What Audiences Missed: A much-needed wake-up call

Reviewing Celine Song’s Materialists

One of the most highly anticipated movies of summer 2025 seems to have fallen short of many people’s expectations. I recently saw Materialists in theatres, and while I loved the movie and the message it sent, I was not faced with the same reactions when scrolling online later. The latest addition to A24’s prized collection comes from Academy Award winner Celine Song, the acclaimed director of Past Lives, and features  A-Listers, Dakota Johnson (Fifty Shades of Grey), Chris Evans (Captain America), and Pedro Pascal (The Last of Us). Materialists was expected to be the promising revival of “The classic 2000’s Rom-Com”, however, viewers quickly realized that this movie was not what they wanted it to be. Many viewers noted, “The characters' decisions didn’t sit right”, “there was no character development,” “Celine Song didn’t deliver,”  and “The trailer was misleading,”. The list of reactions and unmet expectations resulted in the movie drifting far from their top 10 list of romance movies. Though many viewers couldn’t care less about the movie and what they didn’t understand, there is a reason why it was so hyped up in the first place. A24 is known for movies that are testaments of life, not just free-floating fiction. If you didn’t like it or understand it the first time, you may want to reevaluate the movie, and maybe your life. 

So, what went wrong? 

First of all, the movie was an A24 production, a company known for its complex storylines, emotional depth, and famous films like Everything Everywhere All At Once, The Whale, and The Brutalist. Audiences looking for a light-hearted, feel-good rom-com seemed to have forgotten that A24 may not be the saviour they were looking for. 

The trailer, however, also forgot the A24 memo. The trailer was everything hoped for from a romantic movie. The movie was set in New York and showcased the age-old dilemma of choosing between two possible boyfriends, both characteristics of classic rom-coms. It included a star-studded cast, the fan-favourite song Material Girl by Madonna, and a wonderful original soundtrack, including new song ‘My Baby (Got Nothing at All)’ by Japanese Breakfast. While it correctly advertised the basic setting, characters and possible plotlines, no one could predict the drama that would ensue.

*Spoiler Warning*

As for the drama itself, the movie follows Dakota Johnson as Lucy, a failed actress turned matchmaker living in New York City. Her job revolves around meeting with clients to find their ‘perfect’ match –someone who matches their non-negotiables: a list of qualities such as height, money, political views, age, race, and more. She matches them based on ‘math’ and what makes sense on paper. She meets finance man Harry (Pedro Pascal), at a former client’s wedding. Harry checks off every single one of her boxes: rich, successful, charming, and tall (credited to the controversial height change surgery), and they quickly enter a relationship. That same night, she runs into her ex-boyfriend of five years, John (Chris Evans), a current struggling actor and part-time cater-waiter who still has roommates. Their break-up was rooted in the fact that the two lived completely different lifestyles. Lucy wanted a relationship where money didn’t define every decision; John could not give up his dream career, no matter how many financial problems there were. The rest of the movie follows Lucy as she navigates the ‘perfect’ guy versus her perfect guy. In the end, she realizes that, as much as Harry was everything she could have ever wanted, they didn’t truly have a genuine connection. She returns to John, giving up her checklist for a more flawed, but genuine connection.

Now this is where the real problem presented itself. Calling it “broke boy propaganda”, viewers described their dissatisfaction with the movie’s not-so-fairytale ending. Presented with the choice between a wealthy and charismatic finance man, who said all the right things, and was the perfect match… Lucy decided to go back to her ex-boyfriend, the thirty-something-year-old struggling actor with nothing going for him. In this day and age, viewers were frustrated with what they were being told. There was no way that the bum of an ex-boyfriend was any better than quite literally the perfect man. She went back to a man who had no development, changed nothing in his ways and continued life with slim to nothing. This was not the fairytale ending from the brilliant Celine Song.

However, viewers didn’t realize what they were truly romanticizing. Lucy based everything on her checklist of a ‘perfect match’ – what made the most sense financially and logically, instead of what could truly make her happy. In other words, she valued the materialistic promises and entities that Harry could bring her over the true feelings and values that should be prioritized in relationships. That brings us to the whole point of this review. As hinted by the title, Materialists, we, as a society, have disregarded deep and meaningful connections, for the promise of stability and nice things. Yes, a nice apartment and height (thanks to money and surgery) are great, but these factors couldn’t beat the fact that John was the one she could see herself growing old with. At what point do all the right boxes mean we’ve got everything we want? These boxes don’t dictate the person you’re really with. Is a true connection something to be sacrificed for the objects in our house or the clothes we wear? The original reason they broke up was that Lucy could not let go of her materialistic ways. As much as she loved John, love wasn’t enough for her, so she packed up and moved on. The second time around, however, she realized it meant much more. Not to say that John didn’t have his flaws, but by the end of the movie, he makes a series of promises of things he’s going to change about himself: get a new apartment, pick up a more stable serving job, and promise to love Lucy no matter what hardships arise. There might not have been character development directly shown in the movie, but that doesn’t mean it would never happen. The ending was just the beginning of their new life together, with new values and effort to make it work, despite the pampered lifestyle that many hope for. 

Celine Song’s goal was not to create a perfect rom-com of the relationship we all dream of having; she wanted to present a recreation of real life, in other words, a wake-up call, for one of the many reasons that modern-day relationships often don’t survive.  In the director’s words, “the movie is about the way we commodify and objectify each other in the dating market and how much it crushes all of us.” (Crowley). Relationships aren’t perfect; they require hard work, but with the right person, the results can be wonderful. Looking at resumes should be reserved for the job market, not the dating market. Although the story is entirely fiction, the concepts presented are not. As much as we all love the feeling of purchasing a new item or depositing a new paycheck, it won’t beat a real, genuine connection with others. Unfortunately, relationships can’t be created through checking off lists or ordering tailored perfection. They are meant to survive the ups and downs of life, and like anything else you would want to succeed, they need tons of TLC and hard work. If the movie title doesn’t give a hint of what should be expected; we may be far from being saved.

Just something to think about.

References

Crowley, Liam. “One of the Most Powerful Ways to Tell a Story”: The Secret Behind Materialists' Deeply  Emotional Story Explained by Celine Song.” ScreenRant, 13 June 2025, screenrant.com/materialists-movie-true/meaning-explained-celine-song-interview/. Accessed 15 July 2025.