Writer/director Celine Song has followed up her auspicious debut film, “Past Lives,” with another story about a woman torn between two men, with one who represents her past. In “Past Lives,” the other was her present; in “Materialists” the other represents a future she imagines for herself.

This film is less successful because it never fully integrates the ideas and the characters. Even three of the world’s most charismatic and talented performers cannot manage to make the characters come to life. There are some well-chosen songs on the soundtrack and some provocative ideas. But the tone is inconsistent and the treatment superficial. The themes are worth exploring but are always just out of reach.

Dakota Johnson plays Lucy, a matchmaker to wealthy New Yorkers who are used to buying bespoke and think they can give her a list of “must haves” covering everything from education and bank account to height, hairline, and regular churchgoing. They give her a checklist but she almost always responds by promising them love.

Lucy herself is resolutely single, five years after breaking up with her aspiring actor boyfriend John (Chris Evans), she is working at a company called ADORE, doing what she says is the only job she has ever been good at. Early in the film, she is being celebrated for the wedding of two people she brought together, her ninth successful match. 

At that wedding, the bride is having a meltdown over whether to go through with it. Lucy calms her down with a very pragmatic discussion of what she needs from the relationship. We will see that Lucy is more than pragmatic; she is, per the title, a materialist. After the wedding goes off successfully, Lucy meets the groom’s brother at the singles’ table. He is Harry (Pedro Pascal), deemed in the lexicon of the matchmaker world, a “unicorn,” because he “checks all the boxes,” handsome, tall, charming, interested in marriage, and very, very rich. He is instantly drawn to Lucy, even after she tells him that her only criterion for a husband is mind-blowing wealth, and that she will only date someone if she is certain it will lead to marriage.

Also at the wedding, though, is John, who is working as a cater-waiter. They have a cordial, even borderline affectionate, conversation and he drives her home in the same beater car he had when they were together. 

So the central conflict here is not just between two men, but between two lives, two versions of herself. And around her are people making choices and experiencing the consequences that affect the way Lucy thinks about her own choices. 

This is where the film runs into difficulties. We are told (not shown) about the characters’ feelings. Harry and Lucy have a series of dinner dates in beautiful, luxurious settings, but all they ever talk about is whether Lucy wants or should want to date him. There’s never even the most basic movie shorthand for falling in love, some kind of connection through their pasts or their interests. A crucial conversation and turning point in their relationship is too superficial, even for a seemingly superficial subject. While we get a flashback showing us how strains of not having enough money and the more significant strains of different ideas led Lucy and John to break up, there is nothing in their interactions to demonstrate a shared understanding.

More than once in the film, characters talk about feeling valued or worthless. What makes people feel valued by themselves or others, is tantalizingly raised, but frustratingly sketched. 

The movie begins with a couple apparently from the bronze age as a (very fictionalized) symbol of the origins of romance. We see several of ADORE’s clients explaining their unrealistic and, in some cases, selfish expectations in a match. These scenes end up more distracting than pointed. A tragic match leads to the film’s strongest performance (Zoe Winters as Lucy’s client) but it is off-kilter with the rest of the story. Lucy actually does very little for her clients, Neve suggesting, for example, that they might want to focus less on how they want to be loved than on how they want to love.

The issues Song wants to address are deep; the way they are addressed is thin. But the actors are very charismatic and appealing and the settings are (mostly) enticingly luxurious.

Parents should know that this film includes drinking, smoking, and strong language. There are sexual references and non-explicit situations. 

Family discussion: Was Lucy helping her clients? She says it is the only thing she is good at. How does she define “good?” Will that change? What similarities do you observe in the relationships between people who value each other? 

If you like this, try: “How to Marry a Millionaire,” “Hitch,” and “Past Lives”