Materialists
Lucy Mason is a matchmaker in New York City. She is good at her job. She has matched nine couples into marriage. She is the ninth couple's vendor at the wedding where the film begins, and she is working the room at the reception before the vows are dry.
Full analysis below
Want to know what's safe to watch? Get our weekly guide to new reviews and woke-free picks. No spam, ever.
Mild trap. Materialists markets itself as a sophisticated romantic comedy with progressive A24 aesthetics: a career-driven New York matchmaker choosing between a wealthy financier and her impoverished ex-boyfriend. The trailer leans heavily into the film's cynical, transactional framing of romance, and Celine Song's progressive reputation from Past Lives signals to conservative viewers that this is a film about choosing career and wealth over love. The trap is that the film ends where conservative viewers would not expect: with the rich man rejected, the poor man proposing with a flower ring in Central Park, and both characters receiving marriage licenses. The film's nominal endorsement of marriage and love over materialism nudges it into traditional territory despite the progressive pedigree of its filmmaker and distributor. Conservative viewers who dismiss it as an A24 progressive product will miss a film that, at its core, argues that checking boxes is not love and that commitment chosen freely between two people who have been honest with each other is the only basis for marriage.
Our Verdict on Materialists
Lucy Mason is a matchmaker in New York City. She is good at her job. She has matched nine couples into marriage. She is the ninth couple's vendor at the wedding where the film begins, and she is working the room at the reception before the vows are dry.
Lucy has a theory about romance: it is a market. People have criteria. Her job is to match criteria. Love is downstream of compatibility, which is downstream of the checklist, which is downstream of knowing what you want. The film's title is its thesis. Its question is whether this theory is right.
Celine Song is working with a deceptively simple structure. Lucy is pulled between two men. Harry Castillo is wealthy, polished, and genuinely interested in her. He is Pedro Pascal being charming at his most disarming. John Pitts is her ex-boyfriend: a theater actor working catering to pay rent, a man who loves her without reservation and whom she left because he could not check the financial box. He is Chris Evans playing a man who has decided to stop being Captain America and try being a person instead.
The film's moral engine is clear. Lucy is wrong. She knows she is wrong. She cannot stop being wrong. The entire middle of the film is Lucy choosing Harry, the checklist man, over John, the love man, because Harry's existence validates her professional theory. A matchmaker who has found her own perfect match, by her own criteria. It almost works.
Then it falls apart in the best possible way. Harry turns out to have undergone painful and expensive surgery to increase his height because he didn't check his own box. He is as trapped by the checklist as she is. They are compatible. They are not in love. Lucy has the intelligence to see this and the honesty to end it.
Chris Evans as John Pitts is the film's emotional center. Evans has spent years playing America's literal symbol of virtue, and here he plays a man who has none of the power and all of the steadiness: a guy who shows up, who is honest about his feelings, who doesn't hide behind his finances because he has none, who loves Lucy without leverage. Evans plays John without a single false note. He is funny, warm, and devastatingly sincere. When John proposes with a flower he picks in Central Park, it is the most romantic moment in any studio film this year.
Dakota Johnson's Lucy is the film's hardest performance to evaluate. Johnson is working in a register that requires the audience to simultaneously like Lucy, diagnose her problem, and wait for her to catch up. She carries that weight with more grace than she is usually credited for. Lucy's flaw is not ambition; it is the conflation of security with love. The film does not punish her for wanting security. It simply shows her what she loses when she makes it her primary criterion.
The film's traditional content is substantial but not dominant. The resolution is unambiguously pro-marriage: a flower ring, a proposal accepted, marriage licenses filed. The film's central argument is that love, not material criteria, is the correct basis for marriage. The man who wins is not the wealthy financier but the man who shows up and says 'I love you' without conditions.
The progressive content is also real. Lucy is a career-defined woman who has systematically deferred the question of her own romantic fulfillment. The film does not critique her career. A client's assault case introduces an anti-male undercurrent that is present but does not become the film's argument. The matchmaking industry is presented as vaguely exploitative in ways the film interrogates without resolving cleanly. The entire film is set in a New York City milieu that is default-progressive in its social assumptions.
Materialists earns a Traditional Lean verdict because its destination is traditional even when its road is not. A man who loves a woman proposes. She says yes. They get married. The rich man goes home. Song, whether she intended to or not, made a case for love over materialism that conservatives can recognize. It is not a clean film. But its ending is.
Woke Tropes & Content Analysis
Formula: Weighted Score = Severity × Authenticity Multiplier × Centrality Multiplier
🔴 Woke Tropes
| Trope | Severity | Authenticity | Centrality | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Career-Defined Female Protagonist (Marriage Secondary) | 3 | 0.7 | 1.8 | 3.78 |
| Male Client as Predatory Danger (Assault Subplot) | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Transactional Framing of Marriage (Industry Premise) | 2 | 0.7 | 1 | 1.4 |
| Progressive NYC Social Milieu as Default | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Wealthy Male Love Interest Portrayed as Hollow | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| TOTAL WOKE | 9.2 | |||
🟢 Traditional Tropes
| Trope | Severity | Authenticity | Centrality | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marriage as the Correct Resolution of Romance | 5 | 0.7 | 1.8 | 6.3 |
| Love Chosen Over Material Security | 4 | 0.7 | 1 | 2.8 |
| Critique of Transactional Romance as Moral Failure | 3 | 0.7 | 1 | 2.1 |
| Male Sincerity and Persistence as Romantic Virtues | 3 | 1 | 0.5 | 1.5 |
| Financial Failure Not a Disqualifier for Marriage | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 |
| TOTAL TRADITIONAL | 13.7 | |||
Score Margin: +5 TRAD
Director: Celine Song
PROGRESSIVESong made her feature debut with Past Lives (2023), a film about an immigrant Korean woman choosing between her childhood sweetheart and the American Jewish intellectual she married. That film was widely praised and was correctly read as moderately progressive: it accepted the immigrant's American assimilation as the narrative default and framed the childhood love as a path not taken rather than a path that should have been taken. Materialists follows a similar structure. Song is a filmmaker whose instincts run progressive, but she is not a political filmmaker. She is a filmmaker of longing, hesitation, and choice. Her progressive sympathies show in her casting and in her sympathy for economically precarious characters, but she is not making issue films. She is making films about what it costs to want the wrong things.
Writer: Celine Song
Song's screenplay for Materialists is a tonal tightrope walk. She is working in the register of screwball comedy while making arguments about commodification and authenticity that have real philosophical weight. The film's greatest structural achievement is that its main character is demonstrably wrong about what she wants for most of the running time, and Song makes that wrongness sympathetic without endorsing it. The ending is traditional but not retrograde: Lucy chooses love and marriage, and the film presents that choice as the correct one.
Producers
- Christine Vachon (Killer Films) - Vachon has produced some of the most progressive films in American independent cinema over the past three decades, including Boys Don't Cry and Carol. Her involvement is a progressive signal. However, Materialists is not a film in the Killer Films tradition of transgressive politics. It is a commercial romantic comedy that happens to be co-produced by Killer Films. The progressive signal from Vachon's involvement does not translate into progressive content in the final film.
- David Hinojosa (2AM) - Song's producing partner since Past Lives. No strong independent ideological signal.
Full Cast
Content Breakdown
Adult Viewer Insight
Conservative viewers should approach Materialists knowing its pedigree: A24, Killer Films, Celine Song. These are progressive signals. The film delivers a progressive aesthetic and a progressive milieu. But its argument is ultimately that the checklist is a trap, that love is not a transaction, and that the right answer to 'will you marry me' is yes when asked by someone who loves you without leverage. The film earns its traditional verdict at the finish line even if the path there involves a lot of New York cynicism. Adults who enjoy sophisticated romantic comedies will find it rewarding.
Parental Guidance
Rated R. Contains: adult sexual content (one sex scene, not graphic); strong language throughout; adult themes including relationship manipulation and a client assault subplot. Not appropriate for children. Appropriate for adults and mature teens who enjoy romantic dramas.
Is Materialists Safe for Kids?
[object Object]
Find Materialists on Amazon Prime Video, rent, or buy:
▶ Stream or Buy on AmazonAs an Amazon Associate, VirtueVigil earns from qualifying purchases.
Community Discussion 0
Subscribe to comment.
Join the VirtueVigil community to share your perspective on this review.