2AM

Materialists (2025): Love and Money Blend Together in This Middle of the Road Romance

Posted on by Jack Drees

Courtesy of A24 – © A24

“Materialists” is directed by Celine Song, the director behind one of 2023’s best films, “Past Lives.” This film stars Dakota Johnson (Fifty Shades of Grey, Madame Web), Chris Evans (Captain America: The First Avenger, Lightyear), and Pedro Pascal (The Last of Us, The Mandalorian). This film is about a matchmaker from New York City who finds herself in a personal conflict between her ex and a new love interest.

One movie I am mad at myself for skipping while it was in theaters was “Past Lives.” I did not review the film, but I was able to catch it by the end of 2023. I adored it so much that it ended up among my best movies of the year. The chemistry between the three leads was impeccable. Each role was perfectly cast and I was hooked from scene one. I thought the film was cute and heartfelt. Naturally, when I first saw the trailer for “Materialists,” I did not get excited by the film because big Hollywood stars like Chris Evans or Pedro Pascal would be in it. Although I do like those two actors. But what sold me was finding out that this was Celine Song’s next film following “Past Lives.”

I missed “Past Lives” in the theater but ended up loving it. Unfortunately, I had the opposite experience watching “Materialists.” Honestly, I was rather disappointed watching Song’s latest outing on the big screen.

What makes this effort somewhat sad is the fact that not only did the film’s director carry some weight, but as someone who lives in the U.S., and not South Korea, the actors have a ton more star power than Song’s previous project. You have Dakota Johnson, whose resume is hit and miss, but nevertheless prolific. Then there’s Pedro Pascal, who has had a large hand in the geek culture spheres in recent years between “Game of Thrones,” “The Mandalorian,” and “The Last of Us.” Also, there’s Chris Evans… Captain America himself! Need I say more? It would be one thing to see a disappointing Celine Song movie, but to have these well known actors in the mix makes it worse.

And honestly, I wish I could say that all the actors do a good job in this film despite the… (sigh) material. But I thought Dakota Johnson, while not horrible in this film, is sometimes stiff. Every other line out of her character, Lucy, feels flat. Watching Dakota Johnson in this film is like playing roulette. Every time there is a line out of her, I had no clue if it was going to be delivered decently or poorly. The gap separating the quality of her lines feels significant. Dakota Johnson can give good performances. Just go watch “Daddio.” But not only is Johnson sub-par in this film, I got the impression at times she was playing the same character she’s played in other films like “Madame Web” or “The High Note.” Despite the range of her line delivery in this film, I am starting to think Johnson herself has limited range as a performer.

That said, I thought the film’s two main male leads were okay in their roles. Pascal is a well built, rich, successful man. Or, as he is sometimes referred to throughout the film, a unicorn. I thought Pascal was perfectly cast. I never met Pedro Pascal myself, but from what I imagine, he must be a charming, handsome person.

Chris Evans on the other hand is a little less perfect of a human being. He self-admittedly has anger issues, he struggles with maintaining a steady career path as well as his financial stability. But despite his problems he seems like a decent guy. I liked Evans’ performance. He felt down to earth and inviting. Not preppy, not over the top. Just a genuine guy.

“Materialists” is a fairly grounded narrative. But unfortunately the script is where its tonal inconsistencies lie. Much of the film’s dialogue is quite good. Parts of it made me think about life. But there are quite a few cheesy lines that do not feel like they belong in a movie like this. I am not denying that people have said something cheesy at some point in their life. But the rate in which it happens in this film does not feel authentic.

There is a message in “Materialists” that makes for a good story. While a lot of people date and eventually marry for love, there are some people who want more out of a relationship. They want the partner to be attractive, have money, have a nice place and so on. As the film progressed, and this should be no surprise given the title, the film successfully presented itself as an allegory about how certain people find others’ possessions more attractive than the person they are dating. I will not go into spoilers, but there is a line towards the end of the film that could almost double as the film’s slogan. The film suggests that some people are simply attracted to success. Yes, someone could be the nicest person on earth. But for some people, they would be turned off if they found out the person they were dating happened to be poor.

Given this film’s message, I found it interesting how Lucy was written. Lucy works with a dating agency. Customers, some of whom are clearly desperate for a relationship, give this company good money to find a partner. The film asks questions as to whether love can be bought or if it is simply something you have to find yourself. The film shows the potential dangers of trying to follow a perhaps unachievable dream but also reveals how one can find life unappealing if they were to give their dreams up and settle.

