Riley Porter I'm not aware that there is another film quite like My Dinner with Andre, and it's seems to me that there will probably never be another like it. Regardless of how successful you think this film is, I think you have to admire the ambition of it. In a conventional sense, this film is basically one hour and a half long scene. It is as the title suggests. It is a feature length dinner conversation. Of course, if you haven't seen the film you would probably scoff at the mere prospect of it. How are you supposed to film nearly two hours of a single conversation had between two guys out to dinner? What are you supposed to do with the camera? When considering this, I have the utmost respect for Louis Malle. He understood that the film was not in the film making, but in the content. There is nothing flashy about this film. What you imagine is likely what you will receive. You simply watch a conversation take place over dinner. So, naturally the notion of a film which lacks any sort of special film making execution is likely going to make some people apprehensive. That's understandable. The reason I wanted to highlight the minimalist approach to the direction of this film is to illustrate just how excellently it is written. This is perhaps one of the most sincerely written films I have ever seen. The dialogue here is not just a lengthy exchange of quips and thinly veiled conniving, nor is it a load of pretentious philosophy and celebration of the human intellect. It is simply two people talking to each other honestly about their lives. The key term here being 'honest'. I think that if you were to try to separate definitively the good films from the bad ones, a good way to go about it would be to examine which ones are truly honest. Specifically, which ones are honest about the human experience. In this way, My Dinner with Andre becomes a great film. I believe every word that these characters are saying. The experiences they relate are real, and that they have affected them profoundly. In a way, it's almost frightening. The dialogue of this film, which is really the film in its entirety, is born out of such a universal human truth that it inevitably speaks to the heart of all that will watch it. I will be fair. Like I said before, this is a very minimalist film. If you come for a grandiose and masterful execution of the visual medium, then you will likely be disappointed. I'm not saying this film is directed poorly. The decisions made with concern for the final product were the correct ones. In order for this film to respect the spirit of honesty which the writing embodies, it had to surrender itself to its concept. As admirable as it is, I do understand that this film is almost too ambitious (though some would say not ambitious enough). Film is fundamentally a visual medium, and while I think the performances on screen justify the use of film, I do concede that a film which is just dialogue contradicts the nature of film making itself. This is the pinnacle of writing, but it is not the pinnacle of the art of the motion picture. Regardless, I would sincerely encourage that you watch this film if you haven't, because there's a good chance you'll love it.

Eric Stevenson I honestly think that this is the most realistic movie I have ever seen in my entire life. I understand how a lot of people want movies to be realistic and this fits the bill perfectly. I do like it when a lot of movies try to be elaborate and have a lot going on. I still appreciate how a film or any work just plain cuts the bullcrap and presents everything the exact way it's supposed to be. It makes me realize that Wallace Shawn is in three of the best movies I've ever seen in my entire life! Even better, he briefly mentions something being "inconceivable", an interesting line that would become more relevant in his later movie "The Princess Bride". I know it was just a voice, but he was in the "Toy Story" movies.This movie tells the story of two guys who eat in a restaurant and talk. That is all the plot this movie has, seriously. It doesn't matter, because this film just comes off as so real to me. It's just nothing but two guys talking. It may be the best representation of a slice of life story I've ever seen in my whole life. It's even hard for me to even talk about this movie. For me to even mention it, I would probably say the exact same things said in this movie. The film itself even seems like a lengthy movie review itself at times, as they talk about stories and plots.The best conversation is probably when they're talking about the fortune cookies. They talk about what the true value of omens and philosophy in general. Every single person on Earth knows what it's like to eat dinner with someone. This is exactly how it goes out. Only about eleven minutes (or ten percent of the film) takes place outside them talking. I will admit that most people generally don't take that long to eat. Then again, I know talkative people. Please see one of the most sincere movies ever made! ****

