Overrated

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Before watching My Dinner with Andre I watched Autumn Sonata. The only thing I liked about My Dinner with Andre was that it mentioned Autumn Sonata, how lovely. But that's about it. The monologues in Autumn Sonata are beautiful and interesting, the monologues in My Dinner... are dull and boring. Seriously, I've heard far better monologues from drunk or high collegestudents sitting in their dormroom talking nonsense about life. The ideas exchanged in My Dinner are not even pseudo-intellectualistic. There's absolutely nothing there. I expected a lot because I love movies that are all about the monologues and dialogues (Coffee and Cigarettes, Before-trilogy, Locke, Eric Rohmer, Ingmar Bergman...whatever) but I'm so dissapointed with this one. I see a lot of positive reviews, how that is possible, I don't understand. People calling this thought-provoking and intellectual probably haven't watched a lot of or the right cinema or read some decent books.

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.

I think this is one of the finest films ever made. There is a lot to listen to and pay attention to- the viewer becomes an active participant in the story. It's a beautiful thing.Many viewers, even those who love this film, found the character of Andre (Andre Gregory) pretentious. However, I found him to be honest,engaging, introspective, empathetic and although Andre has the majority of the dialogue, he is very open and receptive to Wally's (Wallace Shawn's)thoughts, opinions, ideas; even Wally's criticisms of him. Wally in fact has already told us that he enjoys learning about people; likes asking people questions. So Andre obliges; giving Wally exactly what he enjoys-a perfect character study. Andre provides his friend with excellent material for his next play.Many reviewers don't seem to recall that Andre is extremely honest; he admits that the "creep" who irritates him does so because he sees himself reflected in that creep. He admits to being a "monster" for having had to subject himself and (perhaps more importantly) his family to his "selfish" journey to discover himself. Andre never mentions if his wife or children are upset with his choices. On the contrary, his wife comes off sounding extremely supportive. Most of the dialogue is Andre telling Wally, telling us, about his many strange and sometimes beautiful experiences. Wally is even supportive of his friend when Andre confesses that he began to feel his old friends annoying him, what was needling him was that he was seeing negative aspects of himself in these annoying people. He, Andre was the annoying creep,the selfish monster-Wally sympathetically asks him why he should feel this way? Throughout most of the film, I got the impression that Wally thought most of Andres experiences were fascinating. A few were even experiences Wally would like the chance to have himself if only he had more money, more time; if only he weren't afraid.But then towards the end, after Andre brings up a group he was involved with in Scotland and their belief in aliens, this sets Wally off. This story is too much for Wally-but that's surface. There's a deeper reason for Wally's negative reaction. So he tells Andre what he thinks and feels about Andre's stories. Andre is completely open and sincerely curious about Wally's impressions even if this means he is will be ridiculed. Throughout the movie he accepts Wally's thoughts and opinions - several are critical of Andre. Andre frequently agrees with Wally. When he doesn't it's a gentle nudge to Wally to try and perceive life or a person from a different pov. When Wally declares he's going to honestly tell Andre what he thinks there's an ambiguity in his thoughts and opinions. He says, "I don't even know what you're saying; I mean I 'know' what you're saying but I don't know." But Andre frequently admits his experiences often left him empty; or in the case of the Japanese Buddhist monk who Andre falsely believed could "teach me something" but couldn't. Andre was still left questioning his place in the world and trying to come to grips with his existential crisis.Andre admits his journeys around the world may have been completely useless. The outcome, or a more solid result might have been achieved by living in the moment inside a little NYC apartment with his wife by his side. Andre admits that the external stimuli he sought to find life's answers was often a catalyst which brought him beautiful meaningful experiences but not every time. He confesses and agrees with Wally that there is more than one way to make the journey.Many of the observations made by both Andre and Wally on modern life, theatre, living in NYC, science-vs- spirituality, socializing, making goals, working, technology are even more applicable today then they may have been when this was filmed.There are also several instances when Wally, the character, which many reviewers found more relatable and better grounded than Andre where you can catch him (Wally) contradicting himself. For instance, he criticizes Andre for seeking signs and omens in every day life coincidences. Yet Wally himself remarks, while trying to convince Andre, that one should be able to enjoy the simple things in life, that when he has his morning coffee, if there's an insect in his coffee that morning he will be negatively affected the entire day. So Wally does sometimes use every day life stuff as 'a sign' to extrapolate more meaning. The idea as to whether life's details are completely meaningless or if there is a message of true importance to be gleaned from them is shaky ground for Wally. This may be what upsets him so much. Wally, desires order and stability in the universe. However, much of what Andre describes is frightening specifically because it's the unknown. A few of Andre's stories illustrate we're living in a cold chaotic universe. Andre is confessing that even though he took this journey of self-exploration, many of the answers he sought remain unknowable.This is just a small observation but one reviewer mentions that the director, Louis Malle, never shows us what Wally and Andre are having for dinner-this is not true. There is a very clear shot of not only their dinners but of Andre eating (this same reviewer remarked that we only see Wally eating). Both Wally and Andre in fact order the very same entree-coincidence?The film's apparent simplicity slowly exposes profoundly nuanced characters and life's complexities. It serves to show the viewer that all around us, in the mundane, interesting amazing profound things may be taking place. If only we could snap out of our amnesia, pay attention and live in the moment.