SPOILERS are ahead for Materialists.
With just two months left in the year, I can say confidently that Celine Song’s Materialists is still one of the best 2025 movie releases I’ve seen. It’s been months since I first watched the romance movie starring Dakota Johnson, Pedro Pascal and Chris Evans, and it’s among the few films that I’ve continued to think about, and more importantly take into my life. While I absolutely loved it, the movie has been the object of a lot of conversation since its release that I think seems to have steered some people away from it getting its proper flowers.
Now that it’s streaming on HBO Max, and certainly a lot more people will be watching it, and adding to the heated debate, I wanted to add in my thoughts, and talk about why I think the reaction to Materialists is proof we need more modern romances in the world.
My Experience Watching And Falling For Materialists
I went to go see Materialists with a couple of friends over the summer after being taken aback by writer/director Celine Song’s debut movie, Past Lives. (And, of course the Chris Evans and Pedro Pascal of it all drew me in further). It remains one of the most memorable experiences I had in movie theaters this year, not only because of Song’s gorgeous filmmaking, and the really poignant story she tells about modern love, but because of the hours of conversation it sparked among my friends after the credits rolled.
Of course, we had a blast discussing whether Dakota Johnson’s matchmaker character Lucy should have chosen to get back together with her ex, John (Chris Evans), as she does at the end, stuck it out with Harry (Pedro Pascal), a wealthy man who initially sweeps her off her feet, or remained single. But, it ultimately led us to a discussion about our own relationships, and beliefs on being in love versus the practicalities of a longterm partnership. It made me reflect on my own patterns and preconceptions about relationships and marriage, and has continued to in the months since every now and again. As someone who loves romance movies and TV shows, I think it’s important to point out how rare of an experience I found this to be.
Explaining The Controversy Of Materialists
Which brings me to the viral “controversy” around Materialists – which I put in quotes, because the controversial part has more to do with audiences in my opinion than the content itself. Anyways, when I went to see this movie, I had heard about it sparking a lot of conversation about how the romances are handled. Obviously, once I saw it, I could totally understand why. There’s a lot to unpack about Lucy’s journey with John and Harry, and what the movie is perhaps trying to tell us about what’s important when settling down with a partner.
The loudest conversation that ended up ruling the internet’s discussion about it was viewers deeming it “broke boy propaganda” because John is a struggling actor and waiter who Lucy decides to stick with, rather than pursuing a wealthy, more “eligible” bachelor like Harry. When Refinery29 spoke to Song about this dialogue about her movie, she said she found it “disappointing” before saying this:
The thing that’s very important to me is to stress that poverty is not the fault of the poor. And I think that given that, it is very brutal. I find it very cruel to talk about John as a character who loves Lucy, and who is a beautiful character being played beautifully by Chris, to talk about him in such cruel terms as ‘broke boy’ or ‘broke man.'
Alongside Song’s comments on her disapproval of the way the internet has been talking about John, she also spoke to the larger reason it bothers her. In her words:
It makes me feel very concerned that anybody would talk about my movie and my characters and to really think about it in such classist terms. The whole movie is about fighting the way that capitalism is trying to colonize our hearts and colonize love.
I think Song makes an interesting point here, because it speaks to our current overarching value systems when it comes to relationships. Isn’t it interesting how the movie was pulled down a tier because it was decided that the message was that it was promoting women being with a man who’s characterized as being “broke,” rather than celebrating the main characters for choosing love over materialism?
I'm Shocked At How Many People Missed The Point Of The Movie
That last question is particularly interesting to me (as someone who did like the ending) because it’s literally just a movie! I find it really interesting that a horde of people criticized Lucy for choosing the man with the least impressive bank account, despite clearly having a long held connection and real spark with him, even in the world of make believe movies, where there’s no actual stakes to her making the decision. One of our prior pieces from another writer also wrote about how she doesn’t believe the ending that Lucy and John will stay together. It felt like everyone decided to be her judgey mom who's like, "But, how much does he make, Lucy? Are you sure it's going to last, Lucy?"
I think the argument that has fueled conversations about Materialists misses the point, because they are treating Lucy like she’s a real person who needs to make this sensible decision, when we should be talking about the movie as a piece of entertainment and commentary on love. It’s a lot more interesting from a story point of view that Lucy chooses John because it’s not the sensible option; it's the human option. They’ve already broken up before. He still lives with roommates, and sure, she could find another Harry-type with a sizable bank account. Love is messy. Love is not logical, and that’s why it’s kind of beautiful. How many of us know someone who's in a relationship that doesn’t fully “make sense,” but absolutely works anyway? I keep going back to one quote in the film when John asks Lucy why people get married. As she replies:
Because people tell them they should. Because they’re lonely. And because they’re hopeful. They wanna do it differently than their parents.
The movie is telling us that love is a leap of faith, and it’s hopeful. You can have a list of have-tos all you want, but ultimately, settling down is choosing someone you think things will work with who you want to grow old alongside. If Lucy had picked Harry, whom she didn’t really love, she would have had security, sure, but that’s not what she was searching for the most.
I Think The Romance Genre Being Largely Dead For Over A Decade Has A Lot To Do With It
To wrap my thoughts up here, I think the reaction to Materialists shows a scary lack of romanticism in the current landscape when it comes to movies like this. A section of the internet wrote off this movie because they decided it was telling women to “settle” for men without deep pockets, when I think it's actually commenting on the human experience of deciding how to navigate partnership in the modern dating pool. It's reminded me that there simply aren't enough mainstream movies being made about people in relationships, now in 2025, and reminded me that there are a lot of interesting conversations to be had about this particular time for people looking for a partner.
I hope to see more filmmakers tell the kind of thought-provoking storylines about relationships that Materialists does, because at the end of the day, I think defining who we love, and why we love is one of the most important and vital conversations we can have. At a time where the romance genre rarely has viral moments like this, I think we might be a little out of practice.
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
