Materialists: Review

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.” – Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

This line sets the stage for Materialists, a romantic comedy that tries to reframe Austen’s timeless observation for the modern world. Back then, marriage was less about passion and more about survival, since women were legally and socially tied to men for security.

The context may have changed, but the undercurrent remains: life is expensive, loneliness is unappealing, and combining resources through love (or at least partnership) still makes sense. That dual pull of romance and practicality is what director Celine Song explores here.

Romcoms Still Matter

I should confess—I love romantic comedies. I’ve read Austen, written a dissertation on Doris Day, and When Harry Met Sally is comfortably in my Top 10 films of the last century. Romcoms adapt with the times, shifting politics and social norms, but their bones remain: charm, chemistry, complications, and resolution. They also remain a key stage for female stardom in Hollywood.

So when I heard Song—who gave us the delicate, deeply human Past Lives—was tackling a romcom, I was intrigued. Dating in 2025 is uncharted terrain for me personally, but I’ve watched friends navigate apps and algorithms, full of both hope and dread. It’s a messy, fascinating subject for film.

From Past Lives to Materialists

Past Lives (2023) was poetic: a slow, meditative exploration of migration, longing, and the ache of paths not taken. It revealed the emotional gravity of distance—cultural, physical, romantic. What lingered was its subtlety, its quiet grace.

Materialists shares the same interest in human connection, but here subtlety takes a backseat. The romcom framework—the meet-cute, the love triangle, the big wedding set piece—is obvious and, at times, clunky. It’s as if the genre itself is another algorithm Lucy, the protagonist, must wrestle with.

The Story: Matchmaker Meets Mess

Dakota Johnson plays Lucy Mason, a professional matchmaker catering to Manhattan’s wealthy singles—people who want guarantees that apps can’t offer. At a client’s wedding, she’s stuck at the singles table, where she meets Harry Castillo (Pedro Pascal), the millionaire brother of the groom. It’s a charming setup—until it’s disrupted by her ex, John (Chris Evans), working the event as a waiter.

From there, it’s triangle time. Harry: rich, generous, stable. John: broke, kind, familiar. Lucy is caught between financial security and unresolved passion. The dilemma is both timeless and very now, reflecting how love and money remain stubbornly intertwined.

What Works

Some parts sparkle. The “talking heads” of singles listing their demands to Lucy echo When Harry Met Sally, but sharper, less sentimental. They underline the transactional feel of dating today—the spreadsheets of preferences, the entitlement, the endless deal-breakers.

There’s also an honesty in how the film depicts dating’s darker corners: ghosting, safety concerns, emotional fallout. A flashback argument between Lucy and John in the street lands hard, making clear that financial stress corrodes even the most romantic bonds.

What Doesn’t

The script, though witty, often feels more interested in being clever than being true. Moments that should feel organic land instead as contrived. Song’s instinct for realism, so evident in Past Lives, gets overshadowed by genre obligations.

The framing device—a caveman and cavewoman romance bookending the story—was the weakest choice. Instead of making love feel timeless, it came across as overblown, almost parody.

Final Thoughts

Despite its flaws, Materialists isn’t a waste of time. Johnson, Pascal, and Evans all deliver warmth and charisma. There are stretches of sharp humor and glimpses of something deeper that almost break through the formula. It’s a solid three-star romcom—uneven, occasionally frustrating, but still engaging enough to leave me reflecting on how much dating has changed, and how glad I am to have experienced it in a simpler era.