Speaker 1: We're Tamy Lorenzo and this is the Bitter Kitten Movie Club.
Speaker 1: Hellicitten's welcome back to another edition of the BKMC, a
Speaker 1: supplemental edition of the Pop Style Opinions podcast where we
Speaker 1: take a look at one film per week and just
Speaker 1: dive into it. This week's film is Materialist by director
Speaker 1: Celine Song, who directed twenty twenty three's Past Live Star
Speaker 1: in grete Lee that was an OSCAR nominated film, and
Speaker 1: this was her follow up film in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: It stars Dakota Johnson as a New York City matchmaker
Speaker 1: and Pedro Pascal as a New York City finance guy
Speaker 1: and Chris Evans as a New York City struggling actor.
Speaker 2: It's a city loser.
Speaker 1: It's a romance, but I mean it. I think it
Speaker 1: tries to be a romance and that's and at certain
Speaker 1: points it's it somewhat fails. But I want to say
Speaker 1: that before we flipped on the mics, I joke, well,
Speaker 1: wasn't a joke. I said to Lorenzo. I was like,
Speaker 1: I really don't think this is going to be a
Speaker 1: long one, and he said, no, it's not a very
Speaker 1: deep film. But I do want to say, first off,
Speaker 1: that there are a couple of things I want to unpack,
Speaker 1: and secondly, uh, it's a flawed film, But I actually
Speaker 1: did enjoy it. It was an enjoyable two hours. It was
Speaker 1: very attractive people. There was banter and flirting, and you know,
Speaker 1: the locations were gorgeous, and you know, it was at
Speaker 1: least half of the film deals with very wealthy people
Speaker 1: in very wealthy settings, so it all looked very pretty.
Speaker 1: In some ways, it reminded me of a nineties film.
Speaker 1: In some ways, it actually reminded me of the first
Speaker 1: half of it, because the film actually does change about
Speaker 1: halfway through. First half of it reminded me of like
Speaker 1: Sex and the City, Oh, where it was.
Speaker 2: You know, she was.
Speaker 1: Interviewing women about what they were looking for in a man,
Speaker 1: and then she was interviewing men about what they were
Speaker 1: looking for. And it was all these like talking heads,
Speaker 1: and it was commentary on dating life and specifically dating
Speaker 1: life in New York, with a focus on the types
Speaker 1: of people you know, high Well, I'm going to use
Speaker 1: the term because that's exactly the term. It's actually the
Speaker 1: theme of the film. It's like high value men seeking
Speaker 1: out high value wives. Right, you know, it's it's that Tamelia,
Speaker 1: It's that dynamic and it if I had to sum
Speaker 1: up where the film fails is it really tried to
Speaker 1: do too much. First half of the film felt like
Speaker 1: a romantic comedy with dramatic under tones. It wasn't super
Speaker 1: hilarious comedy, but it was light and flirty and I
Speaker 1: was really into it. Second half of the film, well,
Speaker 1: first off, I I'm sitting there going, you know, it's
Speaker 1: not a puzzlebox film. You don't have to sit there
Speaker 1: and try and guess the ending. But I was sitting
Speaker 1: there thinking, there's really only one way they can end
Speaker 1: this film, which is she winds up with Chris Evans,
Speaker 1: because otherwise you have her going for the rich guy
Speaker 1: that she's not in love with. She's clearly not in
Speaker 1: love with. But I couldn't see how are you going
Speaker 1: to get her with Chris Evans because you have set
Speaker 1: it up in such a way that it absolutely makes
Speaker 1: sense why these two people are not together anymore. It
Speaker 1: absolutely makes sense why they should not be together. So
Speaker 1: you got to get them to that point where they're
Speaker 1: together and that feels correct. And the last five that's
Speaker 1: twenty minutes of this film I'm like, nope, you have
Speaker 1: lost me completely. I don't buy that she is that person, right.
Speaker 3: I don't think they ever succeeded, she ever succeeded the
Speaker 3: director in Why these two waded up together? No, she
Speaker 3: would not be with him, so's toxic. No, No, and
Speaker 3: she would not be with him. But that's the movie,
Speaker 3: you know. You know, a successful woman gives up everything
Speaker 3: to be with the thing is she's not that successful. Well,
Speaker 3: she is successful to us, she's ambitious.
