

    And the stump massaging seduction scene- WHAT??!!!

    Indiewires review is so kind/ completely and utterly wrong they suggest Annoying Voice for a best Supporting Actress nomination…

    Reply
  4. Nathan

    I thought it was trying to say that one can try to run away from the world’s problems, but in the end, the same problems are everywhere. What’s his name, the partying European neighbor, even mentions that this will be the case in the tunnel. Because of this, we should always try to look out for the poor and less fortunate in order to make the world we have a better place instead of thinking the grass will be greener on the other side.

    In defense of your article, I became very bored at times and multitasked. However, I took that as the political satirical message it was trying to convey.

    Reply
  5. Taylor Holmes

    You definitely don’t have to defend my post, I honestly was wondering what they were thinking. Like, really. I wanted to know how they thought this was going to work. But I see what you are selling about trouble being everywhere. I think I mentioned that didn’t I? Can’t remember what I wrote. But regardless, yes, that is one true bit that they might have been trying to convey.

    Reply
  6. Shelby

    My impression of the movie fits into my personal “meaning of life,” that is, that love and friendship is all that matters.

    The movie was well below average but that’s the message I got and I fully agree with it. Like how Cooper (Interstellar) should’ve stayed home.

    Reply
  7. Lisa

    This was not the greatest movie by far. I think the journey was actually an eleven hour walk into the ark and not nine months. They could have made this a good movie if they would have Actually put some thought into it.

    Reply
  8. Susan

    I also glad I am not alone in my confusion about what this movie was about and the aimlessness/indecisiveness of Paul Safranek… However, Nathan’s observations that you can’t run away from your problems and that life isn’t always greener on the other side definitely rings true. There were still small people who were poor, sick, who got divorced, who were still looking for something to make them “happy” (drug scene), and had fears just like the big people.

    Reply
  9. Skinny

    The first thing I reacted on was the biological aspect. Small creatures cannot produce sound like big creatures. Voices would be like chipmunks.

    And how would they ever not bump into any animal? Birds big like planes, rats like elephants, insects would attack from all angles. No it never made any sense at all.

    And if you could just sell everything and live a lazy life in luxury, wouldn’t the queue be huge, making a colossal impact on the economy? Who would benefit from that in the end?

    Terrible movie. Can I have my 90minutes back please?

    Reply
  10. Greg

    I almost didn’t watch this movie because the trailer clued me in to his wife not downsizing, so I figured it would be an indie-comedy (read – downer). I finally decided to give it a shot, and am so glad I did!

    I actually came here looking for a review by you because I know you’re a thinker, and was tired of all the bad reviews. I was surprised and a bit bummed to read your take on it… but it’s okay, I still love you 😛

    While you were reading your email, you missed a critical part – the reason he lost the mansion was due to the divorce. Also, he had to take a crap job because he wasn’t expecting to have to work, so he let his P.T. license expire. Could he have taken the bull by the horns and improved his situation? sure, but who of us is perfect at that? not to mention coming up is not what this story was about.

    I completely disagree with your take on the sci-fi aspect needing to be explored to the nth degree. I’ve read tons of old sci-fi from the likes of Asimov, Dick, and Clarke (just to name a few), that used sci-fi concepts merely to tell a human story, or to approach current societal issues. It’s always fun when a story explores all the facets of a concept, but that’s just one option.

    It is my opinion that the intent of this story was to tell everyone that being nice is a good thing. It’s not just good, it’s enough. It is popular in this day and age to be PC, to be ruthless, to be all-accepting, to be selfish, clever, quirky, larger than life… but it’s not okay to be good. It makes people uncomfortable because a good, nice person reflects on others their own shortcomings and baggage. It’s popular to tear them down to our level and/or cast them out to the fringes of society.

    Meanwhile, a sort of forced PC mindfulness is popular right now… let’s all go live in a cave and save humanity. Except that’s not good or nice. It’s hive-mind drink the kool-ade burn you at the stake scary shit.

    The world took advantage of the protagonist’s chill, good, nice nature. He wanted to be accepted, but he thought he had to do a, b, c, or d to have his nature be accepted. The journey he took in this story led him to understand that it’s okay to just be himself. It was good. It was enough, and it was fulfilling.

    Another aspect of this story was the social commentary. How true and human it is to continue on with the rich/poor, us/them, border walls kind of mentality when a scientific breakthrough has the capacity to enrich everyone’s lives.

    Another part that I just loved, on a personal level, was that the protagonist’s love interest was very non-PC, but very realistic. I have worked with a number of people from various asian countries who speak and act very similarly. I respect them, and have great friendships with many of them. They have seen shit I can’t imagine, are as tough as nails, uprooted in often desperate circumstances, and moved to a country where they didn’t know the language. They learned english, broken as it was in the movie, and got good jobs. It upsets me that modern Hollywood feels the need to pretend like these people don’t exist – like it’s somehow shameful. I don’t think Scarlett Johansson should play Major Motoko Kusanagi, and it is wonderful how far we’ve come from the days of Mickey Rooney playing the popular (at the time) American stereotype of a chinese man, but let’s not pretend like real people don’t exist. There is a beautiful variety of people, and we are all wonderful.

    It’s okay to be good and nice… and it’s enough.

    Reply
    • Taylor Holmes

      Hey there Greg,
      Sorry to disappoint. I will literally give you every single point that you make. All of them. But I just couldn’t handle the circuitous path this movie takes. That was my big gripe. I didn’t mind the acting. I didn’t mind the special effects. But the fact that this movie had no idea what it wanted to be, really drove me bonkers. Comedy? Indie? Spiritual advice? Philosophical? I just couldn’t wrap my brain around it.

      But please know, as someone that loves being different when it comes to movies, I don’t expect you to agree with me at all. I’m just one guy spewing thoughts. And I appreciated hearing your take on why you dug it… and especially your final sentence, I agree with that. But thanks for swinging through and letting me know I got one wrong! hahaha.

      Taylor

      Reply
  11. Amy

    Completely agree with you. I’m almost done with it now and I’m so bored.

    I hardly laughed, didnt cry or smile, wasn’t much to think about.

    The best part of the movie was the Vietnamese lady. That felt like the only story and the only character who made me laugh briefly. They should have focused on that.

    Most scenes felt pointless, like the movie.

    It was way too long! They should have cut the first 35 minutes and began with wife and husband going in.

    It took itself way to seriously for a premise that is scientifically laughable.

    It beat me over the head with environment conservation.

    Am not liking it at all. People say can I have my 90minutes back. Nope, it was 135! Give me 135 back!

    Reply
  12. lindsay

    my wife & I stopped 70 mins into this movie ; we both admitted to hating this film to each other , a an absolute struggle to watch. Not a single likeable character . Like yourself I now feel the need to warn others from this. Except it is a great option for christmas presents for those you don’t like.

    Reply
  13. Alissa

    I was intrigued but left me more questions than answers like why wouldn’t the big people give the little people who were living in shacks some sort of welfare I mean a lump sum would have been enough and they could have still worked . Also should they have the right to vote? So do they get interest or pay taxes also how many big people are needed to make the world self sustaining as title people s some would be needed to built the domes etc . What is the outcome in later years do cease to become a citizen what is the rules forced shrinking of criminals to save if jail space ? Like it could be used so very wrong like international spy’s etc. Could have made it into like a mini series

    Reply
  14. LMS

    Did I fall asleep or did they explain this… Who caused the explosion at the cave? And how did they know it was going to happen and try and hide from it?

    Reply
  15. Bettie Milder

    This was one of the ‘new’ movies on Hulu. So sorry I wasted my time…actually, it was so bad I watched it over a 3 day period…so I wasted my timeS. There was no need to waste time at the beginning of the movie telling a totally different story about the scientist and him saving the planet by inventing a ‘shrink-ray’ thingy. What was the point of showing Matt Damon and him living with his mother and having to give her a shot??? What was the purpose of this scene??? She dies…and…cut to him married and living in the same house??? So??? Gawd, I absolutely effin’ hated this movie!

    Reply
  16. Ben

    The only thing worse about the movie is reading all of this, couldn’t do it but probably agree with most of it that it could have been funny or at least a good netflix burner when in between watching other series. But, it is like they switched directors half way through and did not tell the second guy about the first part. WTF? This is just a bad movie with a funny idea. They (*&$ed up when the wife left. Thats it I am done.

    Reply
  17. chris k

    So as far as why he sold the mansion was because apparently in the 2 seconds we spent with the divorce lawyer she was able to get a lot more of the money than half apparently even though she left him there. So he had to “downsize” to the apt and the shitty job.

    They could of made it about how he gets back on his feet by his neighbor helping pay for his medical school or something. maybe threw a few scary scenes in there with an ant or something that gets past the netting (which no netting is impervious).
    Even something more interesting that a weird ending where you meet up the specific day that those people are going underground for 8k years even though there would be plenty of time to still hang out on the surface until it gets really bad.

    And then the ending of him just looking at the old man for a minute contemplating something wtf. this doesnt make sense its like somebody put together one path from a choose your own adventure book and thought that would be the right path when theres a few better story paths.

    Reply
  18. B

    I didn’t see it because the billboards made it look like a movie about office administrative procedures but…
    Some people are masochists and want to see see this sort of thing. But it needs to be presented with a storyline, which I think was as you said; Paul learning to make decisions for himself, the environmental question, and the socio-economic drama

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.