As we dissect Lucy's journey, we encounter a compelling love triangle featuring Peter Pascal as a wealthy financier and Chris Evans as her charming yet troubled ex-boyfriend. This dynamic forces Lucy to confront the age-old dilemma of choosing between security and passion, making for a thought-provoking narrative that challenges our perceptions of modern relationships.
The film also introduces a mysterious subplot involving a client named Sophie, adding layers to the story that shift its tonal focus dramatically. Directed by Celine Song, known for her nuanced film *Past Lives*, *Materialists* attempts to juggle various genres, from romantic comedy to serious drama, while commenting on the complexities of contemporary dating.
Despite its nearly two-hour runtime, which can impact pacing, the film features a stellar cast grappling with its shifting tones. While reviews suggest the performances may struggle to find consistency, the film still manages to leave an impression, scoring between 6 and 6.5 out of 10. Join us as we reflect on the film's exploration of love's imperfections and the valuable insights it offers about the messy nature of human connection.
https://www.bitesz.com/podcast/movies-first
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/movies-first-film-reviews-insights--2648009/support.
To access the Movies First reviews archive visit our website at www.bitesz.com/podcast/movies-first
00:00:00 --> 00:00:02 Chris: Finding true love in today's world feels
00:00:02 --> 00:00:04 impossible enough. But imagine being a
00:00:04 --> 00:00:06 professional matchmaker who can't match
00:00:06 --> 00:00:09 herself. That's the fascinating
00:00:09 --> 00:00:12 premise behind Materialists, a film that
00:00:12 --> 00:00:14 asks whether love and money can ever truly
00:00:14 --> 00:00:15 mix.
00:00:16 --> 00:00:18 Jessica: That's such an intriguing setup, especially
00:00:18 --> 00:00:20 considering how the film positions Dakota
00:00:20 --> 00:00:23 Johnson's character, Lucy, a matchmaker with
00:00:23 --> 00:00:25 nine successful marriages under her belt, yet
00:00:25 --> 00:00:27 completely focused on wealth when it comes to
00:00:27 --> 00:00:28 her own love life.
00:00:29 --> 00:00:31 Chris: You know what's really compelling here? The
00:00:31 --> 00:00:33 way they've structured this character's
00:00:33 --> 00:00:36 dilemma. She's 35, at the peak of
00:00:36 --> 00:00:39 her professional success, but she's created
00:00:39 --> 00:00:41 this almost algorithmic approach to her
00:00:41 --> 00:00:43 personal happiness, as if finding love is
00:00:43 --> 00:00:45 just another business transaction.
00:00:45 --> 00:00:47 Jessica: Well, that's quite telling about our modern
00:00:47 --> 00:00:49 approach to relationships, isn't it?
00:00:50 --> 00:00:52 How do you think the film handles this
00:00:52 --> 00:00:54 tension between professional success and
00:00:54 --> 00:00:55 personal authenticity?
00:00:56 --> 00:00:58 Chris: Hmm. M that's where things get complicated.
00:00:59 --> 00:01:02 The film sets up this perfect storm with
00:01:02 --> 00:01:05 Pedro Pascal as the wealthy financier
00:01:05 --> 00:01:08 who seems to check all Lucy's boxes and then
00:01:08 --> 00:01:10 throws in Chris Evans as her struggling actor
00:01:10 --> 00:01:12 ex boyfriend, who's basically the human
00:01:12 --> 00:01:15 equivalent of a red flag on paper, living in
00:01:15 --> 00:01:17 a tiny apartment, working service jobs, the
00:01:17 --> 00:01:18 whole nine yards.
00:01:19 --> 00:01:21 Jessica: Oh, so it's essentially asking us to choose
00:01:21 --> 00:01:24 between security and passion. That's quite a
00:01:24 --> 00:01:25 loaded premise.
00:01:26 --> 00:01:28 Chris: Right? And here's where it gets really
00:01:28 --> 00:01:30 interesting. The film tries to weave in this
00:01:30 --> 00:01:33 mysterious subplot involving a client named
00:01:33 --> 00:01:35 Sophie that apparently changes everything.
00:01:36 --> 00:01:38 It's like watching someone try to make a
00:01:38 --> 00:01:40 romantic souffle, but then deciding halfway
00:01:40 --> 00:01:42 through to turn it into a dramatic pot roast.
