One glaring problem with new hit movie Materialists

One of the biggest movies out right now is billed as an A-list rom com. In reality, it’s a massive disappointment.

I had high hopes for filmmaker Celine Song’s latest offering, Materialists, which debuted near the top of the Australian box office over the weekend.

Song’s 2023 big screen debut Past Lives was one of my favourite films of recent years: a moving romantic drama that breaks your heart over and over again as you watch it.

That misleading trailer for her follow-up suggests Materialists is Song’s pivot to making a fun, frothy Hollywood rom-com. It’s not. Unfortunately, the strangely bland, airless film fails to deliver in the dramatic stakes either.

The central premise of Materialists is set out in its brief opening scene: we watch as two early, cave-dwelling humans pair up romantically, their union confirmed by the impressive array of tools he, a hunter, shows she, a gatherer.

The message is clear: Since the beginning of time, romance between humans has involved a transactional element. “If I choose you as my partner, will you materially improve my lot in life?”

Dakota Johnson and Pedro Pascal play romantic interests with very little spark. Picture: A24 via AP

Unfortunately, over the next two hours, Song’s film never really builds upon that pretty simple premise. Dakota Johnson plays Lucy, a New York matchmaker who thinks she’s got love down to a mathematical formula as she pairs up her cashed-up clients based on attributes like salary, height and education.

Lucy has a handsome ex, John (Chris Evans), who she dumped after five years because he couldn’t level up to the kind of life she wanted (and after the film’s frequent jumpscare cuts to 37-year-old John’s nightmarish share house apartment, I don’t blame her).

There’s also a new suitor on the scene: The suave but stilted billionaire Harry (Pedro Pascal), who’s willing to overlook Lucy’s $US80k salary and sweep her off her feet with impromptu trips to Iceland and sleepovers in his showroom apartment.

Harry ticks all Lucy’s boxes – so does it really matter that they aren’t actually in love? As she’s mulling this over, a chance meeting with John reignites that old flame – but can their love for each other outweigh the fact that he’s still just as poor as the day they broke up?

Chris Evans plays her ex John, 37 and still living pay cheque to pay cheque. Picture: Supplied

Unfortunately, Materialists makes it hard to care. Casting Dakota Johnson as the lead doesn’t help matters. The actress has a droll affect that makes her an entertaining talk show guest (lest we forget “Actually, that’s not true Ellen …”), but it can make a two-hour film feel more than a little … flat.

At times during the film, as we watched Lucy flit around New York talking sceptical singles into using her services, I found myself daydreaming about what, say, a My Best Friend’s Wedding-era Julia Roberts would bring to the role.

Materialists takes a sharp and arguably ill-advised turn midway through, with the shocking reveal of a supporting character’s sexual assault that only serves to further Lucy’s plot, allowing her a realisation that her mathematical matchmaking skills are actually fallible.

From there, Materialists lurches unconvincingly towards a happy ending that feels unearned, as though a capitulation to the sappy rom-com most viewers probably thought they were signing up for after watching that trailer. The problem isn’t that it’s not the rom-com viewers were promised: The problem is that it’s just not very interesting.

Originally published as One glaring problem with new hit movie Materialists