'Materialists' review

I admit; I was hoping for more of a rom-con than a rom-com by 'The End'

Spoiler Alert

This is a review of the new movie Materialists and try as I might, I can’t review it without giving spoilers. So please, beware.

And another warning; the film deals with sexual abuse and sexual violence. I haven’t seen that overly addressed elsewhere, so if those are tiggers for you; maybe give the movie a miss (especially for the fairly blasé way that storyline is treated).

Past Lives

When I tell you, I loved Celine Song’s 2023 movie Past Lives, I mean I *loved* it and think about it at least once a week, rewatch it constantly, and am always chasing a similar heart-crushing, yearning-high that the move elicited in me.

I wrote an appreciation post on Instagram, after my first watch, if you care to look.

So I was really excited to hear that Celine Song had a new movie coming out in 2025 - and with a stacked class, to boot! I saw Materialists recently and I am so disappointed by how disappointed I was. That it was a “fine” movie. Just “okay.” And more sadly, that I don’t think Celine Song had a lot to say, with this one …

Materialist values

First of all, a break-down;

A young, ambitious New York City matchmaker finds herself torn between the perfect match and her imperfect ex.

Dakota Johnson plays Lucy, a matchmaker for New York’s elite (who join the ‘Adore’ agency with recurring fees, until they meet their match). She meets Pedro Pascal’s Harry at the wedding of a woman she matched with his brother - he works in private equity and is rich ($12-million penthouse apartment in Tribeca, rich!). Harry is what Adore agency refer to as a “unicorn” - full package; full head of hair, good looking, good height, impressive salary, comes from a happy family, ready to settle down, doesn’t drink or do drugs … he also presents Lucy’s ideal and the one person she might just break her “voluntary celibacy” for. Because Lucy’s one quality she really wants in a man is; rich. He’s gotta be rich. And she’s open about this. She was born poor, raised poor, and dated a poor actor she loved for 5-years; and who she bumps into again at the same wedding (working catering), Chris Evans as John.

What unfolds is a love-triangle that sometimes feels like a pyramid-scheme for the wedding industry and women just “settling”, unfortunately. Because Lucy does choose, in the end. And the internet has been mad about the choices ever since the trailer dropped. If I can distill the essence of the pre-emptive complaints into one video, it’s this;

Throughout the film, there’s a recurring discussion-point about “value” in a relationship. Comforting a bride with cold-feet, Lucy cuts to the heart of the woman’s true reason for wanting to wed; that her groom makes her feel valuable, her self-worth goes up according to how other people perceive her, within the relationship (especially against her competitive sister.) Lucy also tries to dispel Harry from wanting to date her, because she says their individual market value’s don’t match up … they don’t make sense, mathematically, he could do better than her. Equally, we get one flashback to a fighting-in-the-street break down of Lucy and John’s past relationship where he admits to being broke, and she admits to being angry at him for being poor and hating herself for being that kind of woman.

Love, Lucy mentions - is a nice addition to all the insurance and coroner-like calculations of human worth (it’s very Egyptian weighing the soul against a feather, modernised feeling).

The place where the ‘value’ discussion really feels like it’s being stretched to a limit, is when a client of Lucy’s from the matchmaking agency is assaulted on a date that Lucy organised. The man was clearly slimy, and predatory - a walking red-flag - in the talking-head ‘interview’ we witness, he gives Lucy a grocery-list of wants in a woman … which basically comes down to “27.” Against lawyer’s orders, Lucy seeks this woman - Sophie - out to apologise, and Sophie accuses Lucy of trying to flog her off as unwanted stock on whatever guy would take her, that Lucy didn’t see her as “valuable” because by that point, she’d been on too many disastrous dates.

It’s a convoluted and eventually, confusing theme for the movie to have … whereas Past Lives beautifully captures the idea of “the one that got away” and “right person, wrong time” again and again (particularly through the Korean word 인연 [in-yeon] which means ‘providence’ or ‘fate’) the idea of “value” in Materialists just doesn’t add up.

And I have seen this sentiment repeated in a few reviews that I agree with wholeheartedly, where they’ve specifically targeted the “huh?” of the theme and underlying ‘values,’ if you will;

• The Guardian; Celine Song’s Past Lives follow-up is a mixed bag

• The New Yorker; “Materialists” Is a Thoughtful Romantic Drama That Doesn’t Quite Add Up

Casting

The casting of Materialists also really confused and disappointed me. And I think a fair amount of that lies in a predominantly white cast, especially of the two leads in Dakota Johnson and Chris Evans.

Past Lives felt so fresh (and is aging *extraordinarily* well) for its interwoven discussions of what it means to be an immigrant - the additional complications of fate, when you become “someone who leaves.” Greta Lee as Nora and Teo Yoo as Hae Sung in the leads was phenomenal casting (and again from my Insta post, I loved a round-table that Lee did, discussing her speaking Korean for the first time in years and what sharing this film with her mother meant.)

By contrast; Dakota Johnson and Chris Evans just feel so … mid. So … American? I know how that sounds; but it does suck out opportunity for a more universal story. Especially because Pedro Pascal is putting on an American accent, there’s nothing of his Chilean-American heritage hinted at overly. It makes Materialists feel very reliant on New York for its setting - the matchmaking agency, and Chris Evans as John even says - he’s chosen the hardest career path in the most expensive city.

