halejr
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 It's hard to really care about a young published author from a wealthy family when NYC is so full of unpublished poor authors.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.
Larry Silverstein
This film is beautifully shot with its cinematography of the streets of New York City. Also, the characters here are rich and beautiful and, at times, they'll be some clever dialogue. However, I also found most of the characters here quite manipulative and shallow and lots of the scenarios came across to me as contrived, like a soap opera in other words. To note, this is an adult drama, with some sex scenes, explicit references, raw language, and on screen drug use.
sparkgary
I can't decide if this is a failed movie about a dysfunctional family or just a failed movie. There is no plot and the characters are weak and uninteresting. Everybody is so undecided about their lives. And please tell the son to get a haircut. Its not interesting, its annoying. My rating of 7 is overly generous. I watched the whole movie but kept checking the time.
Gordon-11
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.
AD