The film does not shy away from highlighting appealing and thought-provoking topics. I just wish that the package that contains such topics was a little more appetizing. I wish it had better dialogue. I wish I liked some of the acting better. And I wish it were a little more tonally consistent. The film is shot well, has good music, and contains a couple decent scenes, but for me, I wanted more. I guess I am a bit of a materialist myself.

In the end, I do not think the “Materialists” and I are that great of a match. There are plenty of other fish in the sea, thankfully. Maybe the film will find its audience somewhere else. Honestly, I found this film disappointing. It is decently framed, the production design is nice, and some of the acting is okay. But there are plenty of elements that bog the film down between the tonal inconsistencies, Dakota Johnson’s sometimes stiff performance, and the cheesy dialogue. I still think Celine Song has a promising future as a filmmaker. I just hope her next project is much better than this one. I am going to give “Materialists” a 5/10.

“Materialists” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on Pixar’s latest film, “Elio.” Stay tuned! Also, you can look forward to reading my reviews of “Jurassic World: Rebirth,” “M3GAN 2.0,” and “F1: The Movie.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Materialists?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen Celine Song’s directorial debut, “Past Lives?” If you did, tell me your thoughts on that! Leave your comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Love Me (2024): Kristen Stewart and Steven Yeun Engage in Robotic Romance

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Love Me” is a feature-length directorial debut from Sam and Andy Zuchero and stars Kristen Stewart (Twilight, Spencer) and Steven Yeun (Minari, The Walking Dead) in a film where a buoy and a satellite form a relationship following the end of humanity.

“Love Me” is the last new release I saw in January, and if you have been keeping track, I have been lamenting this month as it was unfolding. Thankfully, the month so far has been a tad better than I expected. And by that I mean, still bad for movies, but not outright horrible. That said, the annual monthly dumpster fire for film is not over yet, we still have to determine whether “Love Me” will join the rejects of January, or the one shining light known as “The Colors Within.” That film honestly made me forget about the problems of the world for a little bit.

Thankfully, “Love Me” is worth seeing, and it is quite a thinker. This is a film that I liked while watching it, and continue to appreciate more after the car ride home.

Like many other films, “Love Me” is its comparisons. While “Love Me” is not entirely animated, I cannot help but compare this film at times to “Wall-E” and “The Wild Robot.” This film, like those, is set in the future, and primarily centers around artificially intelligent characters. It also highlights humanity’s resistance to maintaining the earth. Although unlike those films, our focus on human characters is never seen in the present, it is always in the past.

The film centers around two robots, a buoy sitting in the middle of earth’s waters, and a satellite up in space looking down on the planet. The two meet, with the buoy seeming to continuously maintain a sense of curiosity. The robot is asking questions about anything that comes to mind. She learns about life, humanity, the Internet, and it results in a very creative relationship, if you can call it that, between the two core characters.

The film stars Kristen Stewart and Steven Yeun. That said, if you are looking forward to seeing them physically, you may not see as much of their actual selves as you would expect.

That said, their physical selves do have a good amount of screentime, but they are not there from the beginning. They show up later on and serve the robots’ stories. Both of them do a good job in the film as this lovey dovey couple who have a vlog. The couple also serves as a foundation for the buoy’s desires to be human. The buoy gets an impression on what it is like to live as a human just by watching these two engage in certain activities. We see the buoy in a sense trying to simulate those activities through digital animation. The animation clearly does not look high-tech. It is not up to the level of Pixar if you want a cinematic example. If anything, it looks like it is out of a “Sims” game. That seems to be the artistic intention, but still.

Despite the seemingly intentional schlocky animation, I will not deny that the film is pleasing to the eye. The color palette is often dazzling, especially during the scenes where we see the buoy floating in the water. The film is often bright, well lit, and there are also several shots involving the sun that look particularly great.

The film very much highlights the joys of being human, while also recognizing that maybe we are not perfect. Sticking with the human characters, who we come to know as Deja and Liam, I notice that never once do they leave their home, nor do their simulated counterparts. It seems to highlight the shift humanity is experiencing right now with shopping, watching media, and the shrinkage of social lives. We seem to be getting more sheltered and less adventurous. We find out the couple’s “date night” vlog is literally just them staying home, cooking, and watching television. It is not to say that staying home cannot be considered a date night. But I am under the impression the film is suggesting that in the future, we will see a significant increase in date nights at home.

