Yeah its definitely mocking a very particular set of New York elites but it also takes them seriously as people which makes the comedy more effective.

Some good dialogue and some interesting takes on the rich High Schoolers in NYC, but not one for the ages. Saw on TCM.

105 minutes of wealthy children talk about their own privilege? Trite.

Perhaps the greatest film lampooning the upper-class I have ever seen.

I hear the accolades. I don't get it. The acting is about amateurish as you can get. Stilted delivery. If this is worthy of a 93 rating, maybe I should go into acting.

Starts off boring and gets worse with each minute of running time; finally there's a forced "ending." Not just pretentious tripe; it's performed by a bunch of incompetent amateurs.

Metropolitan is a superb work, though in many ways more literary than film. It isn't particularly outstanding in any of the ways that one would traditionally expect a film to be, but rather stands out with an amazingly crafted and witty script, which the gentle humor of, though teasing the "urban haute bourgeoisie" as the characters call it, and though sublime, is in many ways it is itself a product of that very same "UHB" environment. The acting is very much centered on that script and delivering it, with everything else taking somewhat of a backseat. In many ways Metropolitan seems like a modern Jane Austen novel brought to life, I wonder what it would have been like as a book. If you know what you're getting into, it makes for an excellent viewing. 87/100

It's an interesting movie that doesn't quite hit the mark. It doesn't reach the value of a coming of age story, but it's close to it. It's a social commentary about the end of a certain New York life. Perhaps the central piece is love and youth, more than a social critique. The script has several good one liners that are very sharp, and memorable. They make the beginning of the movie promising. As I continued watching it, I missed a strong story or narrative. In fact, it is rather underwhelming at times. Frankly, it is boring and flat at times. I supposed that if we ware interested in the topic, or if we liked the characters a bit more or the acting had been more poignant, the story could be a bit more interesting. I don't know if there is much of a difference between watching the first fifteen minutes of this movie or watching the entire movie given its redundancy and flatness

There are several independent films that I say are "among my absolute favorites." But Metropolitan isn't just among my favorite; it IS my favorite independent film ever. I especially enjoy watching it in December and throughout the holiday season. What makes this my favorite? The impeccable dialog is delivered with a style, wit and cadence as unique and interesting as the characters spouting it. And while it is indeed dialog driven, the film is still oddly cinematic. It wouldn't work as well as a stage play or a book. It thrives on more than just its characters and their interplay. It thrives on the fact that it's a low budget independent movie, yet it's about high society; fancy dresses, tuxedos, debutante balls and expensive apartments. That juxtaposition creates a tone that could never be matched on a stage or on the page. It needs its New York locations at Christmas time. It needs its soundtrack, editing, montages and its simple yet effective cinematography style that calls to mind films of the 1930s/40s. In short, I adore this movie and wish there were many more like it. Whit, if you're out there, PLEASE gift us with another masterpiece like Metropolitan.

Yeah its definitely mocking a very particular set of New York elites but it also takes them seriously as people which makes the comedy more effective.

Just to be totally up front, I have never understood the praise that has been heaped on Whit Stillman. In Metropolitan, a small group of privileged young New Yorkers nestle themselves away periodically and blather on in endless platitudes about a variety of inane subjects. When an outsider joins their select group, his viewpoints start to alter their perceptions. Dialogue that probably reads well in a script comes across as stilted in the film, in part due to the fact that the acting in the movie is horrendous, as though the actors are reading from a teleprompter just outside the camera's eye. The love that people have for Metropolitan is baffling. Really…just baffling.

watched it three times now, each about ten years apart, and I thoroughly enjoyed them

This early Whit Stillman feature is particularly small in scale and full of unknown actors that give more or less acceptable performances but Stillman's casting, script and direction are certainly impressive here. Oscar-nominee impressive.

Started watching "Metropolitan" based on historic buzz about this being a well done NYC-centric film. Yet, I was only able to get through about 20 minutes before I lost interest. What turned me off was the bland acting and the stilted dialogue which seemed so rehearsed. And, other than the NYC setting, it didn't really give me that vibe of being a real insight in to the preppy/waspy NYC social scene of old families and old money. Very disappointed.

The best comedy movie ever made!

