Materialists plus Short Takes on other cinematic topics
Reviews and Comments by Ken Burke
I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative. However, due to COVID concerns I’m mostly addressing streaming options with limited visits to theaters, where I don’t think I’ve missed much anyway, but better options are on the horizon. (Note: Anything in bold blue below [some may look near purple] is a link to something more in the review.)
My reviews’ premise: “You can’t please everyone, so you got to please yourself.”
(from "Garden Party" by Rick Nelson and the Stone Canyon Band, 1972 album of the song’s name)
Materialists (Celine Song) rated R 116 min.
Here’s the trailer:
(Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge its size;
activate the same button or use “esc” keyboard key to return to normal.)
If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film or want to save some $ (as well as recognizing those readers like me who just aren’t that tech-savvy). To help any of you who want to learn more details yet avoid these all-important plot-reveals I’ll identify any give-away sentences/sentence-clusters with colors plus arrows:
⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.
WHAT HAPPENS: After an opening scene supposedly of the first marriage as a caveman gives his partner a ring, we jump to the present to meet Lucy Mason (Dakota Johnson), a successful matchmaker at the NYC office of Adore where she’s celebrated at her branch by leading some of her clients to 8 weddings with another coming up. She has no love life of her own, though, resigning herself to being a bachelorette unless he meets the right (rich) man. Part of her attitude comes from the increasingly-unrealistic expectations of her clients including middle-aged Mark (John Magaro) who insists that even someone as old as 31 is too aged for him; on the other end of that spectrum is Sophie (Zoë Winters) who’s desperate enough to try just about anybody, but so far nothing has worked out for her. Lucy attends the wedding of her 9th success only to find soon-to-be bride Charlotte’s (Louisa Jacobson) privately crying, afraid she’s marrying more out of obligation than true love, so Lucy has to convince the upset woman to go through with it anyway. At the reception Lucy’s approached by wealthy financier Harry Castillo (Pedro Pascal), the groom’s brother, who makes overtures to her even as she refutes his advances.1 At that same event she also meets again old boyfriend John Finch (Chris Evans) so they go outside to smoke and reminisce a bit—they broke up due to her frustration with both of them being poor all the time; he’s now doing odd jobs, such as being a server at this reception, while still hoping for a break in his aspiring career as a stage actor.2
1Lucy’s initial response to Harry reminds me of another song from Graceland, "Gumboots," where the singer says to a female friend, “You don’t feel you could love me, but I feel you could.” (And, of course, there’s also another relevant line for this movie: “Hey, you know, breakdowns come and breakdowns go, so / What are you going to do about it? That’s what I want to know.” Inform me too!)
2Damn! That reminds me of another Paul Simon song, "Still Crazy After All These Years" (on his 1975 album of the same name) where he sings: “I met my old lover / On the street last night / She seemed so glad to see me / I just smiled / And we talked about some old times / And we drank ourselves some beers / Still crazy after all these years.” Paul refuses to retire and I refuse to let him.
