Materialists Review

This is the type of greed they talked about in the Bible

As someone who cried his heart out to Celine Song's Past Lives at the Broad Street AMC in Philadelphia in an empty theater two years ago, I am deeply saddened to say that her new outing, Materialists, lands with a thunderous dud. It's a film that's neither rom nor com but quite strange. The film features three insufferable leads who have no chemistry with one another. There is no love triangle to be found and no juice in this possible examination of capitalism's grip on how we approach dating and relationships, which I found profoundly dull. There's not an everyday/normal conversation in this movie, but what felt like a writer trying to have each of their mains give deep, meaningful asides about love with every other sentence, while coming back to math and money instead, which seems to be the driving force of the movie's message. An intensely sour outlook on love and dating that did not land for me. There are a few jokes here and there, but this incredibly unsexy film that features one of the worst-handled subplots in recent times is a bummer.

Materialists revolve around Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a successful matchmaker in New York City. Her job is to analyze her clients' height, weight, age, finances, and interests to find them the perfect match, ideally leading to marriage. The story turns when she meets Harry (Pedro Pascal), a wealthy, bright, attractive client who falls for her. Lucy now finds herself in a balancing act, dating Harry while still harboring feelings for her ex, John (Chris Evans), who is financially struggling. The film delves into Lucy's journey of self-discovery as she grapples with her superficial needs and career.

I don't think any acting in the Materialists is bad, but the writing and direction they were given are pretty bad. Dakota Johnson's, maybe some would say, off-kilter line delivery works, but you have to know how to harness that properly. She's made to give these long speeches about love and math repeatedly, and it becomes tedious, and at some point, we lose complete interest in any love story being told. Pedro Pascal is the most charming of the three, but his usage rate is so low that the film demanded way more of him. Chris Evans feels like he's trying here in a way that says, "Hey, I'm not Captain America anymore. I can do this." I know he can, but I don't like that I can tell he's trying. I'm sorry, but Chris Evans isn't giving a broke late 30s guy who lives in an apartment with roommates. I was not convinced. The three rarely interact together, and when Johnson is with either, it feels like there are no stakes. The only stakes of the film feel like the weird subplot, which I will get to.

All three of these characters are just unlikable. Lucy's obsession with money and status could be interesting in the way of analyzing this as the new norm in which capitalism has forced us all to absolve love for money, but breaking up with Chris Evans over not being able to pay for parking seems too shallow for me to like this character. Chris Evans's obsession with money and being broke isn't a character feature I found attractive, either. Pedro Pascal was hot and rich but still insecure; just not believable, nor did I care that he was once short. It led to an incredible line delivery by Pascal about his legs, which got me. There are some decent jokes when it's not a tedious, wordy slog.

(smoking has never looked more uncool)

As someone who loves traveling to see my friends in the City from Philly and is obsessed with New York movies, I found this rendition of NYC dull. The ultra-rich and penthouse lifestyle, which I know is the aim of the film to show, but I don't know. I rewatched Mean Streets in 4K, and that's a gritty New York and street-level story I love. Even in Past Lives, the characters felt unbelievably relatable, and you imagine yourself hanging out with them. They got a pass for their dialogue sounding like writers because Greta Lee and John Magaro's characters were writers in the film, so it felt way more natural. Nothing feels natural here. The jokes, too, feel so forced. Even the vignette cutaways to Johnson's clients going through their list of demands for their matches all fell flat.

This also feels like a step down for Song, who seemed to settle for so much, just wide, long-take conversations that could give a romantic atmosphere if there was chemistry between anyone. Past Lives was exciting, and we had sweeping movements and fascinating looks into people's souls, which felt so personal, a place I'd never felt so far away from human beings. I'd also like to quickly highlight a subplot in the film that I think honestly is awful, so SPOILER/TRIGGER WARNING: Lucy has a client who is sexually assaulted by one of her matches, and this is what pushes her down the path of questioning her job. She feels immense guilt from this and feels like she can break every person into an equation, but I suppose she can never know what darkness lies in man's heart. I don't think this is handled well, and I don't think you need to use violence against women to prove your point that your super superficial shitty job is bad. SPOILER/TRIGGER WARNING OVER

I've been rather harsh with Materialists, but there are some jokes and possible examinations of modern dating that many will relate to. I am of the earnest kind and find this not enough to chew on. The three leads here do their best with the material presented, but this all came out flat, and I could never make an emotional connection. I will come back and watch this in a year and see if I missed something, but for the time being, I don't. This film is an excellent match for me.

Final Score: 5/10

Written by Kevin J. Pettit