Metropolitan is the “story” of a group of socialite friends who like to party together. Except it seems their idea of partying is sitting around and talking and occasionally playing a game. The loose attempt at a plot revolves around a new addition to their group who ostensibly isn’t in the same financial standing as the rest of the group despite the fact that he seems perfectly fine getting an entirely new wardrobe, going places with them, and never working at a job. Honestly, I don’t know if any of these people work, because we don’t see any of them living a life outside of the group. Their existence seems to be entirely made up of talking about themselves and others who interact with their inner circle. It’s like watching Keeping Up with the Kardashians, but with less manufactured drama. Needless to say I hated these people. The cast is entirely made up of no-name actors, most of whom I’ve never seen before. That’s probably for good reason, because none of them can act. It’s worse than watching a bad acting class, because they all are emotionless and bland for 90 minutes. It felt like either they were given the direction to act bored before every scene they shot and there were competitions to see who could be the least interesting, or they just cast random people off the street who have never acted a day in their lives. It’s terribly hard to care about any of the characters because it’s like trying to care about blocks of wood (blocks of wood that are startlingly self-centered, too.) The romantic relationships all fall flat because no one can effectively convey how they are feeling at any given moment, so I struggled to even feign interest in their petty love triangles. Plus they aren’t people who are sympathetic in any way, so I couldn’t care less about what happened to them. There was a certain point in Metropolitan when I started to root for something to happen in the film. Let a character die, have an earthquake bury them in rubble, or just have them interact with normal human beings in something that might resemble real life instead of this weird exclusive society they form. Sadly, the movie continued to disappoint. Even when you expect something exciting, they manage to suck it dry of all entertainment. I never imagined I could be bored by people playing strip poker until now. The final scene of the movie comes close to actual drama. It’s the first big moment that promised confrontation and excitement. That lasted about 30 seconds, didn’t amount to much, and then the film returned to the same dull tone again. I feel like I’m missing something about Metropolitan, because it seems to be highly-rated and is even labeled as a comedy, but I didn’t get the humor unless the joke was on me for watching it.

Metropolitan was made for a low budget, $421,399 in today's money, and there are times when it shows, but in the end it doesn't matter. Stillman gives a movie that not only shows us the life of the rich teenagers, but lets us relate to them. They're just like all teenagers, unsure, way too confident in their decisions, and likely to make mistakes. They're insecure beings trying their best to hide it. In a way, we all are, and that is the genius of this film

OK, have now seen the Stillman trilogy - and would rank them in this descending order: "Barcelona," "Metropolitan," "The Last Days of Disco," not the order of production & release. "Barcelona" particularly benefits from its location. All are good in an ultra chatty forshadowing-of-"Gossip Girl" way. It's interesting how tolerant, graceful, pleasant, intelligent, attractive, & desirable are Stillman's female cast members in the trilogy. Not so much for the guys who seem undeserving of their female companionship, nuts of the limp wimp tree. But Stillman's got an ear for dialogue of a particular kind - and these films are all about the dialogue. Worthwhile if you like intelligent introspective repartee. | ~ Norm de Guerre

A highly original script filled with intelligent dialogue. A middle class teenager is thrust, somewhat unwittingly, into the lives of his upper class peers during the tumultuous height of the winter debutante ball season. Whit Stillman's magnificent effort still holds up decades later. One of the finest examples of a writer / Director following his own vision through to completion. Should have won the Oscar for best original screenplay but lost out to Patrick Swayze's body in "Ghost".

Premier film de Whit Stillman, Metropolitan ne fait aucun doute quant à son géniteur. On y retrouve sa manière bien à lui d'agencer ses films, suite de scènes extrêmement écrites, dans un langage rendant le film aussi beau aux yeux qu'à l'oreille, qui n'ont en commun que les personnages, entrecoupées de cartons, avec l'arrivée d'un outsider comme point d'ouverture. Les acteurs, dont la plupart n'a pas fait carrière ensuite, sont pourtant excellents, tout spécialement Chris Eigeman dans le rôle du cynique de service. Les choix de bande-son de Stillman renforcent le côté comique du film, qui ne se base pas sur des punchlines en fin de séquences mais sur une accumulation de dialogues entre cette bande de fils d'aristocrates new-yorkais dans les 80s. Dès son premier film, Stillman imposait son style si réjouissant.