Speaker 1: She's okay, that's a good point. The film, surprisingly is
Speaker 1: a romantic pseudo comedy that is actually unpacking some fairly
Speaker 1: heavy questions about dating and about modern romance and relationships.
Speaker 1: And the entire point of the film is, the entire
Speaker 1: perspective of the film is value. Who has value? And
Speaker 1: what how is value measured in relationshi ships? And you know,
Speaker 1: it's a cynical film, at least for part of it. Actually,
Speaker 1: I would say it's a cynical film completely that tries
Speaker 1: to tack on a sentimental ending, and that is why
Speaker 1: it doesn't work right. And I was buying the cynicism.
Speaker 1: The one woman's matchmakers said, you're not ugly, you're just poor,
Speaker 1: as to explain why someone's you know, not not getting offers.
Speaker 1: Stuff like that is really funny. Stuff like you know,
Speaker 1: all all of the women saying that the man has
Speaker 1: to be over six feet tall, has to be making
Speaker 1: over you know, six hundred thousand a year, and every
Speaker 1: man is saying she's got to be twenty.
Speaker 2: Eight or I know exactly.
Speaker 1: It's cynical and it's you know, it's it makes a point.
Speaker 1: It makes a point. And you kept saying all throughout
Speaker 1: the first half of the film, thank god, I'm not dating.
Speaker 2: I know. That's real.
Speaker 3: That's really shit. I know it's especially in New York.
Speaker 3: I mean, I if you have any experience dating in
Speaker 3: New York, and we do in a way, no, we don't.
Speaker 3: Well we have friends, we know people dating. You know,
Speaker 3: we have that kind of experience of like gay dating
Speaker 3: in New York, and it's it's brutal. It's New York
Speaker 3: is brutal. They just yeah, I guess because they have
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: It depends on what social scene you're looking at. I mean,
Speaker 1: she is part I'm sorry, ahead, now, go ahead, that's it.
Speaker 1: She's a matchmaker who works for high you know, income clients.
Speaker 1: So she is working in a specific social milia. She's
Speaker 1: working with specific types of people. So let's talk about
Speaker 1: the cast. Let's talk about the fact that Dakota Johnson.
Speaker 1: I defended her because you're like, she can't act at all,
Speaker 1: and I was like, she can, but she's extremely low
Speaker 1: key in her acting. And then I settled on the
Speaker 1: term on the word lazy. She's a lazy actress. She
Speaker 1: doesn't really work all that hard in any of her scenes.
Speaker 1: And I do want to say she's upholding the family tradition.
Speaker 1: Her mother is Melanie Griffith, her grandmother is Tippy Hedron,
Speaker 1: and they both were very low energy actresses who you know,
Speaker 1: just had a very laid back, low key sort of style.
Speaker 1: And you know, we're often told that they couldn't act either.
Speaker 1: So she's part of like a family dynasty of heavy lidded,
Speaker 1: low voiced women.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just that lazy attitude. In general.
Speaker 1: She's very much in Nepo baby the way she speaks.
Speaker 3: And I'm you know, I've watched interviews with her, h
Speaker 3: the actor, and she talked about like, yeah, I can't
Speaker 3: be I can't get up before ten, you know, I
Speaker 3: have you know, whatever, Like she's sort of.
Speaker 1: Like Gwyneth Paltrow in a way where her her real
Speaker 1: personality can't help, but just to infect everything right, right,
Speaker 1: every portrayal, so's she's always to Coda Johnson.
Speaker 3: It's a lot of privilege there and very little acting,
Speaker 3: but you know she yeah, So that comes across.
