You won't be disappointed!

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

I had always heard how amazing this film was from every critic and pseudo-intellectual I came across while in college. It rented all the time at our video store. My Dinner with Andre was considered by Siskel and Ebert to be one of the greatest movies of all-time. BOTH of them said they wished Hollywood would put out many, many more similar movies. I can't tell you how excited I was waiting for the Criterion DVD to arrive this week for this "masterpiece"...I've never been a fan of Hollywood's elite choosing what should and shouldn't be made into a movie. The mind-numbing trash Hollywood is putting out today in straight-to-video quality of writing and visuals is overwhelming. But whatever powers that be chose to never make another movie about two dull, middle-aged, marginally-talented (Wallace at least) Broadway wannabes talking existential nonsense for TWO HOURS while we watch them eat.... THANK YOU FOR NOT MAKING ANOTHER MOVIE LIKE THIS!!!!There's a reason Louis Malle worked on almost no budget to create this. Put three cameras in a restaurant and tell two guys to talk about whatever comes into your brain. No point. No direction. No rest for my ears. It's just Andre talking and talking and talking and talking... I mean NON-STOP. I tuned out in the first 15 minutes and never found my footing again. It was like listening to white noise when you go to sleep - you know there's something happening in front and around you, but you couldn't care less what it is and eventually you just fall asleep through the incessant racket. Welcome to My Dinner with Andre.I know there is supposed to be some higher meaning that my dimwitted brain cannot grasp that superior intellects will look down their collective noses at me and shout, "See! THIS is art! And you're too thick to grasp the overall nuances of this masterpiece." Okay, here's my dilemma... Explain to me how watching two guys talk - about nothing really interesting or tangible btw - is entertaining. They (or, to be more precise, Andre) talks about existentialism, nipple-suckling teddy bears in Poland, Tibetan stories that make no logical sense... and I'm an idiot for getting to the end and saying, "That's it?"Movies are entertainment. I get more entertainment watching carefree school children playing any sport for two hours. Sitting in an abandoned schoolhouse in the middle of the Peru rainforest singing an English hymn, only to be surrounded by Spanish singing villagers creating a choir of angelic proportions. Hiking for two hours into the forest or along a beach where the only noise I hear is the wind blowing, or waves crashing, or branches rustling... that's entertainment too. But it does not make a two hour Hollywood movie.I am starting to question what qualifies as an "important movie" in the Criterion Collection. If this movie is art, I'll steer clear of future Criterion movies and find something better to do with my time. Come on, Criterion. Do a revival of Buster Keaton's "The General". Do a first-class Blu Ray of "Cinema Paradiso". Find a long-lost noir from the 1940s like "Nightmare Alley" that deserves to be rediscovered. But a two-hour film about two full-of-themselves playwrights talking about a fantasy world that only they inhabit??? Worthless waste of time. Wally Shawn: LOVE you when you act in a proper movie. Not in this garbage. Sorry.It only gets a 2 out of 10 because Wally is an awesome human being. No other reason.

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.

Cinema as an art form is purely a matter of personal choice as reasons to love or hate a film depend on the viewer's intellectual framework and artistic sensibilities. This is one reason why a film with two people talking about things which make sense to human beings might please certain viewers but might also put foolish viewers to sleep. However, a film about two people talking makes a lot of sense as long as their conversations happen to be interesting. This is something which the great French director Louis Malle has achieved when he cast actors André Gregory and Wallace Shawn in "My dinner with André", a film where human ears do more work than eyes for normal films. A viewer has to pay absolute attention to two people's conversations in order to ascertain why films with neither stories nor plots can be made. Regarding this film, fans of Hollywood style films might complain that it suffers from lack of action. However, it is not true as Louis Malle wrote his film's script in such an erudite manner that strengths and weaknesses of characters are revealed in the end. How people talk with emotions itself is a testimony to their willingness to reveal more about themselves. This is a reason why "My dinner with André" makes as much sense as films sans plots directed by maverick Belgian director Chantal Akerman.

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.