Materialists (2025)

If you’re itching for a modern love story that tries to question what it means to want what we want, Materialists delivers enough for you to care, even if it doesn’t always hit every mark. Celine Song, coming off Past Lives, returns with a film that twists the rom-com template into something sharper, occasionally uneven, and often emotionally interesting.

The setup: Lucy Mason (Dakota Johnson) is a matchmaker in New York, successful in her career but caught in the love vs. money bind. The film pulls her into a triangle between her devoted but financially unstable ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans) and the wealthy financier Harry (Pedro Pascal). Along the way, Lucy’s work, her ideals, her insecurities, and her hopes collide. The question isn’t just which man she’ll end up with, but how much her own values about love and success have been shaped by what society expects her to want.

What works well

The strength of Materialists lies mostly in its ambition and the performances. Johnson gives Lucy enough nuance that even when Lucy acts with cynicism or judgment, you see where she’s coming from. She is both aspirational and flawed without ever feeling like a caricature. Chris Evans surprises: his John is tender, awkward, and sympathetic, someone many viewers will recognize in themselves or in someone they know. Pedro Pascal as Harry is charming and stylish, and though he sometimes feels like the “dream man on paper” trope, he also carries a self-awareness that helps him avoid coming off as hollow.

The film also looks and sounds great. The cinematography captures New York with affection and a little critique. Scenes at weddings, fancy parties, and high-rent apartments are glamorous, but they also have edges: mirror reflections, off moments, spaces that feel beautiful but isolating. The score underscores Lucy’s internal conflict well—it gives energy in lighter moments, and heightens tension when the film pushes into messier territory. There are quieter moments—road trip sequences, conversations in dim apartments—that feel grounded, and those are when the film is at its best.

Another thing I appreciated is how Materialists doesn’t let the romantic conflict be only about romantic chemistry or attraction. It leans into class, social expectations, self worth. Lucy’s job involves helping people pick partners according to checklists. The film explores what happens when love starts feeling transactional. What does “making someone feel valuable” really mean? Those questions raise the emotional stakes beyond whether Lucy ends up with ex or rich guy.

Where it falls a little short

For all its sharp ideas, Materialists sometimes struggles with tone and pacing. There are stretches where it feels like the movie can’t decide whether it wants to be rom-com, satire, or serious drama, and the transitions aren’t always seamless. Some of the supporting plot threads—especially one involving a match Lucy makes that leads to serious consequences—feel underdeveloped. They bring emotional weight when introduced but don’t always fully resolve in a way that feels satisfying.

Chemistry is also hit or miss. Lucy’s connections with John and Harry both have moments that shine, but there are scenes where it feels awkward or forced. Part of that might be intentional such as Lucy is figuring out what she wants, but part feels like the screenplay could’ve done more to build emotional closeness.

Another issue is predictability. Despite wanting to subvert some rom-com tropes, the film does circle many familiar beats: the bad first date (in Lucy’s case, her matchmaking interactions), the wealthy suitor vs the imperfect ex, the climactic romantic decision. If you are very familiar with romantic dramas, you’ll see where many big moments are headed. The film does surprise in tone and theme sometimes, but not always enough to feel fresh in every moment.

What you’ll walk away thinking about

If you see this, you’ll likely leave the theater thinking about what you believe “success” in love should look like. Whether love is about financial stability, about emotional risk, or about simply being seen. Lucy’s journey asks: at what point do our own expectations become a construction of outside voices—culture, matchmaking checklists, social media, romantic marketing?

There’s also something to be said about how the film critiques love under capitalism. It doesn’t always go all the way in dismantling it, but it pushes on the idea that love is packaged and marketed. That makes especially rich scenes (wedding-planning, matchmaker consultations, romantic pitches) that at first glance seem glamorous, feel charged and uneasy on a second look.

Final Verdict

Materialists is worth seeing if you like romance that isn’t purely escapism; if you appreciate a film that lets its ideas and emotional depth matter, even when the plot is a little familiar. It may not be perfect, and it may leave you wanting more in certain spots, but it’s one of those movies that feels like someone has thought about what romance means today rather than just giving you more of what you expect.

If you prefer tight, upbeat romantic comedies that never linger too much on discomfort, this one might leave you a little frustrated. But if you are okay with romance that holds the weight of real issues (class, materialism, identity) and lets its characters be messy, then Materialists is a satisfying, thoughtful watch.