Speaker 1: It does, and part of I want to get into
Speaker 1: Chris and Pedro Pascal, but just as an overview, I
Speaker 1: want to say, I think everyone in this film was miscast,
Speaker 1: and this was part of the reason why it doesn't
Speaker 1: quite work for me. Pardon me. I read a review
Speaker 1: of the film I think it was in New York
Speaker 1: Magazine by Angelica jay Bastian, the film critic, where she said,
Speaker 1: Dakota Johnson has never winced at a bill, and that's
Speaker 1: very evident in her Like she's privileged girls. Why I
Speaker 1: compared her to Gwyneth Paltrow, She's that girl. You can't
Speaker 1: have her play someone who can. I totally bought her
Speaker 1: as someone who was obsessed with money and obsessed with value,
Speaker 1: which she is or was. I could not buy her
Speaker 1: as someone struggling in a shitty apartment. I'm like, that
Speaker 1: girl doesn't live in a shitty apartment. That girl has
Speaker 1: never lived in a shitty apartment because she can't play
Speaker 1: that girl. And there was much at the time made
Speaker 1: of the film because the film deals with economics so much,
Speaker 1: deals with class and income levels so much that the
Speaker 1: film was widely criticized. When she quoted that she made
Speaker 1: eighty thousand a year and she lives in an apartment
Speaker 1: on her you can't live it right in an apartment
Speaker 1: on your own in New York City on eighty thousand
Speaker 1: a year. And actually that that quote took me right
Speaker 1: out of the film because I was like, she doesn't
Speaker 1: make that character would make one hundred and twenty at least.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean when she said how much she takes
Speaker 3: home new you know, like that that does not make
Speaker 3: sense with that apartment. I mean, you saw the apartment
Speaker 3: had a nice interest in everything.
Speaker 1: It made a little balcony. I think it's small, but
Speaker 1: it's decent for New York.
Speaker 3: I was like, there's no way you make only eighty
Speaker 3: eighty two thousand a year.
Speaker 1: And then the other issue is that everyone in this
Speaker 1: film is too old. But why don't we take a
Speaker 1: break on that little bit I'm shell and then we'll
Speaker 1: come back and unpack it. We're back, and now I'm
Speaker 1: gonna call all of these people old. Now it's like this.
Speaker 1: So at one point Chris Evans, who actually I really
Speaker 1: appreciated what he was doing in this film. He was
Speaker 1: working very hard and he was doing a good job,
Speaker 1: but ultimately he was miscast. It's really hard to look
Speaker 1: at Chris fucking Evans and think, oh, yeah, that guy's
Speaker 1: a loser and he can't get a decent job and
Speaker 1: he's an actor, and no one wants to that guy.
Speaker 2: Come on, there are.
Speaker 1: Plenty of good looking, right, non working actors out there.
Speaker 1: But it's he had to play like this bitter slub
Speaker 1: and I don't know how well he pulled it off,
Speaker 1: although he did. Acting wise, I thought he was fine.
Speaker 1: But at one point he said he mentioned his age
Speaker 1: and he said, I'm thirty seven years old, and I
Speaker 1: think he said I only have two thousand dollars in
Speaker 1: the bank or whatever, and I immediately I was like,
Speaker 1: you're not thirty seven years old like that, And that
Speaker 1: actually took me out of the story because the entire
Speaker 1: Chris sevens is like forty five. I haven't looked it
Speaker 1: up and put bluntley, he looks it. I mean maybe
Speaker 1: he's had some work done, but he looks forty five
Speaker 1: to me, So in the film, I'm like, okay, so
Speaker 1: you're a struggling actor with three roommates. And if an
Speaker 1: actor eight or nine years younger who looked eight or
Speaker 1: nine years younger had played that part, I would have
Speaker 1: stayed in the story a little bit more. But I
Speaker 1: don't want to sound judgmental here, but I mean, if
Speaker 1: you're forty five in living that lifestyle, that is pure
Speaker 1: loser and you are not boyfriend or husband material, and
Speaker 1: that couldn't be any clearer. So if he was a
Speaker 1: little bit younger, I would have bought or looked a
Speaker 1: little bit younger, because you know, Chris is looking a
Speaker 1: little ragged, which is fine. He's aging like a Paul
Speaker 1: Newman type and he'll always be really good looking. Similarly,
Speaker 1: she at one point has a very blunt It was
Speaker 1: actually a great conversation with with Pedro Pascal about value
Speaker 1: and Huber and what his value is in a relationship
Speaker 1: and what her value is in a relationship, and in
Speaker 1: the context of the type of relationships we are talking about.
