Materialists

It can be hard for a playwright to transition into filmmaking. Plays are famously staid, physical affairs, relying more on dialogue than visual storytelling to convey emotion and plot. Yet Celine Song has made the leap from playwright to filmmaker with a visual fluency and ease that's nothing short of remarkable. Her feature debut Past Lives (2023) became an indie darling, earning an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay. While its dialogue was crisp and lyrical, it was Song's command of silences and glances that gave the film its emotional resonance. She now follows that impressive debut with Materialists (2025), a quasi-rom-com that strikes while the iron is hot.

Materialists follows Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a New York City matchmaker who views dating through the lens of a financial market-assigning value to men and women based on traits, assets, and compatibility metrics. She doesn't pretend love is purely romantic; she's practical, even transactional. But her worldview is tested when she begins dating Harry (Pedro Pascal), a charming and wealthy suitor, just as John (Chris Evans), a struggling actor and former flame, reappears and rekindles an effortless chemistry.

Song appears especially drawn to love triangles-Past Lives also revolved around a woman caught between two worthy men. But she never reduces her characters to reality-TV archetypes or rom-com clichés. If anything, Materialists functions as an elevated romantic comedy: it still follows familiar narrative beats, but with a more grounded and honest exploration of love than the dreamy worlds of Meg Ryan or Richard Curtis films.

Materialists dives into the realities of modern dating, where apps and algorithms have turned people into commodities in a vast "dating market." Lucy's profession as a matchmaker becomes a narrative device for discussing these themes-her conversations with co-workers mirror the cold calculus behind dating app algorithms, where potential partners are treated like stocks or securities. Boxes are ticked, and wealth is a major factor-no romanticism required. Yet the film avoids becoming a cynical screed about the death of love. Instead, it confronts the tensions head-on: true love can feel "easy," but that doesn't eliminate the realities of trade-offs, or the fact that marriage remains a financial partnership as much as a romantic one.

This sociological bent makes Materialists fascinating to watch-it often feels more like a relationship essay than traditional entertainment. Still, it delivers the genre's essential pleasures: there are satisfying beats and feel-good moments, but with sharper dialogue and more originality than usual. Some lines recall early Richard Curtis in their memorability. Song's playwriting background serves her well here.

Returning to the love triangle structure, Song treats each character with empathy, resisting the urge to vilify one in favor of a tidy moral. All three are endearing but imperfect, and their emotional depth makes you want to spend more time with them. This is especially true of the two men. Pascal finally lands the romantic lead that the internet has long wanted for him-his charm and sly smile are irresistible, and he carries a late, vulnerable scene with deft dramatic control. Evans, a rom-com veteran, leans into a quieter, more melancholic role. His longing and quiet devotion to Lucy-despite her questionable treatment of him-are convincingly portrayed.

The weak link is Lucy herself. As the titular "materialist," she's meant to evolve from pragmatic matchmaker to romantic lead, but she remains frustratingly underwritten. Johnson, whose signature style often leans toward aloof detachment, doesn't help. There's little insight into Lucy's inner world or motivations. She's burdened with being both the audience's point of entry and the character undergoing the biggest arc-yet the script and performance don't give her enough complexity to support that dual role. As a result, the film's emotional center feels muted.

Ultimately, Materialists is a worthy, if slightly uneven, follow-up to Past Lives. It doesn't linger in the soul the way Song's debut did, but it plays with the rom-com form in thoughtful, compelling ways. With sharp dialogue, a probing thesis, and two richly drawn male leads, it elevates the genre's average. Still, when your central character-the fulcrum of both the romance and the film's thematic weight-feels undercooked, one of the film's key pillars noticeably wobbles.

I think that the movie was overhyped. It felt like there was just something missing and maybe because I watch a lot of series and get to enjoy the progression of characters overtime. That's why I felt like there was something missing. I think that the actors were great and maybe during the storyline there was way too much focus on her job aspect and there could've been just a little bit more of her personal life being expressed on screen. I honestly think the trailer was probably better than the movie and I found myself getting a little bit bored at times. I think that this was a great trio, but I don't know if that this was the perfect movie for them.

Celine Song is the writer and Director of "Past Lives" (2023) and all I can say it's one of the best films I've ever seen.

Unfortunately the same style and formula made for Past Lives didn't work this time with Materialists. The storytelling of body language, lack of words, the lack of explanation, lack details in their dialogue, the simplicity didn't really add to the story where as Past Lives worked perfectly.

Sorry if I compare it to Past Lives, I know I shouldn't they're both completely different. Besides its not fair.

I think this movie could have been great if the writer would've written the screenplay as realistic as possible. The movie would hit completely different.

I love Pedro Pascal, I'm a fan of his and have posters of him in my room and stuff. Dakota and Chris are great actors, in general the actors did what they could with the script they were given.

Even though I was underwhelmed I was thoroughly entertained the whole time I watched the movie and that's what movies are supposed to do. Maybe it deserves a higher score.

I actually found this film quite depressing. Dakota Johnson is a matchmaker for a high-end dating service, who views matches as a formula; education, upbringing, wealth, attractiveness, etc. Tick enough boxes, and you match. The depressing aspect is that most of the clients portrayed are hugely shallow (I suspect that this is more real life than I care to admit). The women want someone at least 6 foot tall, makes over 500k/year. The men want a woman who looks like a model and are 20 years younger than them. Everyone's unexpectations are hugely unrealistic. Dating/marriage is a business transaction.

Johnson meets Pedro Pascal who is everything she could want on paper (referred to as a 'unicorn' - impossibly perfect). Vastly wealthy, tall, handsome, charming, intelligent and with good taste. But the chemistry isn't there. However, her broke, aspiring actor ex (Chris Evans) reappears on the scene and complicates things.

So where is the love? Who does Johnson run to when things go wrong? Where is the chemistry with Pascal? Her self-confessed materialism is at odds with her heart.

The pacing is slow, and it is hard to empathise with Johnson's character. If the message of the film is "love is more important than money", it completely undermines itself through two things.

First, Evans is impossibly handsome, and charming and good, so his only flaw is that he is poor. Secondly, at the very end of the film, Johnson get's offered a promotion where she can ask for any salary she wants. All the money issues vanish and she is no longer sacrificing a life of luxury to be with the man she loves.

So I walked away with the disheartening message that people are shallow, have totally unrealistic expectations for their dating potential, and love really does not enter the equation, as long as the physical/material transaction is there.

Dakota Johnson acts as if she's reading off of a script in front of her. She has no change in tone, no depth to her voice or emotions. Even Pedro was underwhelming in this role. It felt as though Celine Song was attempting to make this film have an incredibly deep and moving message, but it didn't come across as she intended. They marketed this movie as a rom-com, disappointing me when I realized it wasn't. It could have been redeemed by a compelling story but the poor acting and awkward conveyance of a boring intended message proved the film irredeemable. Anyone other than Dakota Johnson would've worked better. Next time cast Daisy Edgar Jones.