We Expected a 90s RomCom, Materialists Gave Us a Mirror
RATING: 4/5
Disclaimer: I paid to see this movie
There will be spoilers for Materialists below
Materialists IS the modern romance film of the 21st century, and whether audiences loved or hated it, the film does get one thing right, it perfectly reflects what dating culture is like in the 21st century. (Image Credit: Paul’s Trip to the Movies)
2025 has been a year for the movies from Thunderbolts* to Mission Impossible it seems like every month there’s a reason for me to spend $20 and head down to my local cinema to catch the latest flick.
When I first saw the trailer to Materialists I was intrigued at the story they were going to tell, from the outset it appeared to be like any other romcom, the girl has to choose between her past love or the new guy that looks to have everything (Bridget Jones I love you, but I am looking at you). But then I saw who was directing the film, and suddenly my entire perception of the film had changed. It was then and there I knew I needed to make a trip to see this film and boy am I glad that I did.
So I grabbed a couple of my friends, enticing them with the fact that my local cinema was giving out complimentary champagne and the fact that we had the lineup of Dakota Johnson, Pedro Pascal AND Chris Evans, like COME ON it does not get better than that.
I walked out of the cinema not only satisfied with the film but I believe I called it “the romance film of our generation.” So it is safe to say that when the reviews starting filtering through to my algorithm I was shocked that people did not love it as much as I, or my friends did. That was when I realised something, people were walking in expecting a romcom akin to the likes of Notting Hill or When Harry Met Sally and Materialists diverts from that style of storytelling entirely, rather it holds up a mirror to show audiences what dating and love truly looks like in the 21st century.
“Materialists is more than your stereotypical RomCom it is a reflection of what romance is in the 21st century, for better or worse.”
There are very few times that I’ve seen a film be so divisive amongst its audience yet with Materialists it appears you are either in the camp of loving the film (like me) or hating it (like most people I am seeing on my TikTok algorithm). With words like “broke man propaganda” being used by the films critics. When truly I believe this film is the opposite of that.
Too often we are shown a romantacised version of well romance. Don’t get me wrong I am yearning for the day my future lover walks through the fog in the early hours of the morning with a trenchcoat because they heard on one occasion that I am a fan of walking. But that ISN’T what love is, and it certainly is not what love looks like these days, and Celine Song knows this and makes frequent commentary on it throughout the film.
Love these days is as Lucy (Dakota Johnson) says “no more than a contract” and it is so true. Think about it, we all have an idea of what our ideal partner will be. Whether that be their job, their appearance or even their height. Our love is so intertwined with the material things often times we treat the relationship as no more than a mere transaction, easily discarded the minute the material aspects fade.
“Modern romance is so intertwined with material aspects that ‘love’ has become nothing more than a mere transaction.”
There is no better example of how materialism has infiltrated the modern dating sphere than the scene with Harry (Pedro Pascal) and Lucy where he takes her out to a fancy restaurant and Lucy describes Harry as a ‘unicorn’ where he ticks all the right boxes for what an ideal match should be. Contrasting him to her ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans) who we see in a flashback is a struggling actor that could not even pay $25 for parking meaning they would be late for their five year anniversary dinner.
However the reliance on material things does eventually its ugly head in Lucy and Harry’s relationship. Earlier in the movie Lucy is speaking to one of her coworkers about a surgery that people can have in which they have their legs broken, then put back together. This surgery can make the person up to six inches taller. I remember thinking at the time that this conversation had to be intentional, otherwise why else would it take up five to ten minutes of conversation time. And. I. Was. Right.
About two quarters of the way through the movie Lucy notices some scars on Harry’s leg, similar to where the scars would be if he had the surgery. She touches the scars which in turn wakes Harry up and he pulls the covers over himself and then proceeds to leave the room. It is then revealed to Lucy and the audience that Harry did in fact have the surgery and took him from a height of 5’6’’ to 6’. He defends his choice to Lucy saying that women now approach him and he is indeed more desirable.
The most horrifying part is that this surgery was not some gimmick that Song made up in order to show that Harry was not this unicorn that Lucy was making him out to be. It is a legitimate surgery that costs thousands of dollars. I was baffled that people would legitimately spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to what add a few inches? But then it hit me, while this may be an extreme example of people conforming to what society deems desirable, we see more subtle examples of this every day. How often do you see people investing money in makeup or hair or fancy clothes, I know I do. Even the standard drugstore makeup to get a full face is up to a hundred dollars these days. So while I might not be going out and getting my legs broken my perception of myself is indeed viewed through the materialistic lens that Song is criticiquing in this film.
