Dakota Johnson Wears a Completely Sheer Skirt Set for a Late-Night Appearance in NYC

Dakota Johnson turned heads in New York City yesterday, wearing a sheer two-piece look while en route to Late Night with Seth Meyers. The actress was photographed leaving the Greenwich Hotel in Tribeca in a black tulle top and matching midi skirt by Albanian designer Nensi Dojaka, layered over a brown strapless bodysuit. She styled the look with pointed black slingback pumps, gold hoop earrings, and black angular sunglasses. Her Gucci Jackie 1961 shoulder bag in brown complemented the neutral tones of the ensemble.
The outfit, styled by Kate Young, was one of several sheer looks Johnson has worn this week while promoting her upcoming film Materialists, directed by Past Lives filmmaker Celine Song.
On May 30, the actress was spotted wearing a sheer black bodysuit by Commando, paired with a suede Khaite jacket and gold-framed oval sunglasses.
This is just the latest in Johnson's standout press tour style streak. At Cannes last month, she wore a series of outstanding looks, including a semi-sheer Saint Laurent slip dress and a bubble-gum-pink fringe Gucci gown.
She also made headlines earlier this week for wearing a plunging blazer minidress during her appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon—which she jokingly covered up with tissues mid-interview.
The Madame Web star's appearance came just one day after reports surfaced that she and longtime partner Chris Martin had ended their relationship.
The breakup news followed a public shout-out from Martin, who told a Coldplay concert crowd on June 1, 'Don't forget to go see Materialists,' in a fan's clip shared on social media. The film, which stars Johnson alongside Pedro Pascal and Chris Evans, is set to be released June 13.
Neither Johnson nor Martin has commented publicly on the split, though sources told People that it 'feels final this time.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Miami Herald

11 hours ago

• Miami Herald

Aaron Taylor-Johnson's net worth: The ‘28 Years Later' actor's wealth & income

Aaron Taylor-Johnson takes to the screen in 28 Years Later, the third installment of the zombie franchise that started with 28 Days Later, released in 2002. In 28 Years Later, he plays a survivor of a virus that turns humans into zombies, almost three decades after the first infection in the U.K. Taylor-Johnson is no stranger to starring in action films, having played superheroes in Marvel movies. Related: '28 Days Later' franchise: Box-office success on modest budgets for the zombie apocalypse film series Here's how much Taylor-Johnson is worth and an overview of some of his most popular films. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Most sources put Taylor-Johnson's net worth at around $20 million as of mid-2025. His primary earnings have come from his acting career, though he does endorse products on the income largely comes from his career as an actor. His salary for 28 Years Later isn't known, but with a cast that features Ralph Fiennes and Jodie Comer and a $75 million budget, Taylor-Johnson's pay is likely to be modest. In Kraven the Hunter in 2024, while the box-office take was disappointing, Taylor-Johnson reportedly earned $2 million for his role, according to Showbiz Galore. Taylor-Johnson's brand is his name and face, and he has used both to earn additional income as a spokesperson. He serves as brand ambassador for OMEGA watches, Jameson Irish Whiskey, and Acqua di Gio, a men's fragrance brand by Giorgio Armani. Related: '28 Days Later' franchise: Box-office success on modest budgets for the zombie apocalypse film series Aaron Taylor-Johnson was born in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, England, on June 13, 1990. He started out as a child actor on stage and television and eventually branched out into feature films. More on Hollywood and money: Gerard Butler's net worth: The A-list actor's wealth & incomeRalph Macchio's net worth: A revived career for the Karate Kid starTom Cruise's net worth: The 'Mission: Impossible' star's wealth in 2025 Taylor-Johnson has starred in more than 30 films since 2002, when he made his start in a biblical film titled The Apocalypse. His most popular films feature him in action roles. He started to gain traction as a lead actor by taking on the main character in Kick-Ass, a 2010 movie about vigilante superheroes, and its sequel Kick-Ass 2 in 2013. In 2014, Taylor-Johnson starred in two films that further widened his reach with audiences. In Marvel's Captain America: The Winter Soldier, he played Quicksilver, and reprised that role a year later in Avengers: Age of Ultron. In Godzilla, he portrayed a naval officer helping the U.S. military assist Godzilla in fending off other creatures to save San Francisco. The revival of the Godzilla franchise led to main acting roles, including The Wall in 2017, where Taylor-Johnson played a U.S. Army soldier targeted by a sniper during the Iraq War. In 2022, Taylor-Johnson joined an ensemble cast including Brad Pitt and Michael Shannon in Bullet Train, a film about hitmen at work on a speeding train in Japan. In 2024, he signed up again with Marvel to take on the role of Kraven the Hunter, a sort of anti-hero with powers who serves as a killer for hire. Media outlets have noted Taylor-Johnson as a potential successor to Daniel Craig in the James Bond series. Related: Which "Mission: Impossible" film made the most money? A retrospective of the Tom Cruise action franchise The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.

