Materialists is a Muddled Modern Meet-Cute Lost in Time
Is it a rom-com throwback? A modern take on love? We’re still not quite sure – and that’s kinda the problem.
good.film
6 days ago
Share
Remember Past Lives? The dreamlike and achingly romantic cross-cultural romance had 2023 audiences swooning. Not just for its love triangle vibes, but for its relatable female lead, her struggle with her own cultural identity, and its fresh voice. It felt like a new take on an old idea – we wrote back then that it “redefined the romantic drama”.
So when writer-director (and Oscar nominee for that film) Celine Song announced her next project, we got excited. Materialists promised another love triangle story, this time looking at the way wealth and “worth” intertwine with attraction and connection. Are they impossible to separate? Is love all that matters? Or is that idea just way too on the nose in 2025?
What’s Materialists About? A young, ambitious New York City matchmaker finds herself torn between the perfect match and her imperfect ex.
Who Directed Materialists? Celine Song
Who Stars in Materialists? Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans, Pedro Pascal, Zoe Winters
Where Can I See Materialists? Materialists is out now in Australian cinemas. Get discount movie tickets to see it for less at Dendy, Event, Village and Hoyts Cinemas right here. We donate $1 from every Good Tix sold to Australian charities.
On paper, there’s a bunch of juicy angles for Song to explore here. Even just the concept of an “arthouse romcom” in 2025 is intriguing – we were very keen to find out how Materialists would avoid the worst of the Hollywood romance cliches (makeover montage, anyone?) and which tropes it would lean into for comfort-viewing points. With a great writer, luxe NYC setting and not two but THREE gorgeous leads, all the ingredients for a romcom classic are on board.
But let’s face it, movie love triangles are a SUPER well-worn romcom trope. We’ve seen them for nearly a century, from golden-age classics like 1940’s The Philadelphia Story, 54’s Sabrina and 1960’s The Apartment all the way up through the 90’s (My Best Friend’s Wedding), the 2000’s (Bridget Jones’ Diary) and today (the sizzling Challengers, which we served up here – fun fact, it was written by Celine Song’s husband Justin Kuritzkes). So one of the bigger questions we had with Materialists was, What does it do that’s new?
Well, it kinda sucks to report: not a lot. Materialists just doesn’t quite nail it. Audiences seem to agree, with a not-awful but not-amazing 67% score (one featured review on IMDb has the heading, Did ChatGPT Write This?). It’s a film that doesn’t quite seem locked into any one point of view. Wealth shouldn’t define us… but also, it’s the best pointer to our worth. Hair and height don’t equal a meaningful connection… but without them, you might not connect at all.
Apparently, Song first started ideating the film a decade ago, when she briefly worked for a professional matchmaking service. But in a swipe-right age, is that even a real job anymore?! We’re still a little confused by the film’s whole deal, and we know we’re not alone. So here's our take on the points we felt like Song was TRYING to make in Materialists, but that she didn't quite land…
Materialists turns every character into a spreadsheet
Lucy (Dakota Johnson) makes a crust as a matchmaker. It’s a way for Celine Song to explore how contemporary dating turns every meet-cute into a transaction, and every suitor into a long checklist: good hair, 6 feet tall, a 6-figure income (and it better not start with a ‘1’). After a few years of this, Lucy has pretty much become a human calculator – and she’s absolutely OK with that. She compares matchmaking to working in insurance, instantly assessing people based on the “value” they bring to the table. It’s totally natural to Lucy; it makes SENSE to her to see dating this way. Love has become less about romance, and solely a string of data points.
The first few times, it’s funny. We hear about dates that are short, or balding, or too old. I’m not asking for a miracle. I don’t wanna waste my time. He couldn’t have done better. I’m trying to settle! But after an hour of this, characters start feeling verrrry superficial; less like people and more like cars. Oh, you wanted less miles on the clock? Blonder upholstery? Bigger airbags? A smaller trunk? The effect is dehumanising – and yes, we know that’s the point. But it’s also still meant to be a romantic comedy, with emotional desires that ring true. Materialists never quite gives us that.
Materialists steers away from what we want to see
Lucy is so focused on her clients that her own love life seems like a dormant afterthought. Whenever she spots a great looking guy, she whips out a business card (when one asks, Are you hitting on me? she replies, Definitely not. But you'd be a great match for my clients). So she’s career driven – cool. But we never quite get a bead on what SHE FINDS attractive herself.
Through a flashback, Song shows us how Lucy’s last relationship with actor/waiter John (Chris Evans) broke down over money, or lack of it. A crappy car. A cramped apartment. A boring restaurant on their anniversary, because it’s all they can afford. Lucy’s frustrated that John is so stretched for cash, and she’s frustrated AT HERSELF that she feels that way. That’s pretty interesting: she wants security, but feels guilty about it. Then angry that she feels guilty.
