Ambar Ramirez
Words by Ambar Ramirez
What makes a good rom-com? Is it the love tropes? The love triangles, forbidden love, enemies to lovers, lovers to enemies and back to lovers, best friends turned lovers, lovers turned best friends or the girl next door and the boy next door. Or maybe it’s the humor that really makes it. The awkward glances, clumsy main character, the accidental zipper rips and fashion accidents, the chaotic love-dizzy best friend and the cynical friend who doesn’t believe love is real.
In truth, a good rom-com is a balance of the two. But a great rom-com lies in the high stakes and even bigger grand gestures — the slow dances with no music, the final “we belong together” scene in the pouring rain or the super realistic happily ever after ending (catch the sarcasm?). Rom-coms take the saying go big or go home literally. And all that said, A24’s “The Materialists” was none of that.
Directed by the critically acclaimed Celine Song, “The Materialists” came in hot with a hot cast: Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans and Pedro Pascal (I’m drooling). And from the moment the dramatic trailer dropped, I knew I needed to see this film on the big screen.
Before jumping into my personal review of the movie, we need to talk about the opening scene as it plays a major role in setting up the overarching theme. The film starts at the beginning of time… literally. I’m talking caveman-and-woman level beginning of time. A caveman is seen gathering flowers and bringing them to a cavewoman. She greets him with a bowl of food. He hands her the bag that carried the flowers, and at the bottom of the bag, lie primordial weapons. Right off the bat, this portrays relationships as an exchange of goods, a transaction, if you will. Pretty straightforward.
But this movie isn’t about the caveman and cavewoman. It’s about our leading lady, Lucy (played by Dakota Johnson). Lucy is a matchmaker at a well-established agency in New York City called Adore. She’s great at what she does, but like any job, it comes with its obstacles.
When we first meet Lucy, she’s walking through the city on the phone, following up on two clients’ first dates. The male client tells her the date wasn’t a match, and he doesn’t want a second one. Meanwhile, over lunch, the woman client tells Lucy the date went great. Lucy then has the unfortunate task of informing Sophie L. (the woman client) that there won’t be a second date. Sophie responds with a snide comment about the guy being bald and that she was “lowering her standards.” But at the end of the day, Sophie just wants love, as do most of Lucy’s clients. Lucy reminds her that they have to keep moving forward. One bad date or failed connection might just be what leads to the right one.
Onward and upward — after lunch, Lucy returns to the office, where her coworkers and boss surprise her with a celebration. She’s just secured her ninth successful match, and the couple is getting married. At the wedding, Lucy meets Harry (played by Pedro Pascal), who she later refers to as a “unicorn” in the dating scene: a handsome, confident, 6-foot-something bachelor with nothing but money (private equity).
Boy meets girl. Boy asks girl what she’d like to drink. And before the girl can even finish her go-to order—a beer and a Coca-Cola—John (played by Chris Evans) shows up with both drinks in hand. But John isn’t just some psychic caterer with impeccable timing. He’s Lucy’s ex-boyfriend of five years.
John is the opposite of Harry. Not that he’s not handsome or tall (I mean, it’s Chris Evans, for god’s sake), but he’s, to put it bluntly, broke. A struggling actor in the big city with just $2,000 to his name.
And thus, the movie’s plot kicks in. Lucy’s thriving career suddenly meets a personal crossroads as she finds herself in a matchmaking dilemma of her own. Does she go with the seemingly perfect, wealthy new guy? Or does she rekindle things with the imperfect, broke ex?
Is love just a transaction? A business deal? Or is it something deeper, something wired into our chemistry? (This is where that caveman and cavewoman scene starts to make sense.)
Guess you’ll just have to watch the movie to find out.
Now, for the actual review. This rom-com wasn’t great. It didn’t have high stakes or grand gestures. And the acting might’ve fallen a little flat (I often compare Dakota Johnson’s acting to Kristen Stewart’s—not bad, just … awkward). But truthfully, just because it wasn’t great doesn’t mean it was bad. In fact, I think the movie did exactly what it set out to do.
We’re all too familiar with online dating apps by now, but what we often overlook is how superficial these services really are. You swipe left or right after checking a few boxes. How tall are they? What do they do for work? Full head of hair? Nice smile? But none of those things truly tell you who someone is.
“The Materialists” was online dating without the online part. So the fact that it felt a little flat actually worked. It felt right for the heart of the movie. This film held a mirror up to the very real reality of today’s dating scene. There are no grand gestures or dramatic ultimatums in the average modern relationship. And the humor? It was there, just not in your face. It lived in the snide comments about height and hair density, in the awkward conversations, in the quiet beats between lines.
It’s been a while since a rom-com has been done well. As a reminder of the ones that got it right: “My Best Friend’s Wedding,” “Confessions of a Shopaholic,” “When Harry Met Sally,” “Crazy, Stupid, Love,” “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days” and so on. None of these films is necessarily award-worthy, but they leave a lasting impression. Each tells a conventional love story through a fresh perspective. And that’s exactly what “The Materialists” did. It took the classic love triangle trope and told it through a modern lens.
It’s not the movie’s fault if you don’t like seeing the truth of what the dating scene looks like nowadays.
Follow FOLIO!