[NoHo Arts District, CA] – This month’s movie and TV reviews by Mike Peros are on Materialists and The Life of Chuck.
Money is on a lot of characters’ minds in Materialists, Celine Song’s follow-up to her acclaimed Past Lives, and an entertaining, if uneven, attempt to put a new spin on both the dating game and the romantic comedy genre. Dakota Johnson’s Lucy is a successful matchmaker for a NYC-based dating firm, which charges hefty fees so that privileged clients can meet (and perhaps even marry) others who meet certain standards (physical and fiscal). When we first see Lucy, she’s securely and smoothly plying her trade and preparing to go to the wedding of a successful match. (her ninth such success). The reception introduces the triangle that takes up most of the film, that of Lucy, Pedro Pascal’s Harry (the wealthy brother of the groom), and Chris Evans’ John—Lucy’s ex-boyfriend/aspiring actor/cater-waiter, and working that same reception.
For Lucy, Harry checks all the boxes – good-looking, generous, handsome. And as Lucy has declared that she will only marry someone wealthy, Harry would seem to be the perfect fit. But she does have this connection with John (nicely played by Evans): he seems to know her, and he definitely still loves her (and maybe she loves him). However, Jack’s lack of money and prospects helped put the kibosh on the relationship the first time around—which doesn’t deter him from renewing his pursuit.
Besides the main storyline, there is a subplot of Lucy trying desperately to find a match for Zoe Winters’ Sophie, who, by the movie’s standards, is ok without being distinctive, and just beyond the threshold of what most of the film’s males (or Lucy’s clients) want. When a supposedly successful hookup takes a dark turn, this leads Lucy to do a whole lot of re-evaluating.
So what to make of Materialists? The plot really is just a gussied-up version of what happens when a woman is poised to choose between love or money. If you’ve seen romantic comedies of the past, you know how it’s going to turn out (though Pedro Pascal is far smoother and more handsome than Ralph Bellamy). Along the way to the inevitable (if slightly unbelievable end—see for yourself), there are a number of good moments: Lucy’s attempt to calm a wavering bride (Louisa Jacobson of The Gilded Age) by getting her to remember what drew her to the groom; a discussion about the lengths someone will go to in order to be more attractive that pays off later; a car ride down memory lane that serves as a catalyst for a defining flashback; a scene where John and Lucy are at someone else’s wedding, observing and maybe rekindling—or maybe not. Finances (as in specific numbers) are included in the mix: Lucy makes $80,000 and is seen as well-off, though one doesn’t know how that really plays in NYC, unless she has a rent-controlled/stabilized apartment (side note: John is able to park in front of her building with nary a car in sight—this never happens—in any borough of NYC); John’s bank account is in an iron lung—yet the question of value and what makes a person valuable or feel valued is never far from discussion. In the end, I found the film a little less than the sum of its parts, but the scenes that worked went a long way.
I felt the same way about The Life of Chuck, (written and directed by Mike Flanagan, based on Stephen King’s novella), which begins with the end of the world (Act Three), and then proceeds in reverse chronological order to provide certain defining moments in the life of Chuck (Acts Two and One). However, if you’re looking for a definite connection between the events in Act One, and the apocalypse in Act Three…I don’t think you’re going to get that closure. If anything, it’ll leave you with more questions—as in why make a feel-good movie that begins with…the end of the world? Yet, there are a number of things to make this disjointed film worthwhile. The opening segment produces a palpable feeling of dread, mystery, and sorrow, as Chiwetel Ejiofor and Karen Gillian do well as a divorced couple reconnecting in the face of doom and a nice turn from Matthew Lilliard as Ejiofor’s neighbor.
Act Two is the only section to prominently feature star Tom Hiddleston (seen briefly in Act Three) as the titular Chuck, and it is a lovely segment wherein buttoned-down accountant Chuck brings on the dance moves in response to the beating of a street drummer (Taylor Gordon), with Annalise Bassoas as his partner (a woman who has just received a break-up text). It is a glorious moment about the power of dance to communicate joy, heighten a sense of community, and foster new connections. In Act One, we see Chuck as a youth (played alternately by Cody Flanagan, Benjamin Pajak, and Jacob Tremblay), raised by his grandparents (Mia Sara in a welcome return and Mark Hamill). This is the lengthiest segment, filled with poignant moments as Chuck discovers he “has multitudes,” Grandpa Hamill tries to be the voice of reason (between drinks) and Grandma Mia (as well as a teacher) introduces Chuck to the magic of dance. There’s also that mysterious cupola that Chuck is warned against and…I’ll let you find out. Like Materialists, The Life of Chuck doesn’t completely hold up, but there pleasures to be had along the way.