Good concept, poorly executed.

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.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

The acting in this movie is really good.

I had as odd of a time watching this movie as I've ever had. It started out problematic: too dry, too slowly paced with unlikable characters and then somewhere between sitting at the table and getting the check it shifted and I found myself enjoying it tremendously. The fact that the dialogue has such a true to life feel to it makes it feel somewhat dry and boring at first, but when you settle in and listen to what they are saying, the script becomes remarkable. The characters felt very much like people. It's like a more subtle, polished " Breakfast Club " for adults and lead to a truly lovely ending. I look forward to revisiting it someday.

On the down side is the fact that the 2003 film Melvin Goes To Dinner, directed by first timer Bob Odenkirk, is a watered down yuppy version of the great 1981 Louis Malle film My Dinner With Andre. On the up side is that if you are going to imitate something, at least choose something great, for the imitation, while not great, is likely to be good, which My Dinner With Melvin is. It was written by actor/playwright Michael Blieden, adapted from his play Phyro-Giants, and had a no name cast, as opposed to 2001's similarly themed HBO film Dinner With Friends, which starred Dennis Quaid, Toni Collette, Andie McDowell, and Greg Kinnear…. the film really does chicken out of putting its characters in emotional deep water. Yes, admissions of fetishes and infidelities can titillate, but given that this was filmed only a year and a half after 9/11 you'd think there might be a touch of political dischord thrown in. They argue a bit over religion, but no character seems willing to really stand up for anything. They are all, in that sense, preening wimps.Still, I only wish there were deeper characters. Whereas Shawn and Gregory discourse on life and determinism, the four yuppies talk of things like ghosts with all the depth that a post-Angels In America America can muster, and then are amazed at each others' supposed depth, and how stimulating their conversation is. And when I reference Angels In America it's not a mere throwaway diss. There's a reason for the connection. Call it Post-Intellectualism. Call it, 'Show, don't tell.' Call it a nice try that settles for copouts. There are too many synchronicities and pallid contrivances that line up to get these four people together in the first place, and then reveal so much about themselves. Yet, it succeeds just enough that I can recommend this noble attempt