Speaker 1: Her value is that she's gorgeous and that she's young,
Speaker 1: and that she's still fertile, like all of this was
Speaker 1: in the conversation, except she's putting up all of these roadblocks.
Speaker 1: She's saying all these things about how I'm not right
Speaker 1: for you and I'm only gonna data man who I
Speaker 1: wind up marrying. And and then she mentions that she's
Speaker 1: thirty five, and again like, I mean, Dakota Johnson could
Speaker 1: actually play younger than that if they wanted to cast
Speaker 1: her younger. But it really took me out because I thought, not, obviously,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the milliare. I'm talking about specific people
Speaker 1: in a specific setting with specific values. And the values
Speaker 1: and the setting and the world that Selene's song created
Speaker 1: for these characters is not a world where a thirty
Speaker 1: five year old woman who wants to marry and wants
Speaker 1: to marry a rich guy is picky, right, or throwing
Speaker 1: up roadblocks. And in fact, she talks about that about
Speaker 1: her clients. You know how picky they are, and they're
Speaker 1: getting old and they you know, they can't be that
Speaker 1: picky anymore. And I understand that there's a certain irony
Speaker 1: in the fact that she is making the same mistakes
Speaker 1: that her characters are making. But I again, the age
Speaker 1: thing pulled me out of it because I was like,
Speaker 1: if she was thirty and Chris Evans's character was thirty five,
Speaker 1: all of this would work for me much much better
Speaker 1: both because they're both you know, half a decade or
Speaker 1: more older than that. I feel like, you know, dating
Speaker 1: for the marriage minded at thirty years old is one thing.
Speaker 1: At thirty five, it starts becoming something else. And I
Speaker 1: am not being judgmental about single people or dating or
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the people in this milliear wealthy Manhattan
Speaker 1: nights and the women who are running you know, who
Speaker 1: want to marry them. And to me, I was like, okay,
Speaker 1: they it's just little things like that. Where Selene's song
Speaker 1: who I think co wrote it, You didn't have to
Speaker 1: mention her salary or their ages and we could have
Speaker 1: writ but you did. You put numbers on them. And
Speaker 1: now it's like, well, I don't know that any of
Speaker 1: this actually scans for me.
Speaker 3: I think it worked for me in the beginning because
Speaker 3: I thought she was very strong about her opinions about
Speaker 3: what she wanted, her values or whatever. She wouldn't she
Speaker 3: talked about winning a very rich man, not just Richmond,
Speaker 3: a very very rich man. Uh, and then you know,
Speaker 3: and it makes sense to the thing she says, the conversation
Speaker 3: she has with with with Chris Evans, the kind of
Speaker 3: the fight they have, and she talks about, you know,
Speaker 3: I'm I'm about how she doesn't want to be with
Speaker 3: him because she's going to be mad at herself. It
Speaker 3: was such a great, very realistic conversation that you know,
Speaker 3: I can't be with you because I'm going to be
Speaker 3: angry at me, at you, at everything, and.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna hate myself for being angry at you.
Speaker 2: And so that was awesome. Uh. And then you know.
Speaker 1: It was one of the best parts of the film
Speaker 1: at I think so.
Speaker 3: And then she met, you know, she sort of started
Speaker 3: dating Pedro Pascal, which you know, I love him, but
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 2: I think he was just wrong for.
Speaker 3: The partscous It's not the kind of guy for that part.
Speaker 2: He's just not.
Speaker 1: He he was like this smooth Well first off, she
Speaker 1: kept calling him a unicorn, and I was like, that's
Speaker 1: a bit much.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: I think Pedro Pascal can be very, very sexy, but
Speaker 1: you've got to give him space to be himself, to
Speaker 1: be a little flirtatious, to have that little wink and
Speaker 1: the film took all of that out him, and he
Speaker 1: just had no right. He was mildly charming, but he
Speaker 1: was very very clear that he was the roadblock boyfriend.
Speaker 1: That she was going to date this guy, but that's
Speaker 1: not the one she was going to wind up with.
