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.