When I heard that Celine Song was making her sophomore film, Materialists, starring Dakota Johnson in a love triangle with Pedro Pascal and Chris Evans, I was both excited and intrigued. Having loved Song's debut film, Past Lives, I thought this film would be more than the typical romantic comedy we tend to see on the market. It is possible that my expectations were too high, but I found that the film tries to paint itself as more than a romcom, yet fails to do so. The film explores issues of love, capitalism, value, and insecurity, yet provides the audience with only a surface-level insight into these topics, ultimately leaving me disappointed after watching it in theaters.

Materialists follows Dakota Johnson as Lucy Mason, a thriving matchmaker living in an increasingly luxury-focused New York City. At one of her client’s weddings, she meets a charming millionaire called Harry Castillo, played by Pedro Pascal, and instantly clicks with him. She also runs into her ex-boyfriend and aspiring actor, John Pitts, portrayed by Chris Evans, whose relationship with Lucy fell apart due to his financial difficulties as he attempted to be an artist in New York City. She spends the rest of the film conflicted between Harry, who checks all the boxes, and John, who most certainly does not.

Given the way the trailers framed the movie and even just the descriptions of both love interests, it is not hard to predict that Lucy will pick John. I have seen a lot of people upset that Lucy did not pick Harry, calling the film “broke boy propaganda”. Putting my Pedro Pascal bias aside, I understand why Lucy ends up not choosing to be with Harry; that was a smart decision. Yet I cannot think of too many valid reasons for her to pick John instead.

John is not necessarily a bad person, but he has his flaws. I do not blame him for his financial hardships. Like Celine Song responded to the film being called "broke man propaganda” in an interview with Refinery29,"...poverty is never the fault of the poor". Yet, apart from some minor aspects, it seems like John has not really changed since his breakup with Lucy. I mean, at one point in the film, he decides to bring her halal cart-style food when he proposes to her, despite them having a massive argument in the street before they originally broke up, about how she would appreciate it if they did not eat halal cart food on romantic occasions or anniversaries. The only difference between John dating Lucy the first and second time is Lucy’s reaction to John’s behaviour. Previously, she was frustrated with him (which is also a flawed response); yet by the end of the film, she accepts that this is the man she chose, and consequently, the life she chose. It is not about John’s lack of finances but rather his lack of effort, which Lucy blindly accepts because he is the only person who can really comfort her, apparently lacking any friends, family, or therapist to talk to instead.

A significant problem with the film was the characterization of these people. Unlike Past Lives, the main characters of Song’s second film lack complexity, reducing them to oversimplified stereotypes and themes to prove the simple point that one should choose love over wealth. The movie places the viewer through the lens of two extremes: a millionaire with a penthouse and a struggling actor who still has four roommates. I understand that both scenarios are the realities of people’s lives, yet these characters do not feel “real” to me. There is a difference between characters who are flawed and those who are incomplete.

Materialists sparks the conversation about where capitalism and love intersect. This is an important discussion to have, yet I feel like the debates I have had with my friends in response to the film feel a lot more meaningful than the message the film repeats over and over, which is simply, “love requires more than just checking all the boxes.” I think a crucial aspect of this film that was not addressed is the experience of being a woman navigating the issues of love and financial security.

The film not only addresses love, but even more so, marriage. Lucy meets Harry and John at a wedding; Lucy and John have conversations about why people even get married in the first place; lastly, John proposes to her at the end of the film. The film begins with a prehistoric couple near a cave sharing a sweet, intimate moment together, showing the simplicity of love in "the olden days." Yet, if we analyze cultural and historical trends, marriage was often a strategic economic proposition, especially for women. It guaranteed them safety and financial security. In the modern day, most of us are privileged enough to marry for more than just the economic safety blanket, but it is not wrong for a woman to desire at least some financial stability. Lucy feels a great deal of guilt towards her initial failed relationship with John, which ended due to her frustrations about John's economic situation and her realization that her job is entirely based on quantifiable factors that can go wrong. These feelings are valid. But it also seems like Lucy feels she has to give up financial security for love, as if both cannot co-exist, and as if John is the only man that could ever love her.

The film does not provide us with the chemistry and raw emotion needed to convince me that Lucy and John were really in love. It seems to me the only reasons they end up with each other are convenience and, more importantly, insecurity. Both characters are insecure, a completely normal part of any human, yet it feels like Lucy's insecurities overshadow her actual desires. It seems she only picks John because he knows her and her insecurities of not feeling valuable enough, and being with him prevents the possibility of her being vulnerable with another man.

Lastly, moving on to the more technical aspects of the film. Quite frankly, almost everyone’s acting in this film was so mediocre. For Dakota Johnson, I am already familiar with her acting, which I would consistently consider lacking. However, I expected a lot more from Chris Evans and Pedro Pascal but was let down. I think one of the largest reasons for their lackluster performance was the unbelievably unnatural and bland dialogue in many of the romantic scenes, which really took me out of the film. The only saving grace from the dialogue was that it was most definitely funny. The cinematography was admirable in many scenes, yet nothing special. One truly amazing aspect of the film that I adored, however, was the soundtrack, composed by Daniel Pemberton. Certain tracks like “The Places You Take Me Too” filled me with a sense of melancholy and calm that is so beautiful and intimate. It almost convinced me that the characters actually loved each other. Almost.

Overall, the movie has roughly the right ideas and offers a good critique of the very concerning modern dating world, yet it does not really provide any notable solutions to these issues that come up during the film. The movie gives such simplistic answers to such large questions, plainly concluding with the idea that one should marry for love, not money. How revolutionary. I do not mean to be too harsh on the movie, and I would still call it a fun watch, but it fell short and left me wanting much more from Song. The film is far from perfect, but I suppose that only really reflects our own attempts at a deeper human connection. Love is a risk after all.