Atlantic

15 hours ago

• Atlantic

A Love Story That's Afraid of Romance

Modern dating, experts have lamented, has become a numbers game; the more matches you make, the more likely you are to land a mate. But in the new film Materialists, the only number that really matters is a suitor's net worth. Take Harry (played by Pedro Pascal), for example: He's a partner in a private-equity firm and the owner of a $12 million penthouse apartment in Manhattan. John (Chris Evans), meanwhile, lives paycheck to paycheck as an aspiring actor and part-time cater waiter who splits his rent with roommates. Between the two of them, Harry's the obvious 'unicorn'—the most desirable kind of bachelor, according to Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a professional matchmaker and the film's protagonist. Lucy sees dating as a marketplace of potential spouses whose worth is determined by their income as much as their looks. Never mind their interests or how they'd treat a partner; a guy like Harry is inherently more valuable than someone like John. Lucy isn't heartless. Rather, she sees herself as pragmatic about modern romance. Materialists, the writer-director Celine Song's follow-up to her sensitive Oscar-nominated feature, Past Lives, tracks Lucy as she finds matches for her clients, many of whom also think about future partners as commodities. The men tell her that they want women under a certain BMI and age; the women want men above a certain height and tax bracket. As amused as she might sometimes be by their demands, Lucy promises to introduce them to their 'grave buddy.' To her, finding love should be easy—it's just math, she likes to say—yet Lucy's own love life has remained stagnant. She asserts to anyone who asks that she'll either marry rich or die alone. This being a romantic dramedy, Lucy ends up in something of a love triangle anyway: She falls for Harry while harboring a lingering affection for John, who happens to be her ex. But her predicament isn't really about which suitor she'll choose; instead, she's caught between two versions of herself—the cash-strapped idealist who once pursued acting alongside John, and the polished working girl she's become. The core conflict of Materialists is similar to that of Past Lives, yet Song renders it less successfully here. Lucy's journey takes too many cynical turns to be satisfying, and the film's ideas are too scattershot to be convincing. Materialists falters most when it tries to mesh its competing aims: to deliver a throwback love story while also deconstructing the reality of modern dating. Instead, in the end, the film resembles the very world it tries to critique, offering a litany of observations about finding The One without ever substantially arguing for any of them. The film's glossy veneer of confidence, much like that of its lead, belies an uncertainty. Apart from some punchy dialogue probing the economy of marriage, its tale is shallow, with almost nonexistent stakes. John and Harry pose little challenge to Lucy's notions about partners needing to check each other's superficial boxes; both are handsome and smitten with her, and the disparity in their wealth never presents much of an obstacle for Lucy either. She had taken issue with John's poverty when they were together, as shown in a clunkily inserted flashback, but his finances are a mere asterisk to their present-day dynamic. Lucy is as thinly written as her suitors—a nod, maybe, to the threadbare profiles of app-fueled dating, but one that makes her a frustratingly inscrutable romantic lead. It doesn't help that Johnson, whose flat affect can be an asset in enigmatic dramas such as The Lost Daughter, isn't particularly believable as a woman with hang-ups about money. (If she's the provenance behind ' iPhone face ' in the misguided Netflix adaptation of Jane Austen's Persuasion, here she has what I call 'property-portfolio face.') The bigger problem, however, lies in Lucy's inelegant transformation from a skeptic about love to a wholehearted believer in it. When her most persistent client, Sophie (Zoë Winters), is sexually assaulted on a date, Sophie alternates between being furious at and grateful for Lucy, leaving the third act a confused mess. Although Winters captures Sophie's despair, her character gets compressed into a plot point and her arc produces a jarring shift in mood. Lucy's realization that she should, as Sophie advises her, treat her clients as more than 'merchandise' rings hollow as a result. Not to sound like someone still pining for an ex, but Materialists made me miss the work Song did in Past Lives. In that film, which followed a married woman yearning for the person she used to be after reconnecting with her childhood crush, Song used intimate specificity to unearth reflections about love—romantic, platonic, and otherwise. In Materialists, the director has essentially done the opposite: Her characters are mouthpieces for broad philosophies about connection, while their stories end up getting buried. The effect is a work that's tonally at odds with itself. Though Materialists is similarly packed with insightful monologues, it's heavy-handed in a way that Past Lives never was. Song bookends her latest with sappy scenes of prehistoric humans falling in love, and she injects flippancy into moments that call for sentimentality: When Lucy and Harry finally have a much-needed conversation, the script incorporates an absurd bit of physical comedy that undermines the poignancy of their heart-to-heart. There's much about Song's movie that I enjoyed. The fizzy sequences of Lucy meeting one client after the next, inspired by the director's own experience as a matchmaker, remind me of classics such as Broadcast News; they offer a glimpse into a gig that consumes a person whole. Besides, there's a real pleasure in seeing Hollywood stars fall for each other. But in trying to both critique and poke fun at the costs of modern love, Materialists never coheres into an emotionally potent tale. To put it in Lucy's terms: The film is beautiful and smart, and it clearly contains enough appeal to make it stand out in the marketplace. It's just no unicorn.

