Chronically Metropolitan

This film tells the story of a young writer, who goes back home to New York to find that his dysfunctional family is falling apart. To top that up, his ex-girlfriend that he cannot get over with is getting married to another guy in a few days.

"Chronically Metropolitan" is basically a showcase of how not to make a film. The plot is boring and tedious. It is just plain and uneventful. Camera work is really plain as there are many long shots showing conversations, and this would have been broken up to close up on the speakers in other films. The point of view for the viewers is almost like an passive bystander, without any engagement with the characters or the situation they are in. The actors are mostly devoid of any emotions, as they sleepwalk through their roles, delivering lines in a passionless and lethargic manner as if they were kids being forced to read texts reluctantly. The only exception is Josh Peck, who at least muster smiles and look energetic in his role. If not for Josh Peck, the film would have been completely bad.

"Chronically Metropolitan" is, as its title may seem to imply, a cascade of clichés from the land of NYC hipsters. Our hero "Fenton" (Shiloh Fernandez sporting Johnny Depp lookalike glasses and facial growth, but with a stupid find-Waldo tuque on his head that sorta kills the vibe) is the prodigal son of a famous NYC author. He returns home after a bizarre disappearance, only to learn that his family and friends are more screwed up than he could ever be.

What follows is mostly predictable with each person being a textbook caricature of the urban elite, as if they stepped straight out of an Edward Albee play ("Who's Afraid of Virginial Woolf" or maybe Capote's "Breakfast at Tiffany's"). And at first I found myself hating the story for being so hackneyed. But then I thought about the title of the movie and realized that maybe that's the point. Whether you find it interesting or irritating is up to you.

So for the rest of my review I'll just describe the 5 main characters, and you can figure out whether they're worth your time (I should add that within the limitations of each role, each actor did a great job).

1. THE FATHER - arrogant, self-absorbed, cynical. This is probably the most entertaining character of the bunch because he is the most extreme. Fenton's father is a man in his late 50s-60s, a famous, pseudo-intellectual author and university professor who's in the habit of seducing his students and acting like it's not his fault because, after all, who could resist him.

2. THE MOTHER - the rich martyr. Fenton's mother deals with the father's disturbing infidelities by playing the tortured martyr (perpetually with a class of Chardonnay in one hand). Think of every paper-mâché wife of every American politician embroiled in a sex scandal, the way she maintains appearances publicly but privately has nervous breakdowns on an hourly basis and smokes weed like it's Valium.

3. THE SISTER - the rebel. At first an interesting character, because she's the only one in the bunch who calls people out on their BS, this character loses her edge when she slips into a subplot about falling in love, and then she becomes like all the rest: self-absorbed and apathetic.

4. THE EX GIRLFRIEND - annoyingly confused. Fenton's ex-girlfriend rebounds from their breakup by getting herself engaged to some rich dude with an English accent. Her entire character arc can be described in one word: clueless. And I found myself not caring what happened to her, even though it was probably the central plot of the film (her relationship with Fenton).

which leads us to

5. FENTON - the ???. Three question marks because he had no personality. Again, maybe this was the point, that each character was such an extreme caricature that we needed a total wooden prop to serve as the observer. Heck, it worked in Citizen Kane. But here, since he is not merely an observer but the central figure in the plot, I couldn't help but feel let down. Fenton sort of sleepwalks through the entire story, only making one real conscious act of will toward the end, and it was handled so superficially that I was wholly unconvinced. The equivalent of the "running through the airport" scene in every romcoms, only it happens within 20 feet of sidewalk (lol), it just felt staged.

Plus points: the vibe of this entire production is very distinct and memorable. It feels cold, detached from reality and yet it's set in the heart of one of the most populous cities on Earth. Most of it seems colorless, but lighting is extreme and dynamic so it never seems bland. So even though my review may make this flick seem ho-hum at best, there's enough going on artistically to keep your attention going. It's too bad that the writing and character development didn't seem on par with the look and feel. Also I hated the music. It's like the rejected composer from all the Bank of America commercials got to play for 90 minutes.

I would recommend "Chronically Metropolitan" to watch on a lazy afternoon, or if you like movies about the problems of the New York bourgeoisie like "The Squid and the Whale" or "The Door in the Floor".

1 minute in, a post-middle aged Christopher North is quoting Yeats to a probable teenager who's drinking from a flask in the backseat of his car. She clutches the front row bench seat while he clutches her, providing a recital of the dead Irish poet's prophecies to a fit of drunken giggles and indifference. Mr. North, wearing the worst fake goatee I've seen since a 1970s middle school Halloween party, proceeds to slip her a very visible tongue. I feel incredibly confused and unclean. #MeToo

Everything that happens in this film is right off the "indie quirky cute funny sad happily ever after wealthy dysfunctional family drama" checklist.

While the story line is unfailingly familiar, the characters are played by mostly engaging actors and the film doesn't bog down in any one place for too long so you are able to watch to the end without getting bored or surprised.

This film was described in one blurb as clever and cynical, and maybe it was back in the '70s, but now it's just tame and typical.

Well the title fits the film. Chronically self absorbed wealthy New Yorkers. It's hard to really care about a young published author from a wealthy family when NYC is so full of unpublished poor authors. It's also hard to tell the difference between the cute young blondes in the movie. This movie is basically about "white peoples problems." I also suspect the tobacco industry paid a lot for product placements. There is a lot of gratuitous smoking in the film for no other apparent reason.