Metropolitan Review

Most people don't have the time, money, or energy to watch a lot of movies, so when you do get a chance to watch something, you want it to be good. That's why Rotten Tomatoes exists: to give a snapshot of whether a movie is worth your time. But does it always work? I'll be watching all of Rotten Tomatoes’ Certified Fresh movies from this Wikipedia list starting in the year 1990, the decade I was born, and we'll see if these movies are really worth the hype.

Movie 15 of 1990:

Metropolitan, directed by Whit Stillman, far surpassed my expectations. At first, it seemed like something that maybe inspired Gossip Girl, which could still be true, but there was a lot more substance here than I initially expected. The film surrounds a young group of New Yorkers during their debutant season. We see our group of friends hanging out, playing games, talking about philosophy, and getting into love triangles. While that sounds pretty basic, the Oscar-nominated screenplay certainly elevates the entire experience.

Our anchor character is Tom (Edward Clements), who isn't as rich as the others due to his parents' divorce. Tom is thrust into this friend group by chance and finds he actually enjoys spending time with them, while also dealing with the internal struggle of whether it's morally acceptable to participate in a high society lifestyle. Tom is also brought in to be an escort to Audrey (Carolyn Farina), who definitely has a crush on him, but he's still hung up on his ex. The two discuss literature and art, with Tom coming across as pretty pretentious. As someone who went to a liberal arts college, this kind of person felt very familiar to me.

The star of the show was, without a doubt, Nick (Christopher Eigeman). His energy was magnetic and really pulled the entire group together. He was a complete asshole, but still had enough charm that I could understand why people wanted to be friends with him. He came across as very authentic among a group of young people who are very conscious of their appearance. That doesn't mean he doesn't care about the finer things in life; he's just more open and direct about it. Once he left the narrative, I honestly didn't care as much about what was going on.

At its core, this movie is really about a bunch of kids figuring out who they want to be and what they believe in. They discuss religion, sex, class, and the economy while seeming to put feelers out to determine if anyone feels the same way they do. I found a lot of authenticity to this that still resonates today, even though this movie is over 30 years old.

I understand why this was nominated for Best Original Screenplay at the Oscars. It's very deep and witty, while still staying tight and not including too much excess. I was completely fascinated by all of the characters throughout. At some points, it even felt like I was watching a play because the dialogue had so much energy, which is always a plus for me.

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 94%

Is it worth the hype?:

Absolutely! The performance given by Eigeman is worth a watch alone. Of course, everything is elevated by the fantastic script that still feels authentic to this day. Give this one a watch if you like dialogue-heavy films.