A One Mann’s Movies review of “Materialists” (2025).
Two years ago Celine Song rocked the cinema world with her debut masterpiece “Past Lives“, winning nominations for all of the major awards around the world. It was also my No. 2 Film of 2023, just pipped to the top spot by “Oppenheimer“. Now comes “The Materialists” – her “difficult second album”. I really wanted to like this, and bits of it are sweet and engaging. But sadly the story came across as far too linear and vanilla to make any great impression on me.
Note that I have seen this film describes as a “rom-com”. But there are only a few smile-worthy moments. It would better be described as a “rom-dram”.
Plot:
Lucy (Dakota Johnson) is a low-paid but successful matchmaker in the New York office of an international dating company. While attending the wedding of one of her successful matches she not only meets rich and attractive ‘unicorn’ Harry (Pedro Pascal) but also runs into old boyfriend John (Chris Evans), an impoverished actor currently working tables.
Certification:
UK: 15; US: R. (From the BBFC web site: “Strong language, sex references”. This actually feels like a fairly soft ’15’ to me. If they had reduced the number of ‘f**ks’ this could easily have been a 12A I think.)
Talent:
Starring: Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans, Pedro Pascal, Zoe Winters, Marin Ireland, Dasha Nekrasova.
Directed by: Celine Song.
Written by: Celine Song.
Running Time: 1h 56m.
Summary:
Positives:
- It’s a great looking New York-set film with lush production values.
- The leading cast do a good job, with Chris Evans being impressive in a different role for him.
- Some of the dialogue is crisp and cutting, with the dating interviews in the first half being particularly effective.
Negatives:
- The story was progressed in a very vanilla and unexciting way: there were no twists and turns and very little drama.
- Lucy’s incessant smoking felt out of keeping with the current trend.
Full Review of “Materialists”:
As a romance film, it has its moments.
Although not a ‘rom-com’, it is definitely a ‘rom’.
The whole premise of the film – Lucy (Dakota Johnson) as a cynical and embittered matcher-of-lovers, struggling to ever find love herself – is a great one. As a viewer we feel for the celibate Lucy, surrounded by other people’s love lives. We also feel for some of her clients, particularly the loveless Sophie (Zoe Winters), who has nothing obvious ‘wrong’ with her other than an all-pervasive ‘beige-ness’: “she has no stand-out qualities”. Other luckless clients are lusting after unrealistic “catches”, with a list of requirements as long as their arm that Lucy is supposed to magically conjure-up.
We are presented with our fair-share of ghouls: misogynist men who are only interested in “fit” girls or late-40’s businessmen looking to win their 20-something trophies through their materialistic trappings.
The two men who subsequently appear on Lucy’s horizon are as completely different as can be, albeit both hunky and good-looking members of the male species. What does Lucy value most: materialism? Or love?
Good performances from the cast.
All of the cast give good, solid performances here.
Dakota Johnson has never ticked any of my acting boxes in particular. But she plays this part well and you can see why Harry (Pedro Pascal) would be attracted to her after hearing her clever sales pitch to a gaggle of women at the wedding reception.
Pedro Pascal is in danger of getting over-exposed on the screen in 2025: he seems to be in just about everything at the moment! (Including “The Fantastic 4”, opening today and which I’ll be seeing this evening). Again, he gives a solid but not particularly memorable performance.
I guess the acting surprise of the piece is Chris Evans, who plays against type here as a rather insecure on-his-uppers actor. His portrayal of John is as a rather self-doubting individual, a long way from his square-jawed Captain America persona and his other more action-oriented roles. He plays the puppy-dog eyes really well and an emotional speech towards the end of the film is well done.
The story didn’t really GO anywhere.
This was a game of two halves for me. I really enjoyed the first half of the film, building up the story and the relationships, exploring Lucy’s work, the cute-meets at the wedding reception. But then it almost felt like Celine Song didn’t know where to take the script. What we have is a fairly bland, linear story that goes from A to exactly where you would expect B to be, without (to quote “Just a Minute”) hesitation, deviation or repetition. Remember the gripping tension of the last few unpredictable minutes of “Past Lives“? There is none of that here. No twists. No surprises. Just…. a taste of vanilla.
Song tries to throw some modern dating controversy into the mix (see “Trigger Warning” below), but even this story – an opportunity for some real drama and confrontation – is squittered away and ends up as a damp squib. Disappointing.
Great production design but a film lacking in quirks.
The production design of the film is terrific with Lucy’s office feeling vibrant and alive; Harry’s apartment being rich and opulent (but tasteful and not Donald-Trump-gaudy) and John’s apartment feeling suitably sleazy. The cinematography by Shabier Kirchner is also inviting with a rich and warm colour palette. This gives the film a look and feel that reminded me of a Nora Ephron flick… and what New York-set movie shouldn’t try to attain that?!
I did like the surprising, bronze-age opening of the film (a pre-history teaser, reminiscent of the recent “Here“). (And, with those characters in mind, stay to the very end of the end-credits for a neat little bit of comedy.) The end-credits themselves are quirky in telling the ongoing story via a ‘fly on the wall’ camera as the credits roll over the action.
There were also a number of neat shots included… I particularly like one where the camera was mounted on a taxi door and swivelled round as the door was shut.
But other than these points, there was very little in the way of quirky action or innovative film-making.
Lucy chain-smoking herself to death.
One aspect of the film, which particularly annoyed the Illustrious Mrs Movie Man, was the fact that Lucy was continually smoking cigarettes throughout the film. Is the situation different in New York City? Because I see virtually no intelligent, well-dressed people smoking ‘death-sticks’ any more in the UK. Vaping? Yes, perhaps. But smoking… nope. I’m not sure why this was seen as apt or appropriate for her character: it made me view her as less intelligent than I thought she was.
Triggers.
The film does contain an element of the storyline associated with sexual assault. Nothing graphic is shown, but the topic might be triggering for some viewers.
Summary Thoughts on “Materialists”
As a romantic drama, it’s a perfectly serviceable little film that I enjoyed to a degree, particularly in the first half. Who knew that with lots of money and a few broken legs you could make yourself suddenly more attractive to women? But I’m afraid it really needed more oomph in the story to get it anywhere near the masterpiece that was “Past Lives“, and for that reasons I’m a little disappointed with Celine Song’s follow-up.
Materialists will be on general release in the UK from August 15th 2025.
Where to watch?
[justwatch id=”1589939″ type=”movie”]Trailer for “Materialists”:
The trailer is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A_kmjtsJ7c.
Subscribe
Don’t forget, you can subscribe to One Mann’s Movies to receive future reviews by email right here. No salesman will call!