Going back to “Wall-E,” one thing that the film tries to convince its audience is that two robots can fall in love. In a way, “Love Me” seems to be the anti-”Wall-E.” Because it is very much about a flawed relationship. It shows the struggles two robots have with such a concept. Likely because they are not programmed to love in the way that it would come naturally to a human. They are programmed to do other things. If that’s the case, you almost have to suspend your disbelief when watching this film. That said, this story also falls in line with the idea of artificial intelligence’s continued evolution to the point where it could one day become more human than human. We see the film’s protagonist, who we come to know as Me, establish itself as a “lifeform,” even though we know the character was manufactured.

If I had to list any negatives during the movie, I would say that the story does take a bit of time to get into gear. I think if I had to name a weakest part of the film, it would be the first ten minutes or so. The film also kind of reminds me a bit of “Ron’s Gone Wrong” because the robot voices happen to be very repetitive. This is especially noticeable with the satellite. When the satellite, who we come to know as Iam, literally pronounced “I am,” says a certain word or phrase, it often sounds exactly the same as it does previously. Much like the movie’s digital animations that turned me off, this appears to be an artistic intention. It perhaps highlights how computerized the bot’s voice sounds, but it still got on my nerves a little bit.

Despite these negatives, I still recommend the movie. There is not a lot that has come out in January that I think you should rush out in see, but “Love Me” is definitely worth your time.

© thelove.me

In the end, “Love Me” is a movie with a small cast, but a big impact. Not only is this a movie that I can see myself watching again, but there is a possibility that I will appreciate it to a greater degree the more times I watch it. It is a film that highlights what it means to be human, while also recognizing the issues we as a species are dealing with, and potentially creating. I have not heard a ton of word of mouth on this movie, so hopefully I can spread some for those checking this post out. I highly recommend “Love Me” and I am going to give it a 7/10.

“Love Me” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “One of Them Days!” Stay tuned! But before we get to that, Scene Before is on the cusp of 800 posts, and I intend to celebrate with yet another look at my Blu-ray collection. I have been waiting to do this post for a long time. I am glad I am finally getting around to it once again. If you want to see these posts and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Love Me?” What did you think about it? Or, given the theme of romance and with Valentine’s Day coming up, is there a movie that you plan to watch on Valentine’s Day this year? For me, every other year, I’ve been watching “Deadpool.” On top of coming out around the holiday, it is a solid love story with superb action scenes. Leave your comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Babygirl (2024): “That’s Magic.” – Nicole Kidman

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Babygirl” is written and directed by Halina Reijn (Bodies Bodies Bodies, Instinct) and stars Nicole Kidman (Being the Ricardos, The Northman), Harris Dickinson (Beach Rats, Trust), Sophie Wilde (Everything Now, Boy Swallows Universe), and Antonio Banderas (Shrek 2, The Mask of Zorro). This film is about a CEO who puts her career and family on the line when she has an affair with a much younger intern.

I saw “Babygirl” at an AMC Theatres location. If you have been to an AMC in the past few years, you may know that Nicole Kidman has served as a bit of a mascot for the brand. I am not completely in love with this, as her spots make up part of the reason why the previews at AMC are so neverendingly long. Honestly, I would be happy if they get rid of the AMC spots containing Kidman altogether. Some see these spots as an anthem, but I find them to be an annoyance. Amazingly, during my screening of “Babygirl,” they did not play one of the Nicole Kidman spots on top of the other 26 or so minutes of theatre promotion and trailers and such. I was a bit perplexed. As much as I hate those ads, I think seeing one of them play before this film in particular would have set the mood.

That said, it does not change the fact that I was rather excited for “Babygirl.” The trailers I have seen for the film are well produced, and allowed me to have high expectations for what was to come. I had a sense of what the movie was about before going in. I think if anything, the trailers did a great job at letting the audience know what the vibe was going to be. The marketing looked fun, compelling, and perhaps most importantly, sexy. After all, desire plays a major part in this film’s narrative, particularly when it comes to the state of our protagonist, Romy.