“We see the subtle aspects of materialism infiltrating our lives every day, whether it’s the money we invest in our hair, makeup, or even the clothes we wear. As a society, we are desperate to be seen as desirable.”
Now the main critique of the film is that it is “broke man propaganda” and the reason for that I believe is because at the end of the movie Lucy ends up with John (but lets be honest, everyone saw that coming from a mile away). And while no I do not believe that Song is telling the audience that you need to ‘get back with that ex’, I do think that writing this movie off as “broke man propaganda” means you completely missed the point of the story. Love is more than the MATERIAL aspects of life. I mean for crying out loud it’s in the name.
To the audiences saying that Lucy is selling herself short for getting back with John I’m sorry did we even watch the same movie? Lucy is not wanting a business partner she is looking for a life partner. That is why she chose to leave Harry, because he wasn’t going to be that fit for her. At the end of the day he was someone who could pay the bills, but there was no real connection there. But with John it was different, there was history, messy yes, but underneath all of that mess there was in fact love.
I mean he hits us with that line of,“when I see your face I see wrinkles and kids that look like you” showing Lucy AND the audience his interest in Lucy goes beyond her looks and assets. He truly does see and want a future with her, and isn’t that what love is? So I don’t know, I’m happy to talk more about this but I truly do not think Song could have told the story as effectively as she did if Lucy did not end up with John in the end.
Alright now that I’ve put out my defence that Materialists is not just “broke man propaganda” it’s time to talk about my favourite aspect of the movie which truly made me go “wow”. It is only a subplot, but it really showcases the realities of modern dating through and I believe shows what it means to be a woman in the dating pool in the 21st century.
About halfway through the film Lucy has matched her client Sophie (Zoë Winters) with another one of her clients Mark (John Marago) who according to Lucy “checks all of Sophie’s boxes.” However when Sophie goes to follow up with Sophie she can’t seem to reach her, thinking nothing of it she reaches out to Mark who by all accounts was very happy with how the date went and can’t wait to see Sophie again. Lucy takes this as a win but this elation is quickly shaken when she comes into work and is pulled aside by her boss and finds out that Mark assaulted Sophie on the date (this all happens off-screen) and Sophie is suing the matchmaking company that Lucy works for.
Lucy (despite her bosses wishes) seeks out Sophie to try and apoligise to her, but Sophie shuts her down not wanting to hear any of it. She feels betrayed and accuses Lucy of not checking thoroughly enough and ending the friendship that the two had fostered.
We then cut to the last third of the film, Lucy is out of town on a roadtrip with John and she recieves a call from Sophie, Mark is outside her apartment and she is scared that he is going to do something to her. Lucy and John race back to the city only to find that Mark has left, but Sophie is still left very shaken. John offers to drive Lucy home but she declines telling him that she is going to stay to sleep on Sophie’s couch so she can help her fill out a police report in the morning.
The minute Sophie didn’t pick up the phone was the minute this film shifted from a typical romcom to a romantic drama with comedic elements. I could feel it in the atmosphere in the cinema, it was as if every woman (the cinema was filled with women) was holding her breath, because they knew subconsciously what was happening, even though no words had been said at that point.
“The fact that every audience member knew exactly what had occurred off-screen without any dialogue speaks volumes about Song’s craft. This was the moment for me when Materialists became more than ‘just a romcom.’”
According to the Australian Insttitute of Health and Welfare 1 in 9 women have reported experiencing sexual violence from either a current or former partner. However it is arguable that these figures are much higher due to underreporting. So it is no wonder many women are terrified to put themselves out there on a dating app and risk getting hurt. Song captures this fear and uncertainty perfectly in Materialists with very little words said and has been able to shine a light on the often uncomfortable and typically unspoken realities many women face. Something I haven’t seen done in any other romance movie.
“Materialists holds a much needed mirror up to the uncomfortable and unspoken realities of dating that many women face.”
Materialists is a film that has deeply impacted me, and I’ve continued to think about it in the weeks following my seeing it, and the more I think about it, the better it gets. There are very few films that I think redefine genres, but I would argue that Materialists has redefined romance for the better. It doesn’t shy away from the dark topics that are often left unsaid, and it is deeply critical of how the idea of love and romance has changed over the last two decades.
To the people that criticised this film, I truly believe that had this film been advertised as a drama rather than a rom-com it would not nearly garner the amount of criticism it has been receiving. But in my opinion this film IS a romance movie, and in some cases I would argue it is a rom-com. It’s just that romcoms look different in 2025 than the 1990s ones we know and love, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