But what could’ve been a meaty meal becomes an emotional soup, and it only gets cloudier when she meets handsome AF, wealthy AF finance guy Harry (Pedro Pascal). Here, seemingly, is everything Lucy’s been after. She even lists all his plusses to his face: Smart, ideal income, tall, charming, born rich, raised rich, great body. You own a penthouse in Tribeca. You don't have a drug habit. You have taste. You are a 10/10 in every category. A complete package.
Roll credits, right? But we lost count of the number of times Lucy knocks Harry back, calling him a “unicorn” who can do so much better than someone like her. She seems puzzled, then genuinely frustrated that he keeps pursuing her. She tries to explain that the math doesn’t add up – they’re not a good match because of their respective “positions in the marketplace” (yes, she actually says this). She even describes him as “an impossible fantasy”.
But he’s not impossible. He’s sitting in front of her. Lucy can assess Harry as “perfect” for a client, so why not herself? The interesting point to explore here might’ve been whether her cold calculations are because she feels inadequate – she earns 10 times less than Harry – or whether Song was making a deeper point about love that just doesn’t land. Either way, it gets annoying that Lucy doesn’t seem to want what WE want for her – and it’s never satisfyingly fleshed out as to why.
Materialists trips itself up on love versus wealth versus appearance
Materialists keeps reminding us that, to quote the queen of the 80s herself, we’re living in a material world. People ARE shallow. We’re told that 6 more inches (in height, calm down!) can double a man’s value in the market. A nervous bride admits to Lucy that she only got engaged to make her sister jealous of her taller, better looking man. Even Lucy herself has had some subtle work done: a nose tuck here, a breast lift there. And a big plot twist hinges on a surgical secret of Harry’s, too.
Song badly wants to make a point about this commodification, twisting it to appear that for women, being materialistic is just the knock-on effect of a deeper insecurity: the need to feel WORTHY. Lucy admits as much to Harry, telling him I don’t like you because you’re rich. It’s because you make me feel valuable. On the flip side, everything John says or does rams home that he’s “the poor one” – so how does being with HIM make Lucy feel? Disposable?
It’s all just a bit – muddled. Materialists is far from the first film to pose the question, where does happiness stem from? Authentic connection? Material comfort? Emotional intimacy? Financial stability? Or a perfect match of success and possessions? The problem is, not only does the film not answer the question in a way that sticks, it doesn’t even really ask it properly in the first place.
And what’s with Materialists having cavemen?!
Oh yeah, this totally modern 2025 New York romance opens and closes with – cave people. A couple in loincloths (not a smartphone in sight, just living in the moment). This throwback to prehistoric times is meant to show us love in its purest form. Grug doesn’t have a Porsche, so his face value is just… HIM. And when he slides a cute daisy-stem ring onto his lover’s finger, Grugette isn’t weighing up her entire future based on the cut, carats and clarity.
Song is trying to give us a simple then vs. now: while we always look for itemised ways to demonstrate our love, there’s no such thing as materialism when materials don’t exist yet. So what was love like back then, and why should it be any different now? Or as Lucy ponders in voice over, What made them a perfect match for each other? We don’t really know, because they never speak, and they’re only in two scenes. It’s a bit of an odd diversion that never really gels with the film.
What’s the takeaway from Materialists?
Okay, so this hasn’t been a glowing review, but in no way did we hate Materialists. Any contemporary look at how we connect is worth applauding (hey, so is any movie without explosions or capes). Celine Song’s sophomore film has plenty going for it – or to use Lucy’s vernacular, lots of ticks in the ‘yes’ column.
At its best moments, it’s very sexy. The lead performances – and Zoe Winters, in a key supporting role – are all excellent. Shot on good old 35mm film, it looks gorgeous, and the soundtrack is a banger; eclectic and soulful, filled with needle drops that all feel perfectly chosen. The pace is languid, in a good way: there’s lots of loaded pauses, like Song has so much confidence in her premise that she doesn’t need to rush to keep us glued.
But that’s also Materialists biggest problem. There’s enough air between the punches here that it gives you time to think. And most of the time, that thought is: Huh? Was that line comic relief? Is this scene satire? And once you start questioning a line of dialogue here or a plot twist there, the whole premise starts to wobble like a newborn fawn.
Great romcoms still follow the old tropes: Wealth is sexy, but real love is worth more than any Tribeca apartment. But the best ones still have an ‘X factor’ that, like Lucy’s clients, you can’t really compute on a spreadsheet. It’s funny – Harry tells Lucy she has intangible assets… they don't degrade, they only get sharper. It’s kind of a great way to think about films. Some fade, and some live on. Which column does Materialists end up in? We’ll let the years be the judge.
Materialists is out now in Australian cinemas. Get discount movie tickets to see it for less at Dendy, Event, Village and Hoyts Cinemas right here. We donate $1 from every Good Tix sold to Australian charities.