“Babygirl” is going to end up being one of the more memorable movie experiences I have had this year. It is not my favorite movie of the year, but it is an experiential event. And it all starts at the beginning of the film when we see Romy’s major problem. The film impressively highlights Romy’s lack of desires with her husband (Banderas) and her struggle to fulfill herself in her sex life. We see this part of the story flesh itself out over time and it unleashes some great acting from both Kidman and Banderas. The two perfectly portray a couple who happen to be on a bit of a decline.

“Babygirl” delivers the vibes I was hoping I would get out of “Challengers.” A lot of people love “Challengers,” but I was not one of them. “Babygirl” is easily the steamiest film I have seen this year. This is a film that I would recommend watching, but I would think twice before putting it on when your parents, or especially your grandparents are in the same room. I think this could make for a hot movie to set the mood on date night. This is especially noticeable with the fiery chemistry between Nicole Kidman’s Romy and Harris Dickinson’s Samuel. Their boss/intern connection eventually develops into something not as necessarily safe for work. Several scenes between these two do much more than satisfy. They also beautifully fit within the context of the story. They help us get to know each of the characters. They remind the audience of Romy’s internal struggle. Both actors are completely believable as said scenes play out. Harris Dickinson was not on my radar previously. Although he had a role in 2022’s “See How They Run,” which I gave a positive review. Dickinson is not just good in this movie, I cannot see anyone else playing his specific character. I left this film wanting to see more of his work. If there is another Harris Dickinson movie coming out, consider me interested.

Now judging by what has been said so far, you might think that I will remember this movie for its eroticism. While that is definitely this movie’s top selling point, the film is layered when it comes to fleshing out its protagonist. I must reiterate, Nicole Kidman is a knockout in this film. She gives a powerful performance that I hope gets plenty of buzz in the coming months. But I love how this film manages to make its main character a CEO. We see Romy in a position of power at work. At home, she is busy raising a family and pleasing her husband to the point where she forgets to take care of herself. Additionally, this film is set around the holidays, which is traditionally a hectic time of year. Romy is busy being this wise, helpful presence in other people’s lives that when all of a sudden Samuel enters her own life, she cannot help but submit to him. I mentioned this film is steamy, but sex is just a selling point. As a character piece, “Babygirl” sings.

Though in more ways than one, “Babygirl” is easy on the eyes. The film has a clean look to it. The color palette looks like something out of an insurance commercial, but I mean that as a compliment. The film is certainly picturesque with some vibrant locations and sets. The camerawork is also very good. The shot choices consistently deliver on immersion. Select shots go on for extended periods of time, allowing me to take in and digest the actions of said shots. There is also one shot in the film that starts in the air and slowly navigates down to several of the characters as they walk through a yard. It is a breathtaking series of images.

Again this movie is set around the holidays, and it does maintain a joyful look to it, even if a good portion of it is spent inside a corporate office. In a sense, kind of like the holidays, the movie has a vibe that meets somewhere in the middle of noticeable stress and occasional happiness. Every moment in this film maintains a brisk pace and there are scenes I practically leapt into the screen. There is one scene at a rave that is arguably worth the price of admission. Although fair warning, if you have trouble with flashing lights, I recommend maybe sitting this movie out. For all I know, “Babygirl” could become a Christmas tradition for some people. Maybe not with the family. But I think if you are either by yourself or with your partner, this could make for a great watch around the holidays. While the films have their notable differences, I think “Babygirl” could even serve as part of a double feature with “Eyes Wide Shut.” After all, both films are associated with sexuality, feature Nicole Kidman, and are set around Christmas! It’s perfect! Also, as the Movie Reviewing Moron, I do not endorse watching “Eyes Wide Shut” with the family either. That’s a no-no.

Courtesy of A24 – © A24

In the end, “Babygirl” is 2024’s sexiest movie. Nicole Kidman gives a standout performance as Romy. The rest of the cast is also quite solid. Harris Dickinson also notably plays his role to perfection. The film is a great balance between vibes and characterization. I do recommend this film under the right circumstances. Again, do not watch if your parents or grandparents are in the room. Same goes if you have kids. But if you are in the right place at the right time, “Babygirl” is a must see. I am going to give “Babygirl” an 8/10.

“Babygirl” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “A Complete Unknown,” the brand new movie starring Timothée Chalamet as Bob Dylan. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Babygirl?” What did you think about it? Or, what movie do you watch every year around the holidays? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!