Yahoo

16 hours ago

• Yahoo

Women want more rom-coms. Does 'Materialists' deliver?

Warning: This story contains spoilers for the movie Materialists. There should always be room for heart at the box office. Race cars, plane stunts and giant dinosaurs make entertaining spectacles, but for devotees of the rom-com genre, nothing compares to watching a love story unfold onscreen, especially one that leaves you saying, 'To me, you are perfect.' Hollywood has largely been filtering rom-coms into the streamer release bucket, like Renée Zellweger's Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy, Amy Schumer's Kinda Pregnant and Anne Hathaway's The Idea of You. In some cases, it makes sense: Bridget Jones author Helen Fielding called the franchise's fourth film 'a good movie to watch on the sofa.' However, recent history shows that when a romance-centered film is headed to the big screen, people — specifically women — will come. Case in point: 2023's Anyone but You, the sleeper hit starring Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell, which gave the rom-com genre a jolt. Sure, people may have bought tickets for the fauxmance, but it proved that a love story on the big screen — one that's more self-aware and less about marriage — still sells. Same with It Ends With Us, starring now-litigants Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni — women flocked to see the romantic drama even as the film's marketing faced criticism for underplaying domestic violence themes. And now: Materialists — driven by Dakota Johnson, Pedro Pascal and Chris Evans's love triangle, which examines modern relationships (for love or money?) and even delves into sexual assault — is performing above expectations at the box office. Over its opening weekend, just behind the live-action franchises Lilo & Stitch and How to Train Your Dragon and ahead of action-film franchises Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning and Ballerina is where Materialists landed at the box office. Its success tells us that audiences are still hungry for romance, though maybe not the traditional, wrapped-in-a-bow, happily-ever-after, fairy-tale type. Materialists is being marketed as a rom-com, but it's not like When Harry Met Sally… and Notting Hill, with a tidy arc and predictable ending. It's a romantic dramedy with social commentary about today's dating culture, exploring whether Johnson's Lucy (a professional matchmaker) should pick Pascal's Harry (the wealthy private equity broker who can more than provide for her) or Evans's John (her broke but cute waiter/aspiring actor ex). And, again, a sexual assault is a plot point, though not involving the main characters directly. The film's original love story was the lure for filmgoers we talked to — even if some are disappointed it wasn't the escapist rom-com they expected. Hira Mustafa tells Yahoo Entertainment that she went to see it with eight friends after 'looking forward to the release for weeks.' She was hopeful 'it would be an entertaining watch — a fun, fresh take on a romantic comedy that would likely have a meaningful message we could discuss afterwards,' but felt it lacked real substance. 'I was open to a dramedy that wasn't necessarily laugh-out-loud funny, but beyond the genre, it felt like the romance itself was underdeveloped,' she says. Plus, 'they introduced a sexual assault storyline but never fully explored its purpose or impact, which was disappointing given how serious and nuanced that topic deserves to be handled.' As for the ending — Lucy forgoing money (Harry) for love (John) — she was disappointed. Mustafa, who panned the movie on TikTok, says it would have been better had John realized "that love isn't enough without action. So he steps up, gets a stable job, moves out and actively commits to building a balanced future with Lucy, recognizing that true partnership requires compromise." She's not alone. Viewers have been hotly debating the film's ending and whether Lucy did herself a disservice by picking the guy with a bunch of roommates. Moviegoer Audrey Atienza, who sees most new releases with her AMC movie subscription and shares her takes on TikTok, says films with romantic plots "definitely" get her to the theater, as this one did. She saw it with friends on a rainy New York night. "I don't like movies that stress me out," Atienza tells Yahoo Entertainment, "and usually romantic plots are a safe bet that they won't." Atienza said that Materialists was not "an Anyone But You-type of movie.' She found it "deep" in ways that some rom-coms historically aren't. She was surprised to overhear other people in the theater unhappy with the ending. 'Maybe I'm just a sucker for love, but I feel like the movie demonstrated why she is a better fit for the person she chose,' Atienza says. 'Some people have called this film 'broke men propaganda,' but I think that idea overlooks a really important detail established early on,' says Alexis Oteng, host of the ChickFlicks podcast (and on TikTok @thechickflicksshow). 