The Only Living Boy in New York

Thomas Webb (Turner) is a spoiled rich millennial who is trying to figure out what to do with his life after college. While searching for life answers around mysterious neighbor (Bridges), he learns that his father (Brosnan) is cheating on his mother (Nixon) with his assistant (Beckinsale). "The Only Living Boy in New York" is a movie full of characters you would walk away from at a cocktail party, engaging in the flattest brand of smart banter imaginable. Turner is a very irritating person as Thomas, while film's main draw should be Bridges. He's a phenomenal actor, but his roles get too cliche, wasted and reduced to portraying a stereotypical cigar-toting old man who has a thing or two to tell the young ones. Brosnan is a surprising standout, his burst of anger and subsequent sadness during one pivotal scene conveying more years of back story in mere minutes. "The Only Living Boy in New York" have fantastic cast, looks good, but it's not particularly distinctive because it was playing safe in the end when It could be a little more daring and dangerous. In general, it is definitely an odd story with a twist, but I did enjoyed (most of) it. 7+/8- out of 10.

I wish there would be more of those movies. Right from the get go you feel a certain tone a certain mood that is different from your patterned "Hollywood" flick. This movie does what good movies do it focuses on story and characters and both are tremendous. I have never seen Callum Turner in anything but he does a pretty good job as our main character torn between doing the right thing and doing what he feels. Kate Beckinsale with her very monotone and lifeless line deliveries is still cast well because she is mainly there to be the attractive and seductive one and she is very good at that. Brosnan who I like to see but never surpasses a certain level has one of his best performances of his career. But they are all outshined by Jeff Bridges which is no knock on them. Bridges in one of those actors that like a good wine get's better and better which each year he ages. The story is the second big star. Starting of very slow but building up until all the dots are connected and all the themes that were established come full circle. So if you are looking for a movie that is outside of the box that feels like something that you have not seen a hundred times give that one a try.

This is a nice twisty drama about an arty family and the personal relationships of the key people. There's a father and mother, an estranged father and a mistress. How all of it comes together and resolves itself is the story. Quite is satisfying watch.

I really loved watching this movie that is a combination of superb direction, nice storyline, and excellent piece of acting by all the actors. A must watch drama with a certain element of truth in it.

This is a unique little movie and has very limited appeal...of which I am part of the limit...hence the 8 out of 10. Its content is similar to both The Squid and the Whale (although not as richly realized) as well as The Mysteries of Pittsburgh (but less self-conscious). Without relying on period pop music, it manages to capture a very specific moment in New York City...back when living in the lower east side was considered radical and right before the Internet and mobile and 9/11 changed everything. At least that is the way it felt. There is more contemporary technology evident...but it felt added on. The story follows a handful of characters, none of whom are particularly sympathetic and all of whom occupy rarefied terrain, either via their education, career, creativity, or family name. Callum Turner-in the lead- had the most clearly drawn role and made the character endearing and not arrogant. He is interesting physically, too...at times looking like Keith Gordon, at others like Richard Gere. Other pluses: its running time is under 90 minutes and it uses some exceptional New York City locations (such as the Brooklyn Museum and the Oyster Bar). Finally, this is really a movie about fathers and sons (and mentors)-a very under-mined topic in film.

The not so good news? The aforementioned time stamp issues...when does this film take place? There are clues but they do not add up under scrutiny. Or is it supposed to take place within the "idea" of a different era? I don't know but they should have gone full late 80s/early 90s period piece. More importantly, the characters are too broadly drawn...and the actors work with what they have. Brosnan, Nixon, Bridges, Clemons, and Beckinsale all do their best with the material they have, rarely share scenes together, and all seem to be unclear as to whether they are in a comedy or a drama. Meanwhile, it occupies some space in between comedy and drama... It's a small movie that has some very big cinematic moments, largely due to the exquisite cinematography by Stuart Dryburgh: a Londoner who clearly loves New York City.