The Most Materialistic Part About Materialists Was the Chemistry

The response is split down the middle. I still think the movie sucked.

Okay, maybe that's a little bit too harsh, but I just don't feel like I ever connected with anyone or anything in that theatre. Everything felt so bland. So emotionless. What were the stakes, really? Lucy just complained about how mathematical romance had become for her, and then also dated two super hot guys.

Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans & Pedro Pascal Smolder In Materialists  Photoshoot

Don't even get me started on the math, guys. The math sucked; Lucy must've failed school or something because the answer was right there, both natural and seamless: Harry (Pedro Pascal) is the better choice. And, if not Harry, then no one, because the alternative made no sense. It's not like at any point Lucy was struggling; she had what she wanted, and romance was at the bottom of her list unless he was rich. To have her then turn around and defy all logic for John (Chris Evans), a man who couldn't even sell the chemistry between them, let alone pay for parking, seemed tragic. I mean, she couldn't even offer him support because it'd bruise his ego (or because she didn't want to? I'm still not sure), did not help the situation either.

What were we actually rooting for here?

There was arguably one funny scene when Harry admits he got surgery to increase his height, but other than that, the lines sounded mechanical and forced. I have the audacious belief that had Dakota Johnson inserted more cynicism into the delivery of her lines, or something other than the dreamy way she talks about romance, the dialogue might've had the impact it needed. Some lines were funny, but the way they were spoken fell flat on the screen, and that, I think, also took away from the audience being able to connect with Lucy's character. But that's just my opinion. Anyways, more was told to us through exposition rather than it was shown to us, and sometimes it did the patronizing thing of doing both. Which, let me tell you, is too much exposition. We get it: Lucy hates broke people. Typical classist move. She also hates herself for it because she loves John.

MATERIALISTS Trailer: Dakota Johnson Chooses Between Chris Evans & Pedro  Pascal in Celine Song's Newest Love Story - Hammer to Nail

And, maybe it is my undying love for Pedro Pascal, but I was rooting for them to get together. The math was mathing. He could have offered her everything, and to be honest, the movie built more chemistry between them than it did between her and John. John was just the dirty, broke guy who was barely surviving. By the way, according to the four horsemen in psychology, disgust/contempt is a sign that indicates a relationship will not work. All we saw between John and Lucy was her subconscious contempt for him and the fact that he did not have his life together.

Do you know who Lucy did not view with contempt?

That's right, Harry.

Materialists' review: Dakota Johnson is torn between two tax brackets - Los  Angeles Times

I just couldn't see what John presented— he barely offered any emotional support, although I think the movie was desperately pulling at every thread to make it seem so. In the bar, he immediately said the wrong thing, enough to piss Lucy off. Sure, they have history and she trusts him, but she never even gives Harry a chance to be there for her! Who knows, if she'd just given him time to open up to her, then perhaps he could have proven how emotionally mature he was. Maybe he'd have given her what she needed. But, whatever, that's mere speculation.

What's not speculation is the super awkward scene during the wedding after Lucy breaks up with Harry. The shot is so funny to me because both of them (John and Lucy) were sitting ramrod straight in complete silence watching people dance. I think that scene in itself, as fleeting as it is, defines their relationship. Which is to say, the only chemistry between John and Lucy is the tablecloth and it, too, is bristling with awkwardness.

Which leads me back to my main question: what went wrong? The story is simple, it carries all the components of a good story, so what failed it?

It's definitely not the sexual assault storyline, which felt forced into the movie, for sure, but it also added some spice to a narrative as dry as overcooked chicken. Compared to the rest of the movie, Sophie's (Zoe Winters) storyline was rich with emotion, well-delivered, and all too real. Yet, it changed the takeaway— what seemed to begin as a personal exploration of romance, became something larger. The movie started promising a social commentary on the way that consumer behaviour has tainted what is supposed to be natural into something clinical and more unfeeling.

Materialists (2025) Movie Review & Summary

However, the movie only tiptoes around this commentary, and so the assault storyline begins feeling more jarring and contrived as Lucy tries to untangle her feelings. I see Sophie's experience was supposed to tie into Lucy's understanding of love — seeing how the "mathematical" version of romance failed, and even harmed, someone she was trying to help, supposedly pushed Lucy towards valuing her feelings for John despite how it went against all logic. The issue is that this revelation wasn't very clear, and that is because there wasn't enough to go on between John and her.

Other than the fight scenes between them, everything felt plastic. Lucy kept saying that she loved him, but she never showed it, not really. Neither did he. And, after a few lines of the same old thing, the sentiment starts feeling less and less true.

Movie Review: Can a rom-com be honest about money? Celine Song's smart ' Materialists' gives it a go - The Albertan News

Had there been a few more scenes of them talking and actually enjoying each other's company without mentioning their fight and how much Lucy hates poor people, perhaps I might've believed that they were in love. At the very least, we would have gotten some idea of the friendship that is supposed to exist between them. As it is, all we get is long, dragging conversations about the same old thing, and no real shift in their mentality. I mean, we get a shift in mentality but we don't feel it, not really. It's just as though Lucy up and decided one day to screw it, John is hot, she'll straighten out the kinks later.

Compare that to conversations between Harry and her— aside from all the sex, that is— it's more natural. It's fun. It's teasing and warm. They are learning about each other, but there is also a genuine curiosity for what will come, and a desire to be in each other's presence.

The math in Celine Song's 'Materialists' doesn't add up | Georgia Public  Broadcasting

So, when John ties the flower ring around her finger, although it ties poetically from beginning to end, there is no real impact.

#justiceforHarry



12 Light Points

5 users sent Light to this article

imgimgimgimgimg
Comments 8
Hot
New
Ishika
Ishika
 · July 12, 2025
Love can be messy,but if u make ur main protagonist lowkey boring and not a good person, im officially tuned out.
2
Reply

View replies 2

marvelousmars
marvelousmars
 · July 13, 2025
The movie was definitely leaning too hard on vibes, which I can appreciate to a certain extent, but it didn't make for a convincing romance arc. While I think Lucy should have ended up alone, she at LEAST should have ended up with Harry. The ending made no sense to me...
1
Reply

View replies 1

Lucas.
Lucas.
 · July 12, 2025
Did you just call a tablecloth awkward? The movie makes a very strong case for Harry. And it is surprising to see Lucy not choose him, because all signs point to Harry. But that's what the movie is about, I think. She chooses John not cause he's hot... We don't ever even find out why she chooses John. It's something internal to Lucy. It needs no explaining. It's just what it is.
Reply

View replies 1

Gwen Pem
Gwen Pem
 · July 11, 2025
I saw this a few weeks ago, and everything I thought at the time is slowly fading away. I think I liked it more than you did, but the fact that I'm struggling to remember definitely brings me around to your argument a bit
1
Reply