Speaker 1: And that is like a thankless role for an actor.
Speaker 1: And why would you cast an actor like that and
Speaker 1: then tamp down on everything that makes him so likable?
Speaker 1: And I guess you had a tamp down on that
Speaker 1: stuff because otherwise, why wouldn't she wind up with Pedro
Speaker 1: Pascal at the end of the movie. So he has
Speaker 1: to be somehow a little bit less than perfect, a
Speaker 1: little bit less than you know, flirtatious. And so it's
Speaker 1: this semi unrecognizable version of Pedro Pascal throughout the movie.
Speaker 1: That scene in the kitchen where they broke up, I
Speaker 1: was like, what the fuck? Nothing about this fields natural
Speaker 1: if nothing emotionally true, none of it. It's just two
Speaker 1: people standing apart from each other and just talking back
Speaker 1: and forth like a tennis I agree that.
Speaker 2: The whole thing with the with the poor guy with
Speaker 2: the poor boyfriend, I just I just don't buy it.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, I don't buy it. At all.
Speaker 1: I just I did not buy it at all. You
Speaker 1: had to give me something in the in the beginning
Speaker 1: of the film, right, to make me believe that she
Speaker 1: was going to make that choice at the end of
Speaker 1: the film. And it's really and maybe maybe you're supposed
Speaker 1: to look at it this way, it's really hard not
Speaker 1: to see that as she's making a bad choice at
Speaker 1: the end of the film.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Does do you think there's going to be a baby
Speaker 1: in a wedding anytime soon for these people?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I'm always a little turned off by that type of story,
Speaker 3: that that an ambitious woman ends up, you know, giving
Speaker 3: up giving up everything to.
Speaker 2: Be with the love of her love who has no money.
Speaker 2: I don't buy that.
Speaker 1: It's such a cliche, and was actually making a really
Speaker 1: good case for not doing that. For that, you know,
Speaker 1: it would be a bad thing for her to do that.
Speaker 1: So I just didn't buy it at the end. And
Speaker 1: she didn't have chemistry with either one of those men,
Speaker 1: so it was really hard to become invested in either
Speaker 1: one of them. She's you know, she's so low key
Speaker 1: and hey, and like Chris Evans and her had no
Speaker 1: spark whatsoever. She and Pedro Pascal were just looking at
Speaker 1: each other and have their scenes.
Speaker 2: I think it was an.
Speaker 3: Interesting movie, uh, in the sense that it talked about
Speaker 3: something interesting, which is dating, which is dating, and as
Speaker 3: you said, was kind of sarcastic in the beginning. Uh, cynical,
Speaker 3: cynical and uh, you know, showing those those situations where people,
Speaker 3: you know, can't believe that they don't have anybody. But
Speaker 3: then they you know, when they run their you know,
Speaker 3: laundry list of things they want and they can't you know,
Speaker 3: part with that type of stuff. It's interesting in this
Speaker 3: reo and that's what happens. I mean, I see people
Speaker 3: like that all the time, friends and everybody who you know,
Speaker 3: can't you know, can't understand why they don't have anybody
Speaker 3: in there anyway. But so it was interesting. And then
Speaker 3: they're the story with one of her. I think the
Speaker 3: show with this is about the show.
Speaker 2: The movie.
Speaker 3: The movie was trying to be a little serious and
Speaker 3: then had she had that client.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I wanted to bring that up because I think
Speaker 1: the film. This is another area where the film fails, because,
Speaker 1: like I said, the first hour or forty five minutes
Speaker 1: or so of the film was a fairly light rom
Speaker 1: com about basically wealthy people in New York. And then
Speaker 1: the last half of the film or the last third
Speaker 1: of the film, it's a rape storyline. And you know,
Speaker 1: on a certain level, when you're telling a story about
Speaker 1: women ambitiously dating, you know, trying desperately to find that man,
Speaker 1: maybe there's a certain responsibility to talk about that part
Speaker 1: of it. There was a conversation with her boss whereas
Speaker 1: her boss was like her matchmaking boss was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is what happens. It's dating. This is you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying you can't do that, but it was
Speaker 1: jarring as a tonal shift. And then it became all
Speaker 1: about her client who got raped on a date, and
Speaker 1: then her rest. I want to say though, that Zoe Winters,
Speaker 1: who played her client, Sophie, really fantastic job. There were good,
Speaker 1: very scenes where she sobbed and I was like, wow,
Speaker 1: she's really in it. I just didn't feel like a
Speaker 1: sobbing rape victim felt like it belonged in this movie.
