This ‘romantic comedy drama’ is arguably not that romantic, comedic or dramatic, but instead, it’s a thoughtful exploration of themes like self-worth, identity and romantic pragmatism, told by a fascinating up-and-coming director and three of today’s most charismatic actors.

Premise: Successful New York matchmaker Lucy (Dakota Johnson) has a proven track record of finding partners for her demanding clients, based on their checklists of desired attributes. But Lucy’s transactional approach to dating is tested when she’s torn between Harry (Pedro Pascal), a millionaire bachelor from New York’s financial elite, and John (Chris Evans), her ex-boyfriend who’s a struggling actor currently working as a cater-waiter.

Review:

Writer/director Celine Song made quite a splash in 2023 when her debut film, Past Lives, went on to receive two Oscar nominations – so there was certainly a lot of interest in seeing what she did next. In that respect, Materialists is definitely not your typical ‘romcom’ – nor is it really what you would expect from a ‘romantic drama’ – instead it’s something that’s altogether more individual and trickier to pigeonhole. The plot doesn’t really offer many surprises along the way (with a couple of notable exceptions), and you can probably guess before you see the film how the ‘love triangle’ plot thread will resolve itself – but the film is far more interested in its philosophical questions and on Lucy’s (Dakota Johnson) internal conflicts than it is about whether or not she’ll ‘get the guy’ at the end.

The character of Lucy could very easily have become an unsympathetic character in other filmmakers’ hands, but Dakota Johnson and Celine Song ensure that she remains a grounded, realistic character that the audience can empathise with, even when she says or does arguably cruel or selfish things. Part of this is that Lucy herself has the self-awareness to realise that (in her own words) she’s not a ‘good person’, but the film forces audiences to ask themselves whether they would act differently in her position. Lucy has a transactional approach to romance – she (and the matchmaking clients that she acts for) are looking for a partner that can provide them with the material wealth that they believe they need to live comfortably, and she views marriage as a business partnership, where the idea is that both parties trade their existing ‘assets’ for a partner who can provide them with the ‘assets’ that they’re currently lacking. In lesser hands, Lucy could come across as superficial, greedy, materialistic and even mercenary (and the film does confront her with these issues at various points), but we’re also given insight into how she became so ‘pragmatically minded’ when it comes to romance.

“…asks if being in love with someone is really enough on its own…”

We see through flashbacks that when she was younger, Lucy had been in love with John (Chris Evans), but that they had struggled for money, which in turn had created arguments which led to the breakdown of their relationship. There’s also the implication that Lucy saw the same thing happen to her parents – leading her to conclude that, in reality, being in love with someone simply isn’t enough on its own. It would, of course, be very easy to dismiss this notion by simply saying ‘all you need is love’ – but the film does invite you to consider whether that’s an honest and truthful proposition.

Now don’t get me wrong – this film’s idea of what “being broke” looks like is a far cry from genuine poverty ... but this is a film aimed at middle class audiences, which asks them to consider what level of comfort and luxury they would realistically want to aspire to. So while no one in this movie is struggling to put food on the table (or has been forced to move out of New York), the film does ask whether you could happily accept a life where you struggled to pay for car parking, or where you had to share a rundown apartment with strangers in your late-30s ... especially when you’re confronted on a daily basis with the life of extreme luxury that others around you are able to enjoy.

“…trying to be something more than a traditional romcom or romantic drama…”

That life of luxury is personified by Harry (Pedro Pascal), a millionaire from a wealthy background who can offer Lucy the life of expensive restaurants and overseas trips that she’s dreamt of. One of the strengths of Materialists is that everyone is a fully rounded character, so Harry is not without his own internal issues, but equally, he’s certainly not a bad ‘un in the same way that (for example) Hugh Grant’s Daniel Cleaver was in Bridget Jones's Diary. Pedro Pascal keeps Harry grounded in the same way that Dakota Johnson keeps Lucy sympathetic, leaving Chris Evans with perhaps the equally difficult task of ensuring that audiences can see why he’d still carry a torch for Lucy after all they’ve already been through.

Despite its ambition, Materialists is far from a perfect film. As I mentioned, the plot is fairly predictable (even by the genre’s standards), and there are parts of the film that come across more like emotionally detached philosophical debates about the nature of love, the societal bonds of marriage and the effect of others on our own sense of self-worth, than they do come across as naturalistic dialogue. The film’s struggle to balance its emotional storytelling with its social commentary also results in what was (for me) a somewhat overly neat and simplistic ending. Similarly, there’s no getting around the fact that for a period during the first part of the film, Lucy does come across as a rather unlikeable character at times (until you get a better insight into her character). All of which may put off viewers who are looking for a fun and frothy romcom, or an emotionally powerful romantic drama.

“…explores some meaningful ideas…”

But I can’t help but admire the film’s ambition to be something more than a traditional romcom or romantic drama, and to explored some more meaningful ideas – so although it may not be entirely successful on all fronts, I’m glad that it swung for the fences. The cast ensure that the film is never not enjoyable, and provided that you know what you’re getting into when you go, you should be pleasantly surprised by the film’s innovative approach to the genre.