Amores Materialistas

I think that the movie was overhyped. It felt like there was just something missing and maybe because I watch a lot of series and get to enjoy the progression of characters overtime. That's why I felt like there was something missing. I think that the actors were great and maybe during the storyline there was way too much focus on her job aspect and there could've been just a little bit more of her personal life being expressed on screen. I honestly think the trailer was probably better than the movie and I found myself getting a little bit bored at times. I think that this was a great trio, but I don't know if that this was the perfect movie for them.

Is the story based on 80' years? I don't believe it, and why go back to previous life with an ex boyfriend? Can't imagine it is a story right now.

And neither of two boyfriends didn't really showed their personalities and passion to attract her, if ex boyfriend always so poor, why he didn't choose to move to other cities those not expensive like New York, and keep his dream at his 40s only just a stage actor? I don't quite get it, and nothing more I feel can be the points attracting her.

Who does she have a physiological love for? Can only a physiological love be together? Isn't career charm enough to add points to men? At least they should go on a trip together to know whether they are really suitable for each other.

It can be hard for a playwright to transition into filmmaking. Plays are famously staid, physical affairs, relying more on dialogue than visual storytelling to convey emotion and plot. Yet Celine Song has made the leap from playwright to filmmaker with a visual fluency and ease that's nothing short of remarkable. Her feature debut Past Lives (2023) became an indie darling, earning an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay. While its dialogue was crisp and lyrical, it was Song's command of silences and glances that gave the film its emotional resonance. She now follows that impressive debut with Materialists (2025), a quasi-rom-com that strikes while the iron is hot.

Materialists follows Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a New York City matchmaker who views dating through the lens of a financial market-assigning value to men and women based on traits, assets, and compatibility metrics. She doesn't pretend love is purely romantic; she's practical, even transactional. But her worldview is tested when she begins dating Harry (Pedro Pascal), a charming and wealthy suitor, just as John (Chris Evans), a struggling actor and former flame, reappears and rekindles an effortless chemistry.

Song appears especially drawn to love triangles-Past Lives also revolved around a woman caught between two worthy men. But she never reduces her characters to reality-TV archetypes or rom-com clichés. If anything, Materialists functions as an elevated romantic comedy: it still follows familiar narrative beats, but with a more grounded and honest exploration of love than the dreamy worlds of Meg Ryan or Richard Curtis films.

Materialists dives into the realities of modern dating, where apps and algorithms have turned people into commodities in a vast "dating market." Lucy's profession as a matchmaker becomes a narrative device for discussing these themes-her conversations with co-workers mirror the cold calculus behind dating app algorithms, where potential partners are treated like stocks or securities. Boxes are ticked, and wealth is a major factor-no romanticism required. Yet the film avoids becoming a cynical screed about the death of love. Instead, it confronts the tensions head-on: true love can feel "easy," but that doesn't eliminate the realities of trade-offs, or the fact that marriage remains a financial partnership as much as a romantic one.

This sociological bent makes Materialists fascinating to watch-it often feels more like a relationship essay than traditional entertainment. Still, it delivers the genre's essential pleasures: there are satisfying beats and feel-good moments, but with sharper dialogue and more originality than usual. Some lines recall early Richard Curtis in their memorability. Song's playwriting background serves her well here.

Returning to the love triangle structure, Song treats each character with empathy, resisting the urge to vilify one in favor of a tidy moral. All three are endearing but imperfect, and their emotional depth makes you want to spend more time with them. This is especially true of the two men. Pascal finally lands the romantic lead that the internet has long wanted for him-his charm and sly smile are irresistible, and he carries a late, vulnerable scene with deft dramatic control. Evans, a rom-com veteran, leans into a quieter, more melancholic role. His longing and quiet devotion to Lucy-despite her questionable treatment of him-are convincingly portrayed.

The weak link is Lucy herself. As the titular "materialist," she's meant to evolve from pragmatic matchmaker to romantic lead, but she remains frustratingly underwritten. Johnson, whose signature style often leans toward aloof detachment, doesn't help. There's little insight into Lucy's inner world or motivations. She's burdened with being both the audience's point of entry and the character undergoing the biggest arc-yet the script and performance don't give her enough complexity to support that dual role. As a result, the film's emotional center feels muted.

Ultimately, Materialists is a worthy, if slightly uneven, follow-up to Past Lives. It doesn't linger in the soul the way Song's debut did, but it plays with the rom-com form in thoughtful, compelling ways. With sharp dialogue, a probing thesis, and two richly drawn male leads, it elevates the genre's average. Still, when your central character-the fulcrum of both the romance and the film's thematic weight-feels undercooked, one of the film's key pillars noticeably wobbles.

I was disappointed in this one. It had its moments, but not enough to warrant a more than an average rating. Dakota Fanning's delivery of dialogue has always been so monotone to me however, I have to say I like this role better than some of her others. She actually seemed to care at a few moments during this movie. The exposure of horrible things that could come from using a dating service was good details. Not in a warm fuzzy kind of way, but it's an unfortunate reality. The shallowness of people when they're looking for the perfect mate was very believable. Disappointing but believable. To me the ending was very predictable.

Well, based on the trailer, it looked extremely interesting. But now that I've watched it, I am not satisfied.

The subject matter is extremely boring and cliché. There is nothing special in this film, except for the presence of the male actors. But Ms. Johnson could not deliver the role she was playing. She was too cold and emotionless for this character. Eventhough I said the actors were good, yet they weren't very good. They, too, couldn't awaken the sense of sympathy.

And, I may be wrong, but this film felt a bit misogynistic. It declares that women's priority is money.

And, at the same time, it couldn't convey the cliché message that LOVE prevails all! The chemistry didn't work, and it just wasn't satisfying enough.

I thought they had stopped making these sorts of films!