Love in Limbo: Navigating Wealth and Emotion in 'Materialists'
In this episode of *Movies First*, Chris & Jessica explore the complex world of love and ambition in *Materialists*, a film that delves into the life of Lucy, played by Dakota Johnson, a professional matchmaker who excels in uniting others while struggling to find her own happiness. At 35 and boasting nine successful marriages under her belt, Lucy's obsession with wealth in her personal life raises intriguing questions about the intersection of love and materialism in today's society.
As we dissect Lucy's journey, we encounter a compelling love triangle featuring Peter Pascal as a wealthy financier and Chris Evans as her charming yet troubled ex-boyfriend. This dynamic forces Lucy to confront the age-old dilemma of choosing between security and passion, making for a thought-provoking narrative that challenges our perceptions of modern relationships.
The film also introduces a mysterious subplot involving a client named Sophie, adding layers to the story that shift its tonal focus dramatically. Directed by Celine Song, known for her nuanced film *Past Lives*, *Materialists* attempts to juggle various genres, from romantic comedy to serious drama, while commenting on the complexities of contemporary dating.
Despite its nearly two-hour runtime, which can impact pacing, the film features a stellar cast grappling with its shifting tones. While reviews suggest the performances may struggle to find consistency, the film still manages to leave an impression, scoring between 6 and 6.5 out of 10. Join us as we reflect on the film's exploration of love's imperfections and the valuable insights it offers about the messy nature of human connection.
https://www.bitesz.com/podcast/movies-first
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/movies-first-film-reviews-insights--2648009/support.
0
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.720
Chris: Finding true love in today's world feels impossible
1
00:00:02.720 --> 00:00:05.160
enough. But imagine being a professional
2
00:00:05.160 --> 00:00:07.440
matchmaker who can't match herself.
3
00:00:08.240 --> 00:00:11.040
That's the fascinating premise behind Materialists,
4
00:00:11.600 --> 00:00:14.560
a film that asks whether love and money can ever
5
00:00:14.560 --> 00:00:15.360
truly mix.
6
00:00:16.240 --> 00:00:19.240
Jessica: That's such an intriguing setup, especially considering how
7
00:00:19.240 --> 00:00:22.080
the film positions Dakota Johnson's character, Lucy,
8
00:00:22.400 --> 00:00:25.080
a matchmaker with nine successful marriages under her
9
00:00:25.080 --> 00:00:27.960
belt, yet completely focused on wealth when it comes to her
10
00:00:27.960 --> 00:00:28.640
own love life.
11
00:00:29.560 --> 00:00:32.240
Chris: You know what's really compelling here? The way they've
12
00:00:32.240 --> 00:00:34.880
structured this character's dilemma. She's
13
00:00:34.880 --> 00:00:37.320
35, at the peak of her professional success,
14
00:00:37.960 --> 00:00:40.800
but she's created this almost algorithmic approach
15
00:00:40.800 --> 00:00:43.760
to her personal happiness, as if finding love is
16
00:00:43.760 --> 00:00:45.400
just another business transaction.
17
00:00:45.800 --> 00:00:48.200
Jessica: Well, that's quite telling about our modern approach to
18
00:00:48.200 --> 00:00:51.120
relationships, isn't it? How do you think
19
00:00:51.120 --> 00:00:54.040
the film handles this tension between professional success and
20
00:00:54.040 --> 00:00:55.320
personal authenticity?
21
00:00:56.420 --> 00:00:58.900
Chris: Hmm. M that's where things get complicated.
22
00:00:59.460 --> 00:01:02.260
The film sets up this perfect storm with
23
00:01:02.260 --> 00:01:05.060
Pedro Pascal as the wealthy financier
24
00:01:05.300 --> 00:01:08.020
who seems to check all Lucy's boxes and then
25
00:01:08.020 --> 00:01:10.740
throws in Chris Evans as her struggling actor ex
26
00:01:10.740 --> 00:01:13.620
boyfriend, who's basically the human equivalent of a red
27
00:01:13.620 --> 00:01:16.260
flag on paper, living in a tiny apartment,
28
00:01:16.340 --> 00:01:18.900
working service jobs, the whole nine yards.
29
00:01:19.700 --> 00:01:22.580
Jessica: Oh, so it's essentially asking us to choose between security
30
00:01:22.580 --> 00:01:25.260
and passion. That's quite a loaded premise.
31
00:01:26.460 --> 00:01:29.020
Chris: Right? And here's where it gets really interesting.
32
00:01:29.420 --> 00:01:32.300
The film tries to weave in this mysterious subplot
33
00:01:32.380 --> 00:01:35.060
involving a client named Sophie that apparently
34
00:01:35.060 --> 00:01:38.060
changes everything. It's like watching someone try to make a
35
00:01:38.060 --> 00:01:41.060
romantic souffle, but then deciding halfway through to
36
00:01:41.060 --> 00:01:42.860
turn it into a dramatic pot roast.
37
00:01:43.500 --> 00:01:46.500
Jessica: That's exactly the kind of tonal shift that can make or break a
38
00:01:46.500 --> 00:01:47.180
film like this.
39
00:01:48.060 --> 00:01:50.820
Speaking of which, how does it compare to the director's previous
40
00:01:50.820 --> 00:01:51.180
work?
41
00:01:52.460 --> 00:01:55.420
Chris: Well, that's actually quite revealing. Celine
42
00:01:55.420 --> 00:01:57.980
Song's previous film, Past Lives,
43
00:01:58.460 --> 00:02:01.100
was this beautifully nuanced exploration of
44
00:02:01.100 --> 00:02:04.100
reconnection. But here, it's like watching someone
45
00:02:04.100 --> 00:02:07.060
trying to juggle too many genres at once. You've got
46
00:02:07.060 --> 00:02:09.820
your rom com elements, your serious drama moments,
47
00:02:09.820 --> 00:02:12.740
and this underlying commentary about materialism in
48
00:02:12.740 --> 00:02:14.220
modern dating. Hm.
49
00:02:14.220 --> 00:02:16.900
Jessica: So it sounds like the film is suffering from its own kind of
50
00:02:16.900 --> 00:02:19.680
identity crisis, much like its protagonist.
51
00:02:20.640 --> 00:02:23.400
Chris: You know what's fascinating? The film runs for
52
00:02:23.400 --> 00:02:26.320
nearly two hours, which is quite long for what's essentially a
53
00:02:26.320 --> 00:02:29.280
romantic story. It's as if they're trying to pack
54
00:02:29.280 --> 00:02:31.840
in every possible perspective on modern love.
55
00:02:32.080 --> 00:02:34.800
The practical, the passionate, the professional, the personal.
56
00:02:35.520 --> 00:02:38.440
Jessica: That M length must really impact the pacing. How
57
00:02:38.440 --> 00:02:41.120
do the performances hold up throughout all these shifting tones?
58
00:02:42.160 --> 00:02:44.960
Chris: Well, here's the thing. You've got this absolutely
59
00:02:44.960 --> 00:02:47.690
stellar cast, but according to reviews,
60
00:02:47.690 --> 00:02:50.090
they all seem to be struggling to find their footing.
61
00:02:50.410 --> 00:02:53.290
It's like watching master musicians trying to play a piece
62
00:02:53.370 --> 00:02:55.450
where someone keeps changing the tempo.
63
00:02:56.170 --> 00:02:59.130
Jessica: That's such a shame, considering the caliber of talent involved.
64
00:02:59.850 --> 00:03:02.850
Do you think the film might have worked better if it had focused on just
65
00:03:02.850 --> 00:03:04.170
one aspect of its story?
66
00:03:05.210 --> 00:03:08.050
Chris: Um. Um, probably. But you know
67
00:03:08.050 --> 00:03:10.730
what's interesting? Even with all its
68
00:03:10.730 --> 00:03:13.610
flaws, it still managed to score a six to six and a
69
00:03:13.610 --> 00:03:16.580
half out of 10. It's like a first date that
70
00:03:16.580 --> 00:03:19.540
doesn't go perfectly, but still leaves you with something
71
00:03:19.540 --> 00:03:20.180
to think about.
72
00:03:20.740 --> 00:03:23.740
Jessica: That's quite fitting, given the subject matter. What
73
00:03:23.740 --> 00:03:25.380
do you think is the main takeaway here?
74
00:03:26.420 --> 00:03:29.220
Chris: Well, I'd say it's ironically similar to Modern
75
00:03:29.220 --> 00:03:32.140
Dating itself. You might go in looking for perfection,
76
00:03:32.140 --> 00:03:35.020
but sometimes the imperfect things can surprise
77
00:03:35.020 --> 00:03:37.860
you with their value. The film might not be the perfect
78
00:03:37.860 --> 00:03:40.780
match for everyone, but there's definitely something worth exploring if
79
00:03:40.780 --> 00:03:42.340
you're willing to look past the surface.
80
00:03:43.460 --> 00:03:46.420
Jessica: Now, that's the kind of insight I think the film was aiming for all along.
81
00:03:47.380 --> 00:03:50.260
Chris: Exactly. And, uh, maybe that's the real message here.
82
00:03:50.740 --> 00:03:53.740
Whether we're talking about love or art, sometimes the
83
00:03:53.740 --> 00:03:56.540
messy, complicated attempts at connection are more
84
00:03:56.540 --> 00:03:59.300
interesting than the perfect matches we think we're looking for.
