Less commercial and subversive than but leaning towards the expected pat propaganda of a traditional romcom, Oscar-nominated Celine Song’s sophomore film, “Materialists” (2025), will occasionally surprise, but may not satisfy. A successful New York City matchmaker, Lucy (Dakota Johnson), meets the perfect man, Harry (Pedro Pascal, duh), when her ex-boyfriend, John (Chris Evans), reappears. Who will she choose? If Oscars are given to casting directors, Douglas Aibel earned a nomination because this trio is all the advertising that a movie needs to bring people to the theatres.

I’ve unconditionally loved Dakota Johnson since “Suspiria” (2018) so if she isn’t your cup of tea, “Materialists” is not going to change your mind, but if you dig her, you will enjoy her performance. Lucy combines cold, ruthless thinking with idealized romance, but she has conflated her job success and mindset with her value so when she begins to lose confidence in herself and have an identity crisis after a disaster at work, it throws her off her present trajectory and makes her reevaluate her life choices. The work and solitary scenes are Song’s best work. In one sequence, Lucy walks out of Harry’s perfect, spacious apartment and into the real world in the next scene. Editor Keith Fraase understood the assignment. The effect is like cold water, and Lucy is apart from everyone, her coworkers, the two men pursuing her, isolated in her shock. Song is constantly comparing Lucy’s mood with her surroundings.

The love triangle is the externalization of this tug of war between her mind and her heart, and the winner is the man whom she can be vulnerable with, and he can reciprocate. Song is at her best when she sticks to the shadows of Lucy’s career and the effect on her self-image, but people who are expecting a date movie may not enjoy receiving more complexity and complications than they were sold in the ads. I’m not going to spoil it here (look below), but it could be triggering; however, it elevates the movie because that is how relationships work, and life can be. If you can be yourself and not play a role, then you are safe.

If you see it in the theater, please try to go to a theater where people will talk to the screen and place their bets on who they are rooting for. The crowd favorite was Harry (Pedro Pascal), and while my cheers were on the inside, I could not agree more. Pascal is already people’s pick on his worst day, but Harry also comes from a seemingly close knit, loving family, sees Lucy’s worth when she does not see it in herself and takes care of everything, so Lucy does not have to do any heavy lifting. Oh, and he is insanely wealthy with good taste and a terrific person who loves to be social. You will have to watch “Materialists” to discover his only flaw(s), which I would overlook—no deal breakers.

Evans, who is no slouch in the looks department, was not my pick. Also, while he does not need to have muscle, he looks like he needs to eat more, and it feels as if he is swimming in his clothes. There is one flashback that shows the straw that broke the relationship’s metaphorical camel’s back, and the dialogue explicitly signals that nothing has changed. Natch, John is head over heels in love with Lucy and willing to be a third wheel while Lucy is with Mr. Right. The comedy is in the scenes capturing John’s home life, which no grown woman could handle for long. Even John is over it. He is disappointed that he has not made it yet.

Here is where the propaganda lies. I’m disappointed that John was not a more ordinary man instead of a complete disaster financially and professionally. The main superficial difference between the two men are finances. Falling in love and being able to stay together are two different things, and while no one is obligated to choose the perfect guy on paper, one of the leading causes of divorce is financial disagreements. So, women get sold a bill of goods that love is all you need to get them through the door, but after awhile, they are banging on that door trying to get out because one of them is doing all the heavy lifting, financially and at home, and it is not the guy. If you have kids, it could make the whole house of cards collapse. While the casting is brilliant, if a less scorching hot actor played John, and he was an average financial dude instead of in the pits, it would be realistic, not propaganda, which is why “Materialists” is no “Past Lives” (2023). Love is not flashy and perfect, and this movie puts its thumb on the scale for the needle to go in that direction. In the end, I was rooting for neither, and therapy for everyone.

Song may be hitting her Stephen King phase, which means that she no longer has a sense of how much things cost. Lucy declares proudly that she makes $80,000. IN NYC, that is not a lot of money, and she should need roommates too. Later, she receives encouragement to ask for her dream income, but if she thought $80,000 was good, I hate to think how low her fantasies are. Harry offers to take her on vacation, and they plan to go to Iceland. On its face, that is not an expensive, luxurious vacation because the tickets can be dirt cheap since there are direct flights. It sent the wrong impression as if Harry was putting on an act and was not as affluent as he appeared, but no, it is the writing. Harry is not forthcoming about one of his personal details. Hint: if you saw “Gattaca” (1997), you can guess, and Song is brilliant for coming up with a rare, not commonly known, factoid. If “Materialists” is not going to be realistic, dropping sci-fi realistic elements is a twist that no one will see coming.

“Materialists” was promising in the way that it threaded the horrors of reality into a glossy romcom without dragging the story. It is ultimately disappointing and almost grinds to a halt in terms of momentum once Lucy makes her choice. The framing of cave men in love is a nice sentiment, but prehistoric life was as much of a grind if not more. Sure people probably picked flowers, but to get enough calories, stay warm and not become prey, probably a less sedentary, relaxed life than depicted onscreen is. Love is not a walk in the park. It requires hard, constant action to survive, not sentiment.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
So “Materialists” felt like a movie that was really about splashing cold water on the notion of dating to find love and reminding people of the tragic risks. It was unexpected and subversive in the best way possible because it is a movie featuring affluent people so there is a certain amount of safety and escapism instead of guardedness that usually occurs in real life until Mark P. (John Magaro, who never appears onscreen) rapes Lucy’s favorite client, Sophie (Zoe Winters), off screen in a rom com thus completely negating any lightness to the movie. Where is the com? What com? Afterwards, the stakes get raised because there is a vibe that this horror could happen to anybody, including Lucy. Without feeling preachy or like an Afterschool Special, it hits home that rape could happen to anyone, including the heroine.

There is an annoying trope of a character, usually male, maturing because of witnessing someone else’s trauma. “Materialists” did not feel like that though it could credibly be accused of doing that to rehabilitate Lucy’s image as a cold assessor in a human business. It probably does not feel that way because of the way that Sophie’s experience as her customer completely obliterates Lucy’s self-image, that she was finally good at something. If the proof is in the pudding, she is the worst, but of course, that is too easy too. It felt as if this was the real story, and in the end, Song punked out with a pat choice that leads to marriage without detangling the knots of Lucy’s life and her choice’s history. It is all talk, no demonstrable action, and if you can only tell, not show that changes will happen, it ultimately failed even if the movie has a good beat, and you can dance to it. It is disappointing because Song was so audacious for transforming a rom com into a dating routine with real stakes.