Speaker 1: But fine, like I said, it is a movie about
Speaker 1: modern dating, and like I said, about ambitious dating, not
Speaker 1: not like laid back dating, but dating with a goal.
Speaker 1: And yeah, there's going to you know whatever. Not that
Speaker 1: I'm suggesting anybody deserved it. I'm just saying, you know,
Speaker 1: running in the numbers, it's going to happen.
Speaker 3: Now, let's just make two things clear here. Number one
Speaker 3: that yes, when you date, those things happen, and you
Speaker 3: know they're horrible, but they happened.
Speaker 2: And and b.
Speaker 3: We're not saying that you know, it's not right to
Speaker 3: show that type of situation, or that it's just tonally
Speaker 3: it didn't fit, just didn't fit with the rest of
Speaker 3: the movie.
Speaker 1: That's there's accusations and crying anything. And I actually didn't
Speaker 1: think Sophie, her client had much of a reason to
Speaker 1: be mad at her, although she wasn't being very reasonable
Speaker 1: at the moment. I don't think she did. Like it
Speaker 1: really wasn't Dakota Johnson's fault.
Speaker 3: No, I think the movie was trying to make the
Speaker 3: point that you saw a fantasy and then people I
Speaker 3: feel betrayed when something like that.
Speaker 1: No, I agree with that. And she did point out
Speaker 1: that she basically pushed a low value guy on her
Speaker 1: because she didn't think she was a high value client,
Speaker 1: and that part was true, and all of that actually
Speaker 1: worked thematically.
Speaker 2: But what I.
Speaker 1: Hated hated was that this character's rape became the impetus
Speaker 1: for Dakota Johnson becoming a better person. And I'm like,
Speaker 1: that's a really shitty way to to write about rape.
Speaker 1: And I'm actually surprised a female director was using that storyline,
Speaker 1: Like I don't know, it just it didn't sit well
Speaker 1: with me. Like there are ways that you can get
Speaker 1: a character like Dakota Johnson's to give up her materialistic
Speaker 1: ways and become more open to love and blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah, but not by having a side character sexually assaulting.
Speaker 1: And it's weird, weird choice.
Speaker 3: And Dakota's character didn't know where she lived, which I
Speaker 3: don't believe that.
Speaker 2: I mean, you give that information, I think anyway, So she.
Speaker 3: Found out where she lives and she's stocks starking her
Speaker 3: wearing a trench code in it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, a baseball. I'm like Jesus Christ.
Speaker 1: At this point, the film is trying to do way, way,
Speaker 1: way too much, and then it wraps up by granting
Speaker 1: her a character change, granting her growth that we never
Speaker 1: actually saw her achieve on camera. She just is a
Speaker 1: better person at the end.
Speaker 2: That's all.
Speaker 3: The bottom line is. Two Hours is not enough to
Speaker 3: make that change.
Speaker 1: Not only that you're right, but I also I want
Speaker 1: to say, did he change? What did he give up?
Speaker 1: What did he Yeah, he's nothing. He's going to take
Speaker 1: more shift and as a waiter, okay, all right.
Speaker 2: And she's gonna say yes to marry him. Okay.
Speaker 1: It's just kind of a shitty message, like she was
Speaker 1: the one that had to give up everything, you know,
Speaker 1: change her mind about everything.
Speaker 3: The only thing is she's apparently she's going to say
Speaker 3: yes to a promotion.
Speaker 1: I did think that was smart to leave that in there, right,
Speaker 1: and you know, although again it didn't feel particularly earned.
