'Materialists' is embarrassing in so many ways
A24
Celine Song’s thin, incurious “Past Lives” was very certain of its wisdom, and it was wrong. “Materialists,” the writer-director’s follow-up, is even more brashly ignorant, running triumphantly down the court after air-balling a three. Like an appalling first date, this movie smugly declares itself smart and funny and then delivers all evidence to the contrary.
Oof, where to begin. The astonishing prehistoric opening sequence that stunningly encapsulates why Song’s work is so hollow? The relationships that lack depth to such a degree, that treat the word “love” as a tarp that can be thrown over everything else, that you wonder if the film was actually written by a child? The painfully cliche reliance on a rich vs. poor binary that also ignores so much about privilege and lifestyle and just the day-to-day of what stability means and what compatibility looks like?
A movie masquerading as a modern romance probably shouldn’t provide so many moments that seem to encourage shouting obscenities at the screen.
Lucy (Dakota Johnson) is a successful matchmaker but, don’tcha know it, can’t seem to find her own match. Then here comes Harry (Pedro Pascal), the brother of the groom at a wedding for which Lucy is responsible, a supposed unicorn because of how perfect he is on every measurable scale, to woo our heroine with his wealth and sense of style and almost complete lack of information about the person he’s growing quite sure would make a great long-term partner.
But wait! What about Lucy’s ex John (Chris Evans), who’s still a struggling theater actor and, like, seems to love her in much deeper ways that neither we nor even he understands at all? This love triangle is almost as excruciating as “One True Loves” and vapid to a degree that’s actually hard to do. Song at first leans into Johnson’s ability to be breathy and clueless but forgets that the actress (at her best in “The Lost Daughter”) definitely can’t make earnest, terrible lines about searching for a “nursing home partner” and “grave buddy” sound intelligent. Though no one could. And the mix of earnestness and idiocy is brutal.
From the main characters to Lucy’s clients, “Materialists” is so judgy about the people on screen, presenting entitled jerks with absurd expectations and then asking for empathy moments later. The tone never feels right, and the humorlessness clashes horrifically with the immature trash taking place narratively.
The filmmaker seems to think that she’s tapping into the intangibles of love, that you can’t just check boxes and be happy because someone is the right height and has the right economic level or upbringing. Except the movie both contradicts that point and struggles to figure out what even brings and keeps people together in the first place. Meanwhile, sorry, but we’re supposed to swallow a line like “You’re not ugly; you just don’t have any money” and then see if Lucy’s willing to overlook the meager bank account of the handsomest dude she’s ever met like it’s some remarkable growth?
Yes, feel free to evaluate marriage as an institution and the flaws in anything that tries to be both based in deep emotion and also, as Lucy says, a business deal. But “Materialists” couldn’t be more basic in its attempt to educate about superficiality or its nearly non-existent grasp of what makes for a good partnership and a sustainable long-term relationship (especially in an era of dating apps, which are not addressed at all). Lucy is written as a fool who must come to terms both with that she’s much dumber than she thinks and also that she’s way better than many other people who she needs to realize are super awful. She says stupid things about how the next person she dates will be the person she marries, but Song presents no awareness of pop culture’s role in shaping our perception of love (it sure seems like Lucy saw Evans in “What’s Your Number?”) or the way moronic art leads to problematic views and expectations.
Right, love isn’t math. No kidding. But relationships also aren’t a rubber-stamped statement of love and then happily ever after. Even when Lucy’s evolving she’s still stuck in a revolving door of words like “perfect” and “love of your life,” though she does have one decent quip (“I don’t know if I like you or just the places you take me to”) that, like so much of who this person is, feels unnaturally self-aware while also maintaining the least amount of actionable insight possible.
There is no one of substance, and no one to root for. The male clients only want young hotties and the female clients are desperate and naive, the latter word really, really coming into play once Song attempts to address how assault plays into the dating world. “Materialists” at times believes itself some kind of “Black Mirror” episode, exploring societal perception of people’s value and what that means for relationships and the many pitfalls that result. But it doesn’t know how to think about anything when it comes to why people feel the way that they do regarding height or security or truly anything beyond a cynical and murky sense that none of these pairings have a good foundation.
This is a movie with nothing to say, and it won’t stop saying it.
F
NEW: WANT TO SETTLE A MOVIE DEBATE, TALK ABOUT '90S FAVORITES, OR EVEN HAVE YOUR SHORT HOME MOVIE REVIEWED? BOOK A VIDEO FROM MATT VIA CAMEO
ORDER “TALK ‘90S WITH ME: 23 UNPREDICTABLE CONVERSATIONS WITH STARS OF AN UNFORGETTABLE DECADE”
Matt’s new book arrived Sept. 27, 2022, and Richard Roeper raves: “Matt Pais deserves four stars for reintroducing us to many of the greatly talented but often unsung heroes of 1990s film. This is a terrific read.”
ARE YOU A “SAVED BY THE BELL” FAN?
Order “Zack Morris Lied 329 Times! Reassessing every ridiculous episode of ‘Saved by the Bell’ … with stats” (featuring interviews with 22 cast members, plus the co-founder of Saved by the Max and the creator of “Zack Morris is Trash”)
GET 100 STORIES FOR JUST $4.99