'In a world where so many of us just want to feel like we matter, I think Lucy comes to realize that while she struggles with the idea of a life with John meaning she might not have all the luxuries she's dreamed of (a side of herself she both hates and feels ashamed of), he still finds it so easy to love her. And that matters.' She adds, 'The film reminds us there is immense value and rarity in having someone who can love us, even when we're showing the most shallow, insecure or vulnerable sides of ourselves." Jamie McAleney, who reviews films on TikTok, says the marketing for the film may have clouded expectations. "As an A24 lover and a huge fan of Celine Song's Past Lives, I knew going into this movie that it wasn't going to be the rom-com of the early 2000s that the marketing was angling toward, but I thought that choice of marketing was cheeky and cute,' says McAleney. 'I really expected others to get it, but I think it may have gone over some heads.' She expected Materialists 'to leave a lot of room for dialogue to land and not be afraid of the silences' as well as 'to take some heavier turns, be paced slowly and be a bit more cerebral than a traditional rom-com — and that's exactly what was delivered.' McAleney says instead of the film harkening back to old-school romantic films, it's looking ahead. 'I don't think that Materialists is trying to be a 'return to form' for the rom-com — it's sharper than that,' says McAleney. 'It's asking us to look in the mirror and confront our habits and 'wish lists' in modern dating. Song doesn't just give us romance — she gives us contradictions and social commentary. Makes us feel the love and question it at the exact same time." Oteng said the film's marketing — 'with the vibe of classic 2000s rom-coms' — made her want to see it. "I think out of the romance films we've seen come out in the 2020s, this one definitely rises to the top," she says. "It looks at dating and love in today's world in a way that feels both realistic and a little idealistic, that balances the two really well. I like that it uses the classic rom-com tropes we all know to pull you in, then flips them to question the ideas and expectations we've built around dating now." Yahoo News reporter Kaitlin Reilly, who has written about Materialists, says that having loved Song's 2023 rom-dram Past Lives, she was excited for her "take on modern dating" and "what people value in romantic relationships — the 'boxes' they want their partners to check — when, at the end of the day, love isn't actually math." Reilly says she spent an hour unpacking the film with her aunt afterward. "It really made me think," she adds. Atienza also deconstructed the film with her friends. She felt it "had a realistic take on dating and how it can feel like a business deal." Also, "how [someone] can be perfect 'on paper' (or a 'unicorn'), but that doesn't mean they're who you're meant to be with." Materialists is its own kind of "unicorn" — a romantic dramedy swimming against a sea of summer spectacles and sequels. According to a Yahoo News/YouGov Survey conducted May 22-27, 2025, none of the big-budget films rolling out this summer that we polled about was a slam-dunk reason to go to the movies. Out of Mission Impossible — The Final Reckoning, Superman, Karate Kid: Legends, M3gan 2.0, I Know What You Did Last Summer, The Fantastic Four: First Steps, The Naked Gun and Freakier Friday, those surveyed were most interested in Tom Cruise's hit — but only 13% of respondents said they were most excited to see it this summer. A staggering 46% said none of those films sparked their interest. Digging deeper into movie habits, 28% of respondents surveyed said the last time they had gone to the theater to see a movie was over five years ago. Of those polled, 61% said if a new movie they were excited to see came out, they'd be more likely to wait and stream it, compared to the 23% who would go to see it in theaters. With more viewing options than ever, Materialists shows that audiences are still showing up for something fresh, as they did in an even bigger way earlier this year with horror flick Sinners. But films with original concepts — meaning stories created from scratch, not based on another film/show/comic book/game/book/toy — have become less common. "I think it's hard when creative decisions are made by committee, and it's hard when creative decisions are made by people who don't even really watch movies or know anything about them, and that tends to be what's occurring a lot," Johnson said on Hot Ones when asked about Hollywood being so risk-averse. She continued, "When something does well, studios want to keep that going, so they remake the same things. But humans don't want that. They want fresh. They want to feel new things, experience new things, see new things." There's excitement and unpredictability in watching stories we haven't seen before, especially ones told by new and different voices beyond Hollywood's short list of mostly male directors. "I want original stories — full stop," McAleney says. "I want studios and production companies to take a shot on voices we don't get to hear from often and invest in emerging filmmakers.' And from the romantic genre, 'I love a good yearn,' she adds. 'Give us more yearning, please.' __________________ The Yahoo News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,560 U.S. adults interviewed online from May 22-27, 2025. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 election turnout and presidential vote, party identification and current voter registration status. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Party identification is weighted to the estimated distribution at the time of the election (31% Democratic, 32% Republican). Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 2.9%.