Harry persists anyway, taking Lucy to upscale restaurants, insisting he’s really interested in her as she finally accepts his overtures and him as her lover. Back at work, Lucy sets Sophie up with Mark who tells her he really enjoyed the date; however, Lucy’s boss, Violet (Marin Ireland), reveals Mark assaulted Sophie who’s now suing the firm (but not Lucy individually). Despite being told to avoid Sophie because of the lawsuit, Lucy tracks her down anyway, tries to apologize, but is angrily dismissed as a “pimp”; Lucy and Harry also attend a play John’s in (well received), but in an after-show conversation Lucy takes a comment the wrong way, leaves in a huff (or, as Groucho Marx once said, “If that’s too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff.” [from the hilarious Duck Soup, Leo McCarey,1933; available on Amazon Prime Video; see it!]). Then, Lucy prepares to go on a trip to Iceland with Harry, finds an engagement ring in his luggage, later that night in bed she sees scars on his legs indicating he had surgery to increase his height; that doesn’t really bother her as much as their conversation about it in which they realize they’re compatible but not really in love so they break up. Lucy has no immediate home, though, because she sublet her apartment during the intended Iceland trip so she seeks out John who suggests they take a trip upstate (he’s got some cash from the play) which leads to crashing a wedding reception, a kiss, his desire to get back together vs. her hesitancy. ⇒That night Lucy gets a panicked call from Sophie that Mark’s outside her apartment, the police won’t help, so Lucy and John rush back to the city to find Mark gone; Lucy helps Sophie get a restraining order against Mark as the women reconcile, as does Lucy with John. As this all wraps up, Sophie gets an acceptable dating match, Harry becomes an Adore client, Lucy’s promoted to head the NYC branch, John proposes with an inexpensive ring like the long-ago caveman’s, Lucy accepts, & credits roll as we see many couples getting their marriage licenses.⇐
SO WHAT? After not being as enthralled as I’d wanted to be by much of what I’d seen and written about from this June and most of July (which I’ve detailed in a couple of my most recent postings, so if you want more details just consult the Blog Archive on the right side of this page as I don’t care to enumerate all of that again), I finally got something that worked a bit better for me (and especially for my "I want to see some human interest" wife, Nina, with a welcome shift away from the fighting, deaths, and car chases in those recent explorations) with a charming rom-com, Jane Austen Wrecked My Life (Laura Piani), presented for your consideration last week. Well, this week provides another successful rom-com with Materialists, although both of these recent movies are more rom than com, so don’t be expecting a solid dose of belly-laughs from either of them. This is Song’s second feature, after her critically-successful story of a sort-of-love-triangle drama, Past Lives (2023), which scored 95% positive from Rotten Tomatoes, an almost unheard-of 94% average score from Metacritic, and an equally-rare 4½ stars of 5 from me; sadly enough, I don’t think of Materialists as being of that caliber (and I guess I’m getting pickier in my advancing age, as—excepting some of the 2024 films I finally got a chance to stream last spring—I’ve been very stingy this year so far about going up to the level of 4 stars, save for my fairly-recent embrace of Eephus [Carson Lund], as I just can’t seem to get past a 3½-stars decision) as it’s a very pleasant story supported by fine acting although in retrospect it does seem a bit predictable (But how much variety do you want in a genre movie anyway?), even as Lucy does come to realize that her prior self-demand of a rich partner may not necessarily be what she truly wants after all. (In respect to my Spoilers revelation policy that’s all I’ll say, though you might want to see more in that blue text.⇑)
There’s also the rather-unexpected twist that based on what we see of some of Lucy’s clients the stated satisfactions of a matched relationship may not be what they really desire after all, just as with Mark we learn how appearances can be deceiving (in the dating environment, other types of hiring, or just social interactions in general) as he’s irritatingly-particular but with no prior evidence of what a true monster he is (another aspect of this story that tampers with standard expectations of what we assume we’ll find in something billed as at least somewhat of a comedy). Bottom line—oh, wait, that comes just below, but I’ll go with 2 bottoms—I enjoyed Materialists a good bit (even though everyone lives until the end—well, I guess those cave people eventually passed away a long time ago), yet when it’s done there’s nothing to really reminisce about. OK, on to that actual review end segment.