elision10 I watch the movie every couple of years, so that has to earn it a 10. And for many years I actually found the dialog meaningful, although that feeling has passed over time. I'm surprised there isn't more in the reviews that the whole movie shouldn't be taken at face value, that it's mostly satire, poking fun at the pretensions of the New York literati. That's not to say the characters don't say things that are poignant and thought-provoking. But for me, Gregory's over-the-top reactions and Shawn's bumbling questions and exasperating replies indicate that we're merely being teased and the whole thing is a bit of fun.In one sense, the conversation is almost besides the point. It's the surroundings, especially the reactions of the crusty waiter to the two of them, that reveal the true message. At the end, when it comes time to pay the bill, Shawn takes out his wallet and quickly puts it away when Gregory says he will take care of the bill. The waiter shoots Shawn a look of (as I see it) contempt.With that one expression, the waiter reveals the whole point of the movie. Gregory can do what he wants, have his grandiose ideas and act on them, because he is rich. And Shawn has to speak about the pleasures of the small in everyday life, his love of his electric blanket, because he is economically chained.

George Wright My Dinner with Andre is a fascinating film that poses the fundamental question that is put to students of philosophy - how do I know that what I know is true. If I know the answer to that question, I can structure my life accordingly and know in the final moments that I have lived wisely. The question is not put in those words but the ending points directly towards it. The problem seems to be that we are never really sure of the answer unless we have a deep faith or some profound belief as to the nature of our journey in life. How many can say they honestly know that what they know is true? I would say very few. We can set out an action plan for success and many will achieve it, accomplishing some or much good along the way and then it all ends. The world is marginally improved...or is it? Most live out their earthly existence on the basis of what their best intelligence tells them, knowing fully how flawed we all are and how lacking we are in knowledge and wisdom about our real destiny. If this sounds very abstract, it is. This movie is abstract. The two main actors Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory pursue this line of enquiry after Andre tells Wally about his travels and experience over a period of many years trying to find meaning in his life. Andre has come to the view that life for many people on earth has become meaningless because people are losing their perception of reality and what is important. He tells Wally a number of what appear to be bizarre stories to illustrate his point of view. One of these involves a story of prolonged mental and emotional torture that forces Andre to focus his attention about coming face to face with his death. This experience seemed to change his life leading to the belief that the human race needs to take refuge in small tribes or communities in isolation from a world that is more and more out of touch with itself. Andre also feels that the 1960's represented the last gasp of protest against the dehumanizing influence of the world. Through all this, his old friend Wally listens very intently and seems disturbed by what he hears. Many would react the same way if a friend were to tell us the same stories of people acting in ways that seem on the surface to make little sense. Andre tells Wally that creature comforts like Wally's electric blanket serve to only separate him from his sleeping partner, the reality of the cold, and even the suffering of other people. (Electric blankets are a poor example since hot water bottles have been around for a long time with similar results.) Wally does not seem to grasp the essence of what Andre says. Andre has been a very gracious host who has listened carefully to Wally's objections and before they part ways even pays for the meal at an an expensive New York restaurant. Andre is probably much more affluent than Wally who seems to have fallen on hard times. Wally ekes out a living and manages to find great satisfaction in his life. How will this encounter with Andre affect Wally? Of course both are involved in the New York theatre scene and continue to do so; and they use their own names in the movie. So the question is irrelevant. Nevertheless, the movie resonated with many viewers and I know the movie resonated with me as it did the first time I saw it in the 1980's. One can reason that people have always been asking these questions, as they did openly in the 1960's and will continue to do. We can take Andre's analysis to another level and say that the counter-culture of the 1960's was co-opted by the main culture and thus ceased to exist in a visible form. This would give credibility to his idea of independent communities isolating themselves from the mainstream. Again, the question is what these communities would have as a unifying force and how they would interact with the prevailing culture. All this goes beyond one movie but one can only praise a movie for raising the question in a way that would meet Andre's definition of the purpose of theatre, which is not only to entertain but to question and provoke.