a "materialists" review from a girl who's never been on a date

(i was underwhelmed)

Let me preface this by saying: I am not a film critic. I actually don’t watch movies often. But I love a good rom-com and I’m fascinated by matchmaking (shameless plug for my interview with matchmaker Yasmin Elhady!) so I was excited to watch Materialists earlier this weekend.

Materialists is A24s most recent film. The rom-com stars Dakota Johnson as Lucy, a professional matchmaker, with Chris Evans and Pedro Pascal playing her two love interests—Evans as John, the poor ex with a pure heart, and Pascal as Harry, a bachelor who’s as charming as he is rich.

For the sake of this review, I’ll start with my spoiler-free thoughts.

First, don’t be fooled by the advertising. This is not a romantic comedy. The jokes are sparse and—in my opinion—not especially funny. The movie has a heavier tone than I expected, which is not something I’m necessarily mad about, but definitely something to keep in mind. Also, look up trigger warnings because the film handles some sensitive topics in questionable ways. More on that in the spoilers section.

Anyway, as for the romantic part of Materialists… eh.

Normally, I feel like love triangles in media make it excruciatingly obvious who the leading lady is meant to end up with. Materialists sticks to that script, but I felt underwhelmed with both options. Simply put, I wasn’t feeling any chemistry—which kind of shocked me, considering how Pedro Pascal and Chris Evans are arguably two of the biggest Hollywood heartthrobs out there. Although I enjoyed the eye candy (Pedro Pascals eyes were the main character in my heart) I wasn’t feeling any sparks flying with either pairing, which really takes the charm out of a movie like this.

The story is slow with points that felt like they were dragging on, but the cinematography is beautiful. And I did like the overall themes of Materialists. I thought it provided interesting commentary on the transactional nature of relationships in this day and age.

Something you may not know about me (or do, because of that title) is that in my 20 years of living, I’ve never been on a date. I think that might be why I’m so fascinated with matchmaking as a concept — its a foreign world to me, which makes it thrilling. Lucy’s frustration with her clients high (and often impossible) standards was both entertaining and seemingly realistic to what dating feels like today.

Humans have become very picky in love. I’m no different—even though I don’t have anyone lining up to choose from, I can’t help but turn up my nose at prospects. Lucy’s fixation on money was relatable, too; I can’t count how many times I’ve joked that all I want in a future partner is a rich man. But I’m also a hopeless romantic, so it hurt my heart a little to see her tear the romance of marriage apart even if I know it’s rooted in truth.

Marriage is a business transaction, Lucy argues. People get married for reasons much more complicated than true love. They have high expectations because they aren’t looking for a person so much as they’re looking for a partner. Someone who has the money and looks and compatibility to make you feel valued.

That said, Materialists toed the line of trying too hard to make its points. There were some moments where it felt like Lucy was settling for something that would never make her happy.

“Why does anyone even get married?”
“Because they’re lonely. And because they’re hopeful.”

Spoilers below!

Let me begin by saying I think Lucy made the right choice to leave Harry. Sorry, Pedro Pascal lovers—I’m one of you, I swear—but I felt no chemistry between the two and its clear that they were both looking at romance through the transactional, materialist lens Lucy was trying to escape. There was no emotion in their relationship, only performance. Lucy made the right choice stepping away.

But in a similar vein of thinking, there’s no way Lucy and John aren’t ending badly. John is a full-grown man in his 40s waiting tables and failing at an acting career. He’s a broke mess. I’m all for an underdog, but him proposing to her with a flower chain actually made me want to laugh at the incredulity.

Lucy is a materialist. That’s the core of her character. She likes nice things and expensive dates and John cannot give her any of that, which he made explicitly clear. I don’t think Lucy should have had to accept that; she broke up with John for a reason, and neither of them had the character growth to make it work again.

Lucy had a lot of self-reflection to do. If she didn’t want to be so superficial in dating, she had to first reflect on why she wants these things and we should have seen her distancing herself from them. Instead, she makes it clear she will always want the grand gestures that John will never give her.

Although I normally get annoyed when movies pull this trope, I actually think a “choosing herself” ending might have worked better here. I don’t like a smart, capable woman settling for an overgrown man-child, and unfortunately, that’s how their relationship ended up feeling to me.

I also don’t think it helped that we barely saw Lucy and John interact. Aside from a brief conversation at the wedding and an even more brief one after his play, we as the audience are just supposed to accept that they’re soulmates with this grand sweeping history behind them. That didn’t work for me. I needed more depth, growth, and emotion.

Materialists wants you to believe that when you’re with the right person, love is easy. But love will never be easy for Lucy and John. Maybe I’m not understanding this right, but their relationship felt contradictory to Lucy’s entire romantic revelation (a revelation I disagree with, too. Love is hard and that’s why it’s worth it. Why wasn’t that the message? It would have fit much better).

We also need to talk about Sophie’s subplot. I’m not sure how I feel about it — I think the message of the dangers women face in dating is valid and important in the context of the film, but I hated the way it was pushed aside to propel Lucy’s character arc. There were more tactful ways to handle that than her making out with John on Sophie’s front step after she finally falls asleep safe from a man actively stalking her. The whole situation and the it was all framed as something in the background to impact Lucy made me feel icky.

Okay, spoilers over.

Here’s what I think about Materialists: it’s not a “poor man propaganda” movie like everyone keeps saying, but it veers a little too close to that for comfort. The themes throughout felt overshadowed by a lack of chemistry, a poorly-handled subplot, and not as much depth as it needed to bring the messaging home.

3/5 stars for me. I’m glad I saw it, but I probably will not be watching it again. Let me know what you thought!

---