BOTTOM LINE FINAL COMMENTS: The CCAC isn’t as wild about this Song offering as they were regarding Past Lives either, with the Rotten Tomatoes positive reviews at 79% while the Metacritic average score drops down to 69%; as clear evidence of those responses we have generally-supportive commentary from Owen Gleiberman of Variety: “ ‘Materialists’ sounds like a romantic comedy, and its distributor, A24, is certainly selling it as one. Yet the film is more like a beguiling contradiction — a rom-com played straight. While it’s all too easy to imagine the breezy ’90s version of this movie (Sandra Bullock as a matchmaker…who can’t match with anyone herself…until she meets the mismatch of her dreams!), “Materialists” is very much not that movie. It’s a sharp and serious social romantic drama full of telling observations about the way we live now, and about how connected that is (or not) to the way we’ve always lived. And there’s a dark side to it. It’s ‘Sex and the City’ filtered through a sobering reality check. […] The film doesn’t give you a surge, and that could limit its popular appeal. ‘Sex and the City’ had a way of staying light and bubbly. 'Materialists,' at times, feels like ‘Sex and the City’ made by Eric Rohmer. Yet I mean that (mostly) as a compliment, even if the film, at least at the box office, may not end up showing you the money.” However, if you want a full dismissal, you can always turn to Odie Henderson of The Boston Globe: “The new film by writer-director Celine Song is being pitched to you as a light romantic comedy and date movie, which it most decidedly is not. Song deconstructs rom-com tropes in service to a much meaner drama, with unlikable characters, a flimsy love triangle, and a dark subplot that is poorly handled. […] Song’s cynical examination of the romantic comedy is so confused that you can’t tell if she’s giving the genre the thumbs up or the middle finger. The title suggests the latter, but wait until you see the end of this movie. […] The film makes you think it’s better and more respectable than the average rom-com, only to end the exact same way they all do. A24 made a killing by releasing what critics called ‘elevated horror.’ Now, the studio is peddling the ‘elevated rom-com,’ a new genre I hope I never have to see again.” I've got a vague feeling that Mr. Henderson's no fan of this movie!
Nevertheless, if Odie’s comments haven’t scared you away (he sure tried his best), you can possibly find Materialists at 1 of the 132 domestic (U.S.-Canada) theaters where it’s still playing (opened on June 13, 2025, largest presence was at 2,844 venues, has made $36.3 million so far [globally $52.1 million]) or turn to streaming where it rents for $19.99 from Amazon Prime Video or Apple TV+ (plus a couple of others I'm not familiar with). Until then, maybe you’d like to hear my Musical Metaphor, “Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make Me a Match” (sorry, I couldn’t think of anything else relevant by Paul Simon) from the Broadway play/film adaptation Fiddler on the Roof (this clip’s from Norman Jewison’s 1971 version) where the 3 oldest daughters of Tevye (Chaim Topol)—Tzeitel (Rosalind Harris), Hodel (Michele Marsh), Chava (Neva Small)—first fantasize about an ideal mate, then end up not wanting a match, unless he’s fabulous! (Sound familiar? Maybe they should time travel and have a chat with Lucy, if she’s not dumpster diving with John or hooking Harry up with someone). You know, what the hell! I'll give you a third bottom line this week, which is if you want a much better look at a difficult romantic triangle situation you surely should watch George Cukor's classic, The Philadelphia Story (1940) starring Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant, and James Stewart (sorry, though, no gunplay or car chases in this one either, not that the story and/or dialogue needed such).
SHORT TAKES
Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:
Some options for your consideration: (1) New and upcoming superhero movies and streaming series; (2) Most watched current items on Netflix; (3) The 60 movies grossing at least $1 billion (most of them are some form on Fantasy; actual grosses, not adjusted for inflation).
We encourage you to visit the Summary of Two Guys Reviews for our past posts* (scroll to the bottom of this Summary page to see additional info about your wacky critic, Ken Burke, along with contact info and a great retrospective song list). Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage. If you’d like to Like us on Facebook (yes?) please visit our Facebook page. We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it unto us! Please also note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post. You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow register with us there in order to comment (FB procedures: frequently perplexing mysteries for us aged farts).
*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problem’s been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.
If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here at the blog please
use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work.
OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.
Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 18,473. (As always, we thank all of you for your ongoing support with hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers.) Below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys’ site):
0 Response to "Materialists plus Short Takes on other cinematic topics"
Posting Komentar