arungeorge13

Materialists, while nowhere as moving or intimate as Celine Song's earlier film Past Lives, still offers a few pearls of wisdom as an entry in the derivative, glossy, and inauthentic genre of romance (in the modern era, i.e.). This is NYC from the New Yorkian perspective, with inhabitants from different walks of life. Each of the leads are navigating life through distinct paths, but what binds them is a common denominator -- love (and its multi-faceted nature). As the film pushes through its first act, establishing the three leads, it becomes increasingly evident why it's difficult to emotionally connect with Dakota Johnson's Lucy even when she's THE CENTREPIECE. On the other hand, Chris Evans' John and Pedro Pascal's Harry (in his limited screentime) can still be understood better. As they say, men are just easier to comprehend (😛..and it's true!).

We're also talking about 3 incredibly good-looking people here, even when they're from varying backgrounds and follow different career paths. Because of this, a bias is also likely to set in. Chris Evans is such a charmer with his unkempt hair (and catering uniform), even when he's constantly whining about money issues and lack of growth. Pedro Pascal looks incredibly sharp in suits, making him the "unicorn" as rightfully deemed in the film. Dakota Johnson is torn between the both of them, and superficially speaking, it'd be a damn difficult choice to make (heh!). Within the confines of her character, I also get why Lucy does what she does. She is the titular materialist who believes marriage is a business transaction but also sells the event rather well, using verbiage like "grave buddies," "soulmates," etc.

Harry and John and two ends of a spectrum in today's dating perspective. Neither really checks "all the boxes" but they offer intriguingly different life experiences. I feel there was greater scope in exploring this from Lucy's end (which I also thought Celine Song would excel at), though it comes down to simple yes/no questions in the end. I wish it were that easy, but yeah, I shouldn't also forget that it's a film. Not everything is meant to mirror real life exactly as it is. Sometimes, the cinematic ending is sufficient.

This is no "romantic-COMEDY" however. It's a character piece, a low-brow relationship drama, with interesting dialogues and situations. I'm also not too sure what to make of the sexual assault subplot in this film -- was it just sharp critique on the perils of modern dating? Or something more? The victim is branded in an earlier scene by Lucy herself as "too normal" -- are normal people not worthy of finding love anymore? Anyways, the bottomline's that the film has issues in balancing commentary with emotional investment. It's still a GOOD film overall; not a GREAT one.

This could only be summed up as "INTERESTING IDEAS .. the movie." I believe there are quite a few small wins here in terms of thematic setup, but the payoffs are never as interesting. It starts with a tense thriller premise (that revolves around noise pollution), before diving into a bitcoin subplot and a larger real-estate conspiracy at play. No complaints concerning the performances -- Kang Ha-neul, Seo Hyun-woo, and Yeom Hye-ran deliver quite solidly. Writer-director Kim Tae-joon shows inventiveness in the staging, at least in the initial portions, before running out of steam in the final act, where it turns into a familiar, bloody showdown. Wall to Wall also suffers from the same issue as Tae-joon's earlier flick Unlocked, where the length of the film (1h 58m) lessened its conclusive impact. The nightmarish thriller part of the film ranks way above the rest, and most of that's restricted to the first hour.

One could call this the Irish cousin to 2022's The Beasts, telling a rural revenge saga that's unique in its own ways. Firstly, the framing is fantastically raw and unfiltered, letting us sink into the length and breadth of this beautiful-yet-haunting landscape. Secondly, the performances are striking -- Christopher Abbott and Barry Keoghan are both amazing -- lending so much depth and heft to their respective roles. The first half is incredibly tense and fast-paced, letting you see Michael's (Abbott) side of the story before it takes on Jack's (Keoghan) POV in the second. Since the setting and the number of characters are minimal, this gives us the opportunity to understand them better, with well-established arcs amid rising tensions.

However, the second half also suffers from having to re-tell the events (albeit from a fresh perspective) with added context. This is where the pacing takes a dip, as we're aware of what went down already, but we're curious as to the "why." The finale is not the most cinematically satisfying either, though given the circumstances (and perspectives shared from both sides), it's ideal. I liked a few of the soundtracks used in the film (Kojey Radical's 2Fs, for instance), going against what my mind would usually associate with something rural/countryside. The use of handheld shots is also commendable, especially in scenes that involve animal brutality (thankfully offscreen, but you still hear the painful bleating) and/or chases. It leaves most of the disturbing bits to one's own imagination; a clever choice by writer-director Christopher Andrews. Despite its flaws, I'd still recommend this drama-thriller.

P. S. I didn't expect to see Holly from The Descent age so beautifully.. Nora-Jane Noone is solid in her (significant supporting) role too.