logo
'Materialists' Review: Dakota Johnson May Finally Have Found Her Perfect Movie

'Materialists' Review: Dakota Johnson May Finally Have Found Her Perfect Movie

Yahooa day ago

Materialists could probably be considered a romantic comedy, except it's never altogether clear that writer-director Celine Song, best known for 2022's bittersweet Past Lives, is actually heading that way. You may wonder whether she isn't willing to risk ending the film with no one blissfully in love, with forever-after consigned to the dustbin. She makes Jane Austen look like a sentimental sap. This, despite the fact that Materialists has been constructed according to rom-com tradition (eligible woman—a matchmaker!— vs. two eligible men) and cast with Dakota Johnson, Pedro Pascal and Chris Evans, three actors with sex appeal and box-office value.
But Materialists isn't so much about finding Mr. Right as about steering clear of Mr. Wrong, which suggests a very rum rom-com. Even the title, with its hints of money and consumption, sounds cold and vaguely condemnatory, like a Marxist critique of And Just Like That....
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, not in the least. Materialists is a swipe-right experience — elusive but not inscrutable, as well as enjoyably, delicately playful.
That playfulness is established at the very outset by a whimsically odd fantasy scene. In what looks like a primitive world not much further evolved from the apes' society at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey, a rather sweet if shaggy young man comes to court a sweet if shaggy young woman outside her family's cave. These two will return at the end, bringing the film full circle.
Until then, you'll have been in the charming, somewhat tensile company of matchmaker Lucy (Johnson), a single career woman with an affluent clientele (the cave couple, apparently, didn't need Lucy's kind of assistance). She's good at her job, and grateful, given the failure of her early attempt at an acting career. So far she's led nine couples to the altar: The key is selling the notion of lifelong commitment (a partner, as she puts it, should ultimately be 'a grave buddy') while skillfully calculating the social, professional and fiduciary value of any prospective match.
Those calculations, needless to share, aren't shared with Lucy's clients, but processed in some amorphous zone between her head and her heart.Lucy isn't cynical, exactly. But, to borrow from Joni Mitchell, she's seen life from both sides now — and the hell with fairy-tale clouds and old boyfriends like John (Evans). Unlike Lucy, John remains an eternally struggling actor — he's 39 — who makes ends meet with catering gigs. He and Lucy meet, again, at a wedding reception, where she's dressed in diaphanous blue — the blue at the center of a candle flame — and he delivers a drink order to her table. He remembers that she likes a Coke with a beer. She, on the other hand, remembers that as a couple they were always running out of money, and always fighting because of it. Compared to those days, she's sitting pretty, and wants to sit more prettily still.
You don't dislike Lucy for preferring the comforts of affluence, partly because Johnson hits this particular note with a kind of triste regretfulness — she always looks as if she has no choice but to smile wanly, since the other option is probably sobbing. Perhaps just as importantly, though, Materialists appreciates that what could be called an lifestyle aspiration is its own, undeniable form of desire. It may not swell the spirits, and the cave couple, who make do with a flower for an engagement ring, might have thrown up if they knew how civilized people approached marriage. But anyone who's ever lived in Manhattan has gone through this luxury lust. It's been corrupting urban souls since, at least, William Makepeace Thackeray gave Chapter 36 of Vanity Fair the ironic title "How to Live Well on Nothing a Year."
And so, instead of rediscovering her love for John, Lucy drifts, rather casually, into an affair with the rich, dashing Harry (Pedro Pascal), who happens to be a perfect gentleman with a $15 million penthouse, good taste and an attractively dry, modest sense of humor. It's like dating a wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Pascal is really pretty wonderful here — and he overshadows Evans, who's handsome and likable, but stuck in a less sophisticated role. (If anything, Evans is the closest thing here to rom-com.) Pascal is like a more poetic Winklevoss twin. He might write quality fiction on the side — not too literary, but publishable.
And yet Lucy can always see that she's allowing herself to be wooed without ever being wowed. With Harry, life will be everything but wow.Then — finally — the movie blossoms into something like happiness. But you should discover that surprise for yourself.The shimmeringly lovely Johnson, who navigates Lucy's journey with unerring grace and tact, has long been an actress in search of — and deserving — the perfect vehicle. This may be it.Materialists is currently in theaters.
Read the original article on People

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Celine Song on 'Materialists,' Matchmaking, and the Price of True Love
Celine Song on 'Materialists,' Matchmaking, and the Price of True Love

Elle

time20 minutes ago

  • Elle

Celine Song on 'Materialists,' Matchmaking, and the Price of True Love

Almost a decade before she made her filmmaking debut with the swooning, Oscar-nominated drama Past Lives in 2023, writer-director Celine Song found herself in an impossible quandary that many artists can relate to. She was a playwright in New York City, and like the rest of us, had bills to pay and rent to make. In other words, she needed a day job. But Song quickly realized that in a city of dreamers, all with various side hustles, most of the day jobs were exceedingly competitive and held by highly qualified people. 'I couldn't become a barista, as I didn't have 10 years of barista experience,' she recalls, during a recent conversation with ELLE. 'I couldn't be in retail, and I wasn't being hired for anything. So I was feeling a little desperate.' A chance encounter at a party eventually opened a door when Song found herself talking to someone with a day job in matchmaking. She made the connection, applied and interviewed for a spot, and ended up working as a matchmaker for six months. It was a life-defining experience that informed the heart of her latest romance, Materialists, and became a period of her life that taught her more about people than any other time. (The reason she quit? She was having almost too much fun: 'I could feel myself wanting to become lifelong matchmaker,' she laughs.) While she didn't stay there long enough to see any relationships go beyond a second date (and a second date was a huge deal), the wisdom she earned from matchmaking is all over Materialists, a sophisticated and brutally honest romantic drama anchored in Song's signature proficiencies as a storyteller: It boasts keenly observed moments, heart-swelling chemistry amid the cast, and a soul-nourishing parting note. The story follows high-profile matchmaker Lucy (Dakota Johnson) as she holds her clients' hands through the city's impossibly demanding dating scene. Her work introduces her to Pedro Pascal's eligible bachelor Harry, a tall, rich, charming, and handsome gentleman who is, in Lucy's words, 'a unicorn'—someone who has it all and checks every single one of her company's boxes. The problem is, Harry is more interested in dating Lucy, who is quick to say that he could do better than someone who is in debt, less educated, and makes $80,000 before taxes. Also in the picture is Lucy's ex John (Chris Evans), a catering employee and a penniless actor whose relationship with Lucy came to end amid the couple's financial struggles. That experience quickly defined one of Lucy's must-haves in men: They must be rich. Exceedingly, if possible. That's the way many of the film's characters think and talk, seeing potential matches as a collection of resumes and profile factoids, as opposed to multifaceted individuals with real lives and feelings. Portraying these harsh and unflattering realities is no easy task, and Song deserves all the credit for perceptively depicting them. She walks a very fine line between acknowledging these truths and holding onto timeless notions like love and romance for dear life. 'That was the dilemma of the movie,' she explains. 'And the dilemma of modern people, too. All I can really speak to is how this dilemma feels to me personally. What's amazing about New York City is, it's both a city of romantics—because all of us here are dreaming and hoping for something—and cynics. To survive in New York City, you have to be cynical, too. You have to be practical and materially smart.' Part of the reason why Materialists works so well is Song's dexterity in portraying how romance and cynicism pull against one another. 'While I was a matchmaker, I was asking my clients to describe their ideal partner and the answers were all numbers: height, weight, income, age… While I understood why they were asking for those things, I knew from being in love myself that that's just not at all what love is about or feels like. So [making this] movie was about [striking] the balance between the practical and the fantasy of true love.' Sure enough, Song succeeds and gives us complex characters whom she doesn't judge, even in their darkest and most shallow moments. 'I don't mean to say that the judgment is not there. Of course, all of us are judging each other at all times in some way,' she explains. 'But the thing that feels true to me is about recognizing where the character actually comes from. Why is that character going through that?' She is generous and insightful with supplying those reasons throughout Materialists. In one of the movie's best scenes, a flashback shows us how $25—a trivial sum to some, but a consequential amount to others—once started a fight between Lucy and John. Running late to their anniversary dinner in John's car, Lucy wants to just park in one of those overpriced NYC lots, whereas John insists on finding street parking. 'I've had that argument with my husband,' Song confesses with a laugh. 'We were both broke playwrights and we never had a car. But we had a rental or something. I don't think it's possible for you to drive in New York City, be broke, and not have a great argument about parking.' On a different end of the spectrum, we also witness the myriad ways people, who've had and want to avoid these struggles, are consequently commodified in the modern dating scene—a truth that one of Lucy's significant clients, Sophie (Zoë Winters), voices in protest after a horrific and dangerous date: 'I'm not a merchandise. I'm a person.' It's a line that Song describes as the key to the whole film. 'You're playing a fun game until one day something becomes totally dehumanizing. It makes all of us less of a person, less of humans.' Doing justice to the film's title meant portraying materialism not only thematically, but also visually and through design choices based on the characters' carefully considered income levels. On the page, Song knew exactly how much someone's wardrobe or apartment cost—there were hard numbers attached to items and locations, some of which are spelled out in the film. (For instance, we know that Harry's ultra-chic Tribeca apartment costs $12 million.) And she had fun collaborating with her department heads in bringing them to life. In styling Lucy, someone who was born and raised poor but is now making a decent living and trying to project luxury, she and costume designer Katina Danabassis had discussions around what that might look like. Perhaps some pieces from Aritzia, the semi-affordable yet stylish brand that evokes 'everyday luxury,' as well as splurges she stretched her means for, like a special occasion bag. 'We were like, 'Well, Lucy probably bought that dress from a discount store. I bet it was pre-owned.' Then of course it informs what something like that costs when it's used. And then [we aged] some clothing so that they felt used.' For John's apartment, the challenge was finding a New York neighborhood where one could get an $850 rent-stabilized unit. Song originally wrote it to be in Bushwick, but…well, that changed. 'My location manager was like, 'Bushwick is too nice now. It's too expensive,'' she laughs. So the production went with Sunset Park and shot the exteriors of John's place on location. The interiors were built and coated in what Song calls 'a very recognizable wall color of a bad New York City rental.' Differentiating John and Harry's financial means also meant using distinctive camera movements, which she and cinematographer Shabier Kirchner deliberated on. In addition to the warm, velvety way Harry's apartment is lit (in contrast to the starkness of John's place), the duo decided that when Harry moves, it needed to be captured smoothly via a dolly. For the determined Lucy, she often went with Steadicam. And a handheld style was paired with John, in step with the shaky chaos of his financially unstable life. To Song, none of these choices were meant to imply that having more money makes a person more materialistic. In fact, it's quite the opposite. 'The truth is, the less you have, the more materialistically you have to think, because every dollar counts. If you're very wealthy, money is almost like a fictional thing. But for somebody who needs five more dollars to eat, money is real.' Throughout Materialists, there is this notion of a non-negotiable—the thing you aren't willing to compromise on while choosing your significant other. For Song, that thing is simple: 'That they love me,' the self-professed romantic says. 'Love is meaningless unless it's unconditional. And that, to me, is non-negotiable.' This answer isn't going to surprise anyone who's already seen Materialists and shed some happy tears in front of the film's proudly non-cynical ending. 'What can Lucy do when she's offered love other than saying, 'Deal'? She is given an offer that she can't refuse. [And that idea] is in the lyrics of the song that John and Lucy dance to, ['That's All']. I love that song. My husband played it for me,' she shares. In the end, this is the idea and feeling that Song wants everyone to take away from the film. 'You can see the movie as a looking glass, or you can see it as a mirror. It's personal, and the dream of this movie is for the audiences to take it personally, to let it get under their skin,' the director says. 'You can refuse a $12 million apartment. But [it is] a crime against yourself is to say no to love.'

Dakota Johnson Says Hollywood Is a ‘Mess': Decisions Are Made by ‘People Who Don't Watch Movies or Know Anything About Them' and Studios ‘Remake the Same Things'
Dakota Johnson Says Hollywood Is a ‘Mess': Decisions Are Made by ‘People Who Don't Watch Movies or Know Anything About Them' and Studios ‘Remake the Same Things'

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Dakota Johnson Says Hollywood Is a ‘Mess': Decisions Are Made by ‘People Who Don't Watch Movies or Know Anything About Them' and Studios ‘Remake the Same Things'

Dakota Johnson continues to speak her mind on the failings of contemporary Hollywood. While appearing on 'Hot Ones' during her 'Materialists' press tour, she was asked by host Sean Evans why 'Hollywood is risk-averse.' 'I think it's hard when creative decisions are made by committee and it's hard when creative decisions are made by people who don't even really watch movies or know anything about them, and that tends to be what's occurring a lot,' Johnson answered bluntly. More from Variety New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week Dakota Johnson Says Sandra Bullock Sent a Voice Note of Support After 'Madame Web' Won the Razzie Award for Worst Actress: 'I Freaked Out' 'Materialists' Review: Celine Song's Follow-Up to 'Past Lives' Is a Rom-Com Played Straight, With Dakota Johnson as a Matchmaker Tangled Up in Love and Money She added that remake addiction is also undoing Hollywood, explaining: 'When something does well, studios want to keep that going so they remake the same things, but humans don't want that. They want fresh, they want to feel new things, experience new things, see new things, so I don't know, I guess it's all just a bit of a mess right now, isn't it?' Johnson has been open in interviews over the past year about the nightmare experience of 'Madame Web,' her 2024 Sony comic book tentpole that flopped at the box office and with critics. Johnson headlined the film as Cassandra Webb, a paramedic who gains the ability to see the future after a near-death experience, but it earned a dismal $43 million at the domestic box office and an 11% on Rotten Tomatoes. She said on 'Hot Ones' that she 'tried' and 'failed' to be a superhero. 'It wasn't my fault,' Johnson told the Los Angeles Times earlier this month about the flop. 'There's this thing that happens now where a lot of creative decisions are made by committee. Or made by people who don't have a creative bone in their body. And it's really hard to make art that way. Or to make something entertaining that way.' Johnson added, 'I think unfortunately with 'Madame Web,' it started out as something and turned into something else. And I was just sort of along for the ride at that point. But that happens. Bigger budget movies fail all the time.' Speaking to Bustle last year, Johnson said Hollywood was also suffering because 'you cannot make art based on numbers and algorithms. My feeling has been for a long time that audiences are extremely smart, and executives have started to believe that they're not. Audiences will always be able to sniff out bullshit.' Watch Johnson's full appearance on 'Hot Ones' in the video below. Best of Variety New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week 'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts? 25 Hollywood Legends Who Deserve an Honorary Oscar

‘Materialists' Director Celine Song Wants Justice for the Romantic Comedy
‘Materialists' Director Celine Song Wants Justice for the Romantic Comedy

Cosmopolitan

time40 minutes ago

  • Cosmopolitan

‘Materialists' Director Celine Song Wants Justice for the Romantic Comedy

The new movie Materialists poses an age-old but always interesting question: Can love exist separate from money? In Celine Song's highly anticipated follow-up to Past Lives, Dakota Johnson plays Lucy, an ambitious New York matchmaker helping her clients realize their dreams of finding true love with someone who conveniently makes more than $500,000 a year. In her pursuit of eligible bachelors, she meets 'unicorn' Harry (Pedro Pascal), who provides a perfect contrast to her barely-employed ex John (Chris Evans). She spends the movie being pulled between a love that is convenient and a love that is decidedly less so. The movie is what many people have been desperate to see back in theaters: a genuine romance. While the film's marketing makes it seem a bit more 'com' than 'rom,' in actuality, Song gives a cynical but honest take on what love looks like in 2025, with surprising and heartfelt performances from her three leads. I alternated between giggling/kicking my feet while watching Johnson and Pescal flirt to crying at the hard-earned growth the characters achieve by the final credits. Song hopped on Zoom with Cosmopolitan to talk about getting the casting of Lucy, Harry, and John just right, why money has always been a part of dating, and how her two films are in conversation with each other. I don't write for actors, so I just wrote a script and I create characters and then I worry about it after. I was casting this movie when I was on the Oscars campaign trail. I was in a good spot to just go and meet actors because they had seen Past Lives. And in the case of all three of these actors, it really was a journey of meeting them during one of these lunches or coffee or dinner and then just falling in love with them as the characters. I wish that I could tell you exactly what it was, but it's just like falling in love. You meet them and then you just fall in love with the idea of that person being Lucy, you know? Dakota and I were having lunch, and at some point in this conversation, I was like, Oh, I think she's Lucy. And it's not really about the literal way that she is Lucy; it's about something in her spirit, in her talent, in her being. And that was true about Chris as well. I expected Chris to be like what I've seen in a magazine. And then I was talking to him, and I just loved him. When it comes to Pedro, it was surprising how the inspiration hit, because I've known Pedro before. We were getting very close, and I wasn't really thinking about it. And then one day, he and I were having this conversation about what love is like and the difficulty of love. Just a personal conversation. And in the middle of it, I remember feeling like, Oh my god, I think my friend is Harry. It has to surprise me a little bit. As in, there is a kind of unexpected quality to it. That's what I really feel is where love is, right? Well, I think that there are things that are easier because it's the second film. My second film gets to be made by somebody who knows how to make a film. The truth is that the way I see my actors is exactly as that—as working actors. And that's how they showed up to set every day. And they just worked their ass off. It was amazing to get to work with such colleagues. I think it's actually the way that he was so completely worthy of love. He's very passionate about it. You know what it is? He was not afraid to be humiliated for love. I think that is a very important quality. Because love humiliates us. It is a humbling experience to be loved and to love. And I think that there is an amazing humbleness that Chris has. He's not afraid to be embarrassing for love. Every actor has an amazing history of work that they're bringing with them. So I wouldn't say that I didn't think about those things. Of course, I did. The surprise of Chris as a person was what really what made me feel like he was John. I found meeting him very moving. And I think that's what really drove me to cast him as John. There's something very heartbreaking about his goodness. I don't ever want to walk into a conversation with an actor about doing a movie and not be able to say, 'You're going to do something you haven't done before.' Because I want not only to be inspired by the work that I'm doing with the actors, but I want the actor to feel inspired, too. The sensitivity that Pedro has, there's a softness that is sometimes being disguised by this hard shell of being a man who is surviving a zombie apocalypse or whatever. Because of what this character is going to eventually go through, it had to be somebody who is completely, entirely lovable. We get to sort of undress him in this movie and see the part of them that is so raw and open. This is the thing about all three actors. The first truth is that they're actors, right? This movie is about self-objectification and self-commodification. It's about turning people into numbers. It's about the way that we are thinking about a love in a material way. Who do you think completely understands that? Actors. That's their work. They have to be judged, and they have to be given value. In the very first line! Did you know? Yes! Yo, that's very Materialists. I worked as a matchmaker for six months back in the 2010s, and something that I noticed is that this completely objectified, completely commodified way of talking about our future partner is the norm. Just because it's not being depicted in cinema as much or in stories as much, it doesn't mean that it's not in our everyday life. I think about this so much. So many love stories, you're like, what does the person who's in love do for a living? Well, they're accidentally very rich. Isn't it amazing that Darcy is, like, accidentally so rich and it's a solution to all of Liz's practical problems and he is also the love of her life? But when he points that out, she goes, 'Fuck off.' People don't remember that conversation. They always only remember the 'ardently.' This has always been something that is part of love, dating, marriage, and, in 2025, still is. In this economy? Abso-fucking-lutely. To not contend with it and to not talk about it directly feels like we're missing a really amazing opportunity. The romantic comedy as a genre or romance is often relegated to something that is for chicks, so therefore not of substance. Romance is something that affects us all. I'm so interested in this amazing opportunity that the romantic comedy presents, which is that everybody gets to show up for two hours to talk about love, dating, relationships, marriage. And then within this fun thing, let's actually talk about something. I do think that it is completely worth talking about. It affects all of us. It's the one thing that makes us all feel like idiots. Love makes fools of all of us. [There are spoilers below for the ending of Materialists. If you haven't seen the movie yet, this is your official warning!] Both movies have at the center of it this woman who is facing the question of, what life does she want to live? It's beyond men. Materialists is pretty openly a love triangle, but at the end of the day, it's about this woman who goes through a transformation that they then at the end of it get to make a choice. And that choice is going to affect her life. And the person who is in the beginning of the film has transformed so much by the end of the film, she's unrecognizable. The Lucy who's at the first wedding could never end up with the cater waiter ex boyfriend. It's very connected in that way. I think about this ancient Greek thing that's like, character is destiny. Who you are is going to determine what kind of choice you're going to make. It's not that you make choices and then that becomes who you are. It's actually like who you are is going to mean that the choice you make is inevitable. Given what Lucy has gone through and given who John is and given what John is saying to her, what could she say except "deal"? That's the most romantic line in the whole film. The film is so interested in the practical. The Pride and Prejudice. The debt. The finance. And then, of course, the way that it is going to be ripped apart, but also put together by this very, very ancient notion that love is all shocking. Love is really what is going to keep us going. That's the only deal you can make.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store