Speaker 1: The whole film was setting up that she hated her
Speaker 1: job and wanted to leave it. But in a situation
Speaker 1: where you're going to marry your loser boyfriend who has
Speaker 1: no money and probably never will, maybe you're going to
Speaker 1: take the job that you hate because they're going to
Speaker 1: offer you more money. And I actually thought that that
Speaker 1: ended on a on a slightly cynical note. I do
Speaker 1: think you Selene's song could have said that ending by
Speaker 1: making it a little more clear that it wasn't necessarily
Speaker 1: a happy ending, but it may not have been a
Speaker 1: happy ending. One other thing what did you think of
Speaker 1: the caveman?
Speaker 2: Oh god, yes, I forgot. I hated that.
Speaker 1: So it was soak and precious and ha I hated
Speaker 1: not necessary necessary. When the writing about biology here or
Speaker 1: when the movie began, I was like, what is going
Speaker 1: on here? Is this a play?
Speaker 2: What is this? I had no idea and I was like, no,
Speaker 2: what No?
Speaker 1: It was goofy and it was trying to be way
Speaker 1: too cutesy about what it was doing, and I and
Speaker 1: again sort of muddled the message, like, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know it. I liked when the film was being
Speaker 1: I'm not necessarily cynical about romance, but I I thought
Speaker 1: the film worked better when it was and when it
Speaker 1: got very sentimental, it just didn't work for me. It
Speaker 1: didn't work in this world with these characters, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: knowing people in New York as we know. I thought
Speaker 1: the beginning of the movie was dead on perfect. When
Speaker 1: she's she pretending, pretending to be or you know, trying
Speaker 1: to be this incredible woman, you know, gorgeous, beautiful, you know, makeup, hair, clothes, right, everything,
Speaker 1: because that's her job to promote something glamorous and amazing
Speaker 1: and successful. So I thought that was all great, because
Speaker 1: you see that a lot in New York. And then
Speaker 1: then everything was fine.
Speaker 3: You know, she's cold, she you know, dedicated to her
Speaker 3: job and finding you know, love whatever for her clients
Speaker 3: and all that. And then all of a sudden she
Speaker 3: met the guy, you know, the poor boyfriend from many
Speaker 3: years ago, and then everything each everything changes, and it
Speaker 3: just changes in a way that doesn't make sense to me.
Speaker 3: That that's the problem. Yeah, he's back, but he's still
Speaker 3: a loser. He's still someone you decided not to be
Speaker 3: with anymore because you thought he wasn't the right person.
Speaker 2: Right, So what changed? Nothing changed? Yeah?
Speaker 3: In fact, he says that, she says, you're still the same,
Speaker 3: and he says, well, wish you hadn't said that or
Speaker 3: something like that. That right, I wish I was different,
Speaker 3: you know. But anyway, so anyway, I.
Speaker 1: Think we have unpacked every aspect of this.
Speaker 2: But actually was far better than I then.
Speaker 1: I had no problem sitting through this movie. I found
Speaker 1: it perfectly enjoyable. I just didn't think of it. You know,
Speaker 1: it had some laws, and I really didn't buy the ending,
Speaker 1: but I didn't walk away from a pissed or anything.
Speaker 1: It's pretty, people, It's pretty people. You know, you're just
Speaker 1: looking at pretty people for two hours and some funny
Speaker 1: funny one. And I mean she did look amazing in
Speaker 1: the dress. Looked at the wedding, she looked stunning. She
Speaker 1: I mean, she was one of those girls who you
Speaker 1: just put on a plane sheath dress and she is
Speaker 1: the most gorgeous girl in the room.
Speaker 2: She's just that girl. Looked incredible, incredible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, So that's it for us this week.
Speaker 1: We will be back next week with wait, what are
Speaker 1: we doing next week? You know what I need to check,
Speaker 1: all right, we need to check what the next movie
Speaker 1: is going, because well we oh, yes, it's in the
Speaker 1: Mood for Love. Oh my god, I love love, love
Speaker 1: love that movie, the dresses in that movie, everything about it. Yes,
Speaker 1: So In the Mood for Love will be next week,
Speaker 1: and we will also be back next week with an
Speaker 1: addition of the Pop Style Opinion Pest. So until then,
Speaker 1: take care of yourselves, love you mean it.
Speaker 2: Bye bye bye