00:01:43 --> 00:01:45 Jessica: That's exactly the kind of tonal shift that
00:01:45 --> 00:01:47 can make or break a film like this.
00:01:48 --> 00:01:49 Speaking of which, how does it compare to the
00:01:49 --> 00:01:51 director's previous work?
00:01:52 --> 00:01:55 Chris: Well, that's actually quite revealing. Celine
00:01:55 --> 00:01:57 Song's previous film, Past Lives,
00:01:58 --> 00:02:01 was this beautifully nuanced exploration of
00:02:01 --> 00:02:03 reconnection. But here, it's like watching
00:02:03 --> 00:02:05 someone trying to juggle too many genres at
00:02:05 --> 00:02:08 once. You've got your rom com elements, your
00:02:08 --> 00:02:11 serious drama moments, and this underlying
00:02:11 --> 00:02:13 commentary about materialism in modern
00:02:13 --> 00:02:14 dating. Hm.
00:02:14 --> 00:02:16 Jessica: So it sounds like the film is suffering from
00:02:16 --> 00:02:18 its own kind of identity crisis, much like
00:02:18 --> 00:02:19 its protagonist.
00:02:20 --> 00:02:23 Chris: You know what's fascinating? The film runs
00:02:23 --> 00:02:25 for nearly two hours, which is quite long for
00:02:25 --> 00:02:28 what's essentially a romantic story. It's as
00:02:28 --> 00:02:30 if they're trying to pack in every possible
00:02:30 --> 00:02:32 perspective on modern love. The practical,
00:02:32 --> 00:02:34 the passionate, the professional, the
00:02:34 --> 00:02:34 personal.
00:02:35 --> 00:02:37 Jessica: That M length must really impact the pacing.
00:02:38 --> 00:02:40 How do the performances hold up throughout
00:02:40 --> 00:02:41 all these shifting tones?
00:02:42 --> 00:02:44 Chris: Well, here's the thing. You've got this
00:02:44 --> 00:02:47 absolutely stellar cast, but according to
00:02:47 --> 00:02:49 reviews, they all seem to be struggling to
00:02:49 --> 00:02:51 find their footing. It's like watching master
00:02:51 --> 00:02:53 musicians trying to play a piece where
00:02:53 --> 00:02:55 someone keeps changing the tempo.
00:02:56 --> 00:02:58 Jessica: That's such a shame, considering the caliber
00:02:58 --> 00:03:00 of talent involved. Do you think the film
00:03:00 --> 00:03:02 might have worked better if it had focused on
00:03:02 --> 00:03:04 just one aspect of its story?
00:03:05 --> 00:03:08 Chris: Um. Um, probably. But you know
00:03:08 --> 00:03:10 what's interesting? Even with all its
00:03:10 --> 00:03:13 flaws, it still managed to score a six to six
00:03:13 --> 00:03:16 and a half out of 10. It's like a first
00:03:16 --> 00:03:18 date that doesn't go perfectly, but still
00:03:18 --> 00:03:20 leaves you with something to think about.
00:03:20 --> 00:03:22 Jessica: That's quite fitting, given the subject
00:03:22 --> 00:03:24 matter. What do you think is the main
00:03:24 --> 00:03:25 takeaway here?
00:03:26 --> 00:03:28 Chris: Well, I'd say it's ironically similar to
00:03:28 --> 00:03:31 Modern Dating itself. You might go in looking
00:03:31 --> 00:03:34 for perfection, but sometimes the imperfect
00:03:34 --> 00:03:36 things can surprise you with their value. The
00:03:36 --> 00:03:38 film might not be the perfect match for
00:03:38 --> 00:03:39 everyone, but there's definitely something
00:03:39 --> 00:03:41 worth exploring if you're willing to look
00:03:41 --> 00:03:42 past the surface.
00:03:43 --> 00:03:45 Jessica: Now, that's the kind of insight I think the
00:03:45 --> 00:03:46 film was aiming for all along.
00:03:47 --> 00:03:49 Chris: Exactly. And, uh, maybe that's the real
00:03:49 --> 00:03:51 message here. Whether we're talking about
00:03:51 --> 00:03:54 love or art, sometimes the messy,
00:03:54 --> 00:03:56 complicated attempts at connection are more
00:03:56 --> 00:03:58 interesting than the perfect matches we think
00:03:58 --> 00:03:59 we're looking for.