Pedro Pascal + Dakota Johnson + Chris Evans + love triangle + New York City + an exploration of modern dating should = pure joy. Unfortunately, the math behind Celine Song’s sophomore feature, “Materialists,” simply doesn’t add up.

You know things aren’t going great when you watch a movie and can’t stop mentally cataloguing each item of clothing the protagonist is wearing. That ruffled Doên dress? $398. The work bag that looks like a dupe of the Khaite one? $650. A floral Reformation dress? $278. Knee-high Paris Texas boots? $766. Sexy Simkhai top? $375. A cerulean Proenza cocktail dress? Originally $1190, but now on sale for $365.

Alas, the minute Dakota Johnson’s Lucy — an immaculately-dressed, 30-something star matchmaker living in a modest but beautiful Brooklyn Heights apartment — declares that she makes $80k/year (before taxes!!!), I knew we were doomed to do the mental tally. Song has said that including this specific number was an intentional choice; she wanted the audience to linger over the financial realities of the not-uber-wealthy. But in a movie thin on character development, it served more as a distraction.

“Materialists” follows Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a 30-something star matchmaker and self-described expert on the romantic marketplace who says she’s looking to marry rich. At the wedding of one of her former clients, she meets the groom’s brother, Harry (Pedro Pascal), a private equity multi-millionaire (billionaire?) who believes that love is about transaction and sees intrinsic value in Lucy. She also runs into her broke actor ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans), the former love of her life who is now working as a cater waiter and living in an apartment where his roommates leave used condoms around their shared kitchen. Thus the movie sets up its central questions: Will Lucy choose Money or Love? And if being loved is about being viewed as valuable — a thesis that Lucy states plainly early in “Materialists” — where is that value derived and who gets to decide what it is?

The movie is at its sharpest when examining the cold realities of a dating marketplace — a marketplace where buyers are also commodities — devoid of human intimacy. The app-ification of courtship is laid bare in Lucy’s intake meetings with new potential clients. (Song herself previously worked as a matchmaker, and it shows.) A 48-year-old man expresses a desire to finally settle down with a mature woman, by which he means a 27-year-old. Another man tells Lucy that “39 is 40,” and then requests “nothing over a 20 BMI.” Lucy’s services are luxury goods, acquired by people of means in order to guarantee the acquisition of luxury spouses. But as Lucy tells one client later in the movie, “this is not a car or a house. We’re talking about people. People are people are people are people. They come as they are.”

But who are Lucy and Harry and John? They are less people, and more paper dolls, gesturing around at vague, potentially fascinating ideas. And even all the money in the world can’t buy substance.

Further “Materialists” reading:

“The Materialists Trailer Is A Liar,” Andrew Gruttadaro, The Ringer

“Materialists Is an Inert Misreading of Modern Romance,” Angelica Jade Bastién, Vulture

“How a Salary Figure Changes Everything in ‘Materialists,’” Alissa Wilkinson, NYTimes

“'materialists' is a romcom for the money diaries generation,” Viv Chen, The Molehill

“Rich Suitor/Poor Suitor,” Heather Schwedel, Slate

“Is Materialists Actually a Horror Movie?,” Jesse Hassenger, GQ

Share Rich Text

If you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!

Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription