Materialists Review: Love isn’t cheap, but it’s not for sale either

Let’s get one thing out of the way: Materialists is not a romcom. Not even close. Don’t let the trailers fool you with their glossy editing, flirtatious dialogue, and Pedro Pascal’s well-lit grin. What Celine Song delivers here is a romantic drama, slow, stylized, and surprisingly painful.

It’s a movie that begins in abstraction and ends in gut-level realism, veering into territory many didn’t expect from a story that looked, at first glance, like it would be about one woman choosing between two equally hot men.

But Materialists is less about who Lucy ends up with and more about what her choices say about us, about modern love, and about how we define success and worth in an increasingly performative world.

And yes—spoilers ahead. Because there’s no way to talk about Materialists honestly without talking about that breakup.

The choice that broke the internet

Two camps are forming fast: Team Harry and Team John. But if we reduce Materialists to that binary, we lose everything the film was trying to say.

Let’s recap: Lucy (Dakota Johnson) breaks up with Harry (Pedro Pascal) not because of his height surgery, not because he lied about it, and definitely not because she judged him for getting it. She breaks up with him because—brace yourselves—she just doesn’t love him. And in her own words, she never did.

Expand Tweet

He asks her if it’s because of the surgery. She says no. Because it’s not. The surgery is just the spark that lights a very long fuse. She realizes that she didn’t feel anger, betrayal, or heartbreak when she found out. She felt… nothing. And if you feel nothing about something like that, then maybe you're not with the right person.

This is the emotional backbone of the movie, and it’s the part a lot of viewers seem to be missing. People are twisting this into some warped message that Lucy left him because of the surgery or because he was too vulnerable.

But the truth, stated clearly in the dialogue, is that she simply didn't know him well enough, and more importantly, didn't want to. That’s a hard truth to watch on screen, and even harder for some viewers to accept. But it’s honest. Painfully, quietly honest.

The “Broke man propaganda” discourse is getting tired

If I had a dollar for every time I’ve seen someone call Materialists "broke man propaganda," I’d probably be able to outbid Harry for a penthouse apartment. Look, I get it. John (Chris Evans) is an ex who broke Lucy’s heart. He’s not rich. He’s chasing dreams instead of salaries.

And he doesn’t fit the high-gloss version of adulthood we’ve all been spoon-fed. But that doesn’t mean he’s some freeloading manchild with nothing to offer. John’s not lazy. He’s trying. He’s doing what a lot of people are doing: surviving. And loving. That matters.

We’ve reached a strange cultural moment where choosing love over money, especially for a woman, is somehow seen as regressive or irresponsible. As if you can’t be emotionally intelligent and still choose someone who doesn’t come with financial security. I’m not saying love pays the bills, but I am saying that marrying a billionaire doesn’t guarantee emotional safety either.

Harry is kind. He’s thoughtful. He’s giving. But if the love isn’t there, it just isn’t there. No amount of Iceland trips or chef-prepared dinners can fix that.

What Celine Song gets right

The best part of Materialists is that it dares to be ugly in a beautiful way. The film is shot with precision, all clean lines and soft palettes, but underneath the polish is a raw honesty about what people want—and what they’re willing to sacrifice to get it.

Expand Tweet

This is the same director who gave us Past Lives, and you can feel that same bittersweet sensibility coursing through Materialists. The difference is scale. Materialists has a bigger cast, higher stakes, and more eyes watching.

And yet, it still finds these intimate, awkward moments of clarity, like when Lucy realizes she doesn’t even know Harry’s favorite movie, or when John admits he still has no idea what his life is going to look like in five years.

This is a film about negotiation. About the boxes we try to check for each other, and what happens when someone doesn’t want to fit neatly into any of them.

Pedro Pascal deserved more screentime in Materialists. Period.

Now here’s where I won’t hold back. It is a crime—yes, a crime—that Pedro Pascal only got about 10 minutes of actual screentime in a movie that relied heavily on his face to sell tickets. The man brought warmth, grace, and gravitas to a role that honestly deserved more narrative weight. Instead, we got a highlight reel.

The decision to underuse him felt strategic—and frustrating. And while I understand this might’ve been due to scheduling, it’s still part of a bigger pattern we’re seeing: POC actors being used for marketing appeal, only to be sidelined in the actual product.

This happened to Manny Jacinto. It’s now happening to Simone Ashley in the F1 movie. It happened here, too. It’s a trend. And people are noticing.

Harry was a fully formed character who could’ve given the movie more emotional tension if the script had let him breathe. Instead, he’s reduced to the “perfect man” archetype who gets hurt in the third act to make space for the flawed ex. It’s a waste. And Pedro deserved better.

Expand Tweet

The opening worked. The ending didn't.

Materialists opens with a surreal montage about the “first couple” to ever get married—a poetic, if slightly pretentious, way to frame the modern dating world as something both ancient and newly broken. It’s a bold start. It had me hooked.

But by the end of Materialists, I felt a little let down. Lucy, who was so pragmatic and self-aware through most of the movie, makes a decision that feels less like clarity and more like compromise. Yes, she chooses John. Yes, it’s her heart speaking. But there’s something unnervingly fragile about her conviction in the final scenes.

Love can be messy. But I don’t buy that Lucy, who spent the entire movie saying she didn’t want to play house or get trapped in a performative relationship, would then run back to a man who doesn’t have a stable plan. Not after everything she just walked away from.

It felt like the movie wanted us to romanticize uncertainty. And I’m just not sure that worked.

Final thoughts? Materialists is beautiful, but not quite believable

Materialists is many things: visually stunning, emotionally intelligent, culturally aware. But it’s also contradictory, and that’s part of what makes it so compelling. You won’t walk out of the theater with a clear answer to who Lucy should’ve ended up with. That’s the point.

You’ll feel frustrated. You’ll feel seen. You’ll feel like debating your friends about love, class, expectations, and the myth of the perfect partner.

And maybe that’s enough.

But I can’t shake the feeling that Lucy didn’t really pick love over money. She picked familiarity. Comfort. A dream she thought she’d closed the door on but couldn’t quite let go of. And while that’s human, it also made the ending feel… unfinished. Like we’re still waiting for her to wake up.

Would I have picked Harry? Yes, in a heartbeat.

Do I understand why Lucy didn’t?

Unfortunately, yeah. I do.

Rating: 7.5/10