Materialists: Despite many promises, director Song's latest release leaves a lot to be desired

When I heard that Celine Song was delving into the world of Hollywood rom-coms with an all-star cast, I was beyond delighted. First, because I fancy myself an exceptional fan of the genre. I have, on many occasions, gone on full rants about how the genre has been killed by formulaic money-making high value productions, which has caused these comparatively smaller films to suffer in the process – but we'll leave that rant aside for another piece. However, the second and possibly main reason for my excitement was because it would be Song's next film after Past Lives – which, to say the least – changed my perspective on love and relationships. 

Thus, I reached the theatres in New York (which happens to be a major character in itself in Song's Materialists) the week after its release, with a bucket full of expectations and absolutely ready to walk out with a heavy heart. Unfortunately, I didn't. This is not to say that the movie did not meet any of my expectations. I was ecstatic that I was watching a fresh romance movie with a decent plotline, great actors, and genuine conversations about the pitfalls of the modern day dating scene, with the added bonus of a tongue-in-cheek Marxist lens to look at the stunning scenes through. But something felt amiss.

I came back, thought it through, and then discussed the movie at length with my friend who I watched the film with. 

Lucy Mason (played by Dakota Johnson), is a calculative young matchmaker in New York City, who is good at what she does, and soaring in her success. She does well for herself, dresses exceptionally well, and understands the dating game. Quite early in the movie, she mentions that she will only enter a new relationship if she finds someone a viable financial match. We then observe her meeting a 'unicorn' match, Harry Castillo (played by Pedro Pascal) at one of her clients' wedding, where he begins to court her with subtle persistence, until they eventually begin seeing each other. Amidst all this, Lucy's ex flame, John Finch, (played by Chris Evans) is a quietly looming character who always finds himself around Lucy when she needs him.

While I will not spoil the very predictable ending, my issue was not with said predictability, but the lack of connection that led to the ending. In other words, the actions of the characters at the end felt uncharacteristic for each of them, even though they were understandable. I understood their actions, but I would have liked to have seen more of their motivations and who they were specifically, that led to their choices. 

Having said that, I still felt like something else was also absent, so I went back to rewatch Past Lives to understand the source of this feeling of underwhelm. Was I making an unfair comparison or was there really some merit to this feeling? The answer to which I then found out was that I missed the quiet ache while watching Materialists. While watching Past Lives, I found myself looking at the characters with a quiet yearning which almost felt perverse. On many occasions, I found myself feeling like an intruder. In many spaces, I felt like I needed for them to lean into what they seemed to be ignoring. 

In Materialists, a lot is said and even more is done, but without the same level of investment, or the imperceptible longing that would inevitably lead to the sequence of events that unfold. 

The movie does a great job of reviving a genre that has so much to offer, and deals with some extremely important social issues, allowing audiences to have important conversations. It checks off all the boxes of a great romance film, and movies like these need to be made more common. However, even though it is just a romance film, it felt like the spark was missing.