logo
Movie review: 'Materialists' incisively takes down big dating services

Movie review: 'Materialists' incisively takes down big dating services

Yahoo09-06-2025
LOS ANGELES, June 9 (UPI) -- Materialists, in theaters June 16, is a scathing indictment of both Hollywood romances and the real-life industry that has sprouted around dating. Singles who have been preyed upon by such services will feel seen.
In the film, Dakota Johnson stars as Lucy, a woman working for the fictional Adore matchmaking service. She is responsible for nine marriages but is determined to remain single herself.
At one wedding, the groom's brother, Harry (Pedro Pascal), asks Lucy on a date, which she initially accepts to try and land him as a client. At that same wedding, she reconnects with her ex, John (Chris Evans), who is working as a waiter.
Just watching Lucy work shows how she turns human beings into commodities. They are a collection of assets she can move around to set up on dates, thus keeping both clients on contract, or marry off to raise her success rate, improving her own business.
And yet, she still objectively misjudges her clients. When introducing one potential match, she genuinely thought the man would be open to a 39-year-old businesswoman and that the woman would accept his height and receding hairline, let alone other clients who have minimum salary requirements for partners.
Lucy expects her clients to be more open-minded, and yet she's selling them on the idea that their perfect match is out there, and that she'll find them. If she was realistic in her sales pitch, most clients would probably opt to keep dating on their own.
This is an issue inherent with turning dating into business. When a customer is paying for a service, they do have a right to set some criteria for their purchase. Capitalism is ultimately incompatible with humanity.
Yet matchmaking services have a high enough success rate to stay in business. Everyone seems to know someone who met their partner through a service like this.
Materialists makes incisive observations about the seemingly petty reasons people really connect. There is some validity to them, however.
One flashback shows John and Lucy arguing over whether to park at a $25 lot in New York. $25 is a significant amount for a struggling couple, so it compromises their other plans and then makes Lucy feel guilty for resenting how much hinges on the amount.
Money would render that problem moot but it wouldn't address the root of the issue -- if a couple can't solve problems together, they're not very compatible. Even if Lucy finds a wealthy suitor like Harry appealing, other problems will arise and put their relationship to the test.
So Lucy assigns people value based on their careers, their income and their looks because everyone is already doing it. She's just created a mathematical formula.
Being this honest, warts and all, about people's romantic needs also contradicts the most popular Hollywood romances. Hollywood movies love to sell people on romantic destiny, such as Sleepless in Seattle or While You Were Sleeping.
Another trope is platonic friends falling in love like in When Harry Met Sally or Reality Bites. Certainly friends can become more, but movies like that overlook the reasons the pair made a conscious decision not to start dating in the first place.
Lucy does the math on herself too, which speaks to an internalized self-loathing that matchmaking services prey upon. Based on firsthand experience, a lot of them seem to expect that if you're paying to find a date you must be desperate enough to accept whoever they present to you.
Materialists gets even more serious about the pitfalls of taking money to introduce strangers in an intimate setting. When Lucy misjudges one male client, she puts a female client in a precarious situation.
This is the inevitable peril of such a business and Adore alludes to a legal department, which must exist for real-life services to address such risks. But, Lucy's math can't even get middle-aged men to accept dating 30-year-olds, so how can she really screen out possible abusers when abusers are deceptively capable of appearing safe?
Lucy starts to see the flaws in the system and calls out some of her clients. She astutely points out that as a matchmaker, she is forced to deal with clients' racism, ageism, body shaming and other qualities to which even their therapists may not be privy.
One issue with Lucy's math is that she only sees people's potential. What it doesn't show her is people's nature, and that is the foundation of relationships.
Materialists is a cynical movie and yet one that desperately wants to have hope. The film, as with its heroine, is hard pressed to ignore the reality of human behavior.
Writer-director Celine Song seems nonjudgmental about the people who run Adore and the people who pay for their services, assuming their intentions are sincere despite their blind spots. And what is the alternative, swiping profiles on apps?
Ideally, the alternative should be being kind and friendly, spending time getting to know each other and not looking at phones. Alas, the difficulty of that created a void for businesses like Adore to fill.
Song lets her actors perform long, uncut scenes of dialogue together, or listen to each other's monologues and react subtly. The roles let Johnson and Pascal let their guard down at times, and Evans' role is always vulnerable.
Materialists is presumably a date movie but it is likelier to lead to arguments, hopefully constructive ones. For singles navigating the oppressive selling of relationship services, it is especially validating, and poignant for anyone trying to rationalize the intangibles of love.
Fred Topel, who attended film school at Ithaca College, is a UPI entertainment writer based in Los Angeles. He has been a professional film critic since 1999, a Rotten Tomatoes critic since 2001, and a member of the Television Critics Association since 2012 and the Critics Choice Association since 2023. Read more of his work in Entertainment.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Historian Won't Back Down at Prince Harry Legal Threat But Makes Key Change
Historian Won't Back Down at Prince Harry Legal Threat But Makes Key Change

Newsweek

time3 hours ago

  • Newsweek

Historian Won't Back Down at Prince Harry Legal Threat But Makes Key Change

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Stories about Prince Harry getting into a fist fight with Prince Andrew have not been removed from a biography despite Harry saying it never happened, the author told Newsweek. Historian Andrew Lownie's new book Entitled charts the rise and fall of Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson with eye popping details about Jeffrey Epstein, mistreatment of staff and more. Yet it was a few passages about Prince Harry that wound up giving publisher William Collins, an imprint of Harper Collins, a legal headache after the book suggested Harry gave Andrew a bloody nose in a fist fight in 2013. The book also suggested Andrew said Meghan Markle was an "opportunist" and told Harry marrying her was a mistake. Meghan Markle sits with Prince Harry and Prince Andrew during the Commonwealth Service at Westminster Abbey, in London on March 11, 2019. Meghan Markle sits with Prince Harry and Prince Andrew during the Commonwealth Service at Westminster Abbey, in London on March 11, 2019. Kirsty Wigglesworth -Why It Matters Harry strongly denied the account and, as revealed by Newsweek, sent a legal letter to the Daily Mail, which serialized the book, as well as the publisher. What To Know Lownie told an upcoming episode of Newsweek's The Royal Report podcast: "Harry wasn't in my book at all. And I think when the book came in, the publisher said, maybe just out of interest, what was the relationship between Andrew and Harry? "So I went to my source and they gave me that little paragraph talking about the two altercations in 2013 and then over Megan in 2017. And I put it in and I didn't think any of us thought that it was anything but a sort of passing moment. "I mean, I don't remember the lawyers even raising it but clearly he took umbrage at the suggestion that he had defended his wife's honor and instead of just asking for a correction or anything, sent off legal letters to Harper Collins, my publishers. "I had to double down with my source and make sure it was accurate, which we believe it is. Collins have responded in a responsible way, they've added a line actually, and I recorded the line for the audiobook a couple of days ago, just saying that Harry denies these allegations. And I I hope that will be the end of it. "I mean, I don't think it's defamatory. I think it actually presents him in quite a positive light and certainly there was no desire to cause offense. It was just a sort of reflection." What Prince Harry's Camp Said After the book was serialized in the Daily Mail earlier in August, Harry's team told Newsweek: "Such are the gross inaccuracies, damaging and defamatory remarks made in the Daily Mail's story, I can confirm a legal letter from Prince Harry's counsel has been sent to the Mail." An earlier statement, also sent to Newsweek, read: "I can confirm Prince Harry and Prince Andrew have never had a physical fight, nor did Prince Andrew ever make the comments he is alleged to have made about the Duchess of Sussex to Prince Harry." What Happens Next The book was released on Thursday and time will tell whether Prince Harry does file a lawsuit. Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page. Do you have a question about Charles and Queen Camilla, William and Kate, Meghan Markle and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@ We'd love to hear from you.

'General Hospital' Robert Scorpio actor Tristan Rogers dies at 79
'General Hospital' Robert Scorpio actor Tristan Rogers dies at 79

UPI

time11 hours ago

  • UPI

'General Hospital' Robert Scorpio actor Tristan Rogers dies at 79

Aug. 15 (UPI) -- Actor Tristan Rogers died Friday at age 79. ABC 7 in California confirmed with Rogers' manager, Meryl Soodak, and The Hollywood Reporter via a statement from General Hospital Executive Producer Frank Valentini. Rogers played Robert Scorpio on the soap opera since 1980. He was introduced as a spy for the fictional World Security Bureau. His most recent appearance was last year, with Scorpio now the District Attorney of Port Charles. He went public with his battle with lung cancer in July. Soodak told ABC 7 Rogers had never smoked. The Melbourne-born Rogers also appeared in The Young and the Restless, Studio City and The Bold and the Beautiful. He did voice work in The Rescuers Down Under, Batman Beyond, The Wild Thornberrys and more. Rogers has TV credits dating back to a 1969 episode of Delta. Notable deaths of 2025

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store