By: Kimberly Grant
I was never a fan of Celine Song’s Past Lives. Yes, I know it was nominated for many awards, including two Academy Award nods. But the slow burn love story to nowhere was lacking. Song is back with another slow burn love story called Materialists.
Materialists is available in theaters nationwide.
The Materials of The Story
In Materialists, Madame Web must choose between The Mandalorian and Captain America. Oh wait. Wrong genre. Let’s try this again. Lucy (played by Dakota Johnson) is a jaded NYC matchmaker who views love by statistics and not feelings. During a fateful wedding, she meets a wealthy finance guy named Harry (Pedro Pascal) and then runs into her ex John (Chris Evans) who is an out-of-work actor.
Harry is seemingly the perfect guy. He says all the right things. He’s wealthy. He’s devoted to Lucy and he’s just as transactional about love as she is. On the other hand, John is Lucy’s broke ex-boyfriend who is happy being broke as long as he can pursue his dreams. If you’re wondering how the title fits into all of this, it’s a bit confusing.
Supposedly, Lucy is materialistic, because she broke up with John for being broke. That’s where her “materialism” begins and ends. Her only requirement for a husband is that he be uber-rich. And, she doesn’t even sound committed to that. Someone who is materialistic, wants more than just a rich husband. She wants designer labels and trips to Europe. Apparently, not Lucy.
Her Side vs. His Side
Materialists is supposed to be a commentary on dating. I get it. Men and women are single because they can’t get out of their own way. Men 40+ years old want a fit 20-something who’s “mature for her age”. Women 40+ years old want men who are at least six feet tall and make more than $200,000 a year.
If you keep track of social media you’ll see both sides arguing about who’s at fault for so many singles on the market or the male loneliness epidemic. Men say women aren’t willing to be traditional and submissive. Women are fed up with the podcast bro mentality. If both sides are pointing fingers with genuine arguments, who’s right and who’s wrong? And how long will this go on until we collectively look in the mirror and say: “It’s me. Hi. I’m the problem. It’s me.”?
Other than the social commentary on dating, this film is basically another slow burn love story. Although, Materialists does get to a point (or somewhere near it). I won’t spoil the ending. Just know that it’s a little better than Past Lives’ ending. But not by much.
Character Material
Two major parts of any love story are the characters and the chemistry between the actors portraying them. First, let’s pick on Pascal as Harry. Pascal is a great actor and human being. At first, he plays well off Johnson. There is a hint of chemistry and it’s because Pascal is that good. He’s a consummate professional. Sadly, their chemistry grows weaker.
Evans as John has less chemistry with Johnson. Not to mention Evans’ acting is better when he is not in the scene with the other two main actors. And when Lucy and John (Spoiler alert!) kiss, it’s cringe-y. As a veteran character actor, Evans adds value to the film. As a potential love interest for Dakota Johnson, not so much.
On to Johnson. I’m now seeing a pattern. We were introduced to her as Anastasia Steele in the Fifty Shades of Grey franchise. She didn’t have chemistry with her co-star in those steamy films either. I think part of the issue is her voice. She speaks softly and slowly without much emotion. She does this for almost all of her roles, which is confusing because she tends to have more personality in interviews than on the big screen. It makes for a lackluster leading lady whom you know can do better.
As you can tell, I’m underwhelmed with Materialists.
You can read more reviews (good and bad) by K. A. Grant here.