I actually would have loved this to have been set somewhere in Asia, knowing that places like China, Korea, and Japan have very big matchmaking industries - maybe an expat has been head-hunted to bring her matchmaking prowess to a different country, to see if love translates? I don’t know! But the very American-ness of this dragged a lot of the story down, for me.

The fact that it felt like Chris Evans was cast like it’s the mid-00s again and he’s in that weird place trying to make meh rom-coms happen (The Nanny Diaries and What’s Your Number?) … Between Materialists and that awful Ghosted, I think he needs to be reminded that one of his best turns recently was in Knives Out playing a surprising villain. Enough with the nice-guy schtick; we’ve all seen you be very charming on socials, break away from it in your artistry my dude.

Dakota Johnson meanwhile, feels painfully alluded to from her time as Anastasia Steele in Fifty Shades of Grey. It’s partly that her acting range hasn’t grown much since then, but also that she’s in another predicament with a billionaire hottie interested in her …

Look, the real casting draw-back in this movie is … Pedro Pascal, being too good.

It’s true. He is so great in this role and the issue a lot of people had upon seeing the trailer and knowing the choice was between rich Pedto Pascal and broke Chris Evans … is that; even if Pedro was the broke one, you’d be hard-pressed not to pick him.

I was waiting for something of his politics to be revealed; a red flag (or, red hat). But there’s nothing wrong with him, beyond (wait and see if you can find the moral to the story) Lucy just doesn’t love him. The heart wants what the heart wants, and Lucy’s heart does not want Pedro Pascal in a penthouse in Tribeca. *weary sigh*

He’s perfect on paper. Market value way up. Total unicorn. But she doesn’t love him.

It made me think that if John had been more interesting casting than just Chris Evans with a patchy beard and holey t-shirts, *maybe* there would have been a competition (someone like a Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, or a Dev Patel? C’mon!)

I also would have loved more unknown, up-and-coming casting especially for Lucy (it’s … galling, hearing nepo-baby Dakota Johnson whose parents are Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson talk about being raised poor, it just is.)

Materialists: love-triangle or pyramid scheme?

But I think my real, honest-to-goodness issue with Materialists was the entire second act and choices that Lucy made … the fact that this was - and remained - a rom-com (romantic-comedy) throughout, but I was desperately hoping it was going to turn into more of a rom-con.

I loved how Past Lives wasn’t neat. It prioritised yearning and acknowledging that sometimes you can have an epic could-have-been romance with someone that you don’t get to have. That final scenes *ruins me* every time - the way Nora’s husband Arthur (played by John Magaro) holds her as she breaks down crying, having just said goodbye to Hae Sung … it’s this acknowledgement they all have, that it’s a great love she’s letting go of.

It’s not a romance - technically - because there’s no “happily-ever-after” for the protagonists. They don’t wind up together. Hence; I call it a “rom-con” … yearning unfulfilled love, over romantic love; but still deep and exceptional.

I also place the movie written by Celine Song’s husband, Justin Kuritzkes, the 2024 movie Challengers in this category. Another movie that I *loved* - that got so much hype for its sexiness, and the love triangle(!) but is really more about three people falling in love with winning, more than each other … perfectly distilled in the character of Tashi (played epically by Zendaya) who has always loved winning tennis matches, more than she’s loved the two pro-tennis players fighting over her.

It’s another one that’s a “rom-con” … there’s no neat, happily-ever-after that prioritises romance. But it’s still hot and challenging, sexually and morally frustrating and all the more delicious for it.

I do see Celine Song and Justin Kuritzkes as distinct people and creative individuals, of course! - but I was loving the idea that these two are challenging the form of the “romance” and how love is presented on screen. Emphasising complication over cutesy, cookie-cutter pleasantries …

I was actually really excited to see this sentiment play out in Materialists, especially when halfway through I was *so sure* that Lucy was going to pick neither of the men. Choose to be alone and happy. Stick with her voluntary celibacy because it was best for her, suited her life and lifestyle and made her happy … more than being with “perfect on paper” Harry that she couldn’t make herself love, or broke-bum ex-boyfriend John knowing that economic pressures would tear them apart eventually.

I was so hopeful that this would become an endorsement of I Don’t: The Case Against Marriage … We are living in the time of; Andrew Tate, a male loneliness epidemic and being told that’s a woman problem too (why? how?), women’s rights and their bodily autonomy are being eroded (especially in America), and I am 100% with Greta Thunberg that the world needs more angry young women. I hoped a rom-con from Celine Song would surreptitiously address all these shifts by showing Lucy fulfilled by being alone.

But in the end; it’s a cop out.

It actually made me yearn for another movie that was actually billed as a rom-com, but I think fits even more perfectly into the rom-con genre … and, it’s a role in which I actually love Dakota Johnson. The 2016 movie How To Be Single, which does exactly as the title promises; gets most every character to a place where they’re happy with themselves and their direction in life, more than they are willing to settle.

So for anyone who asks me what I think about Materialists … I’d say; “meh” 3/5 and watch Past Lives, Challengers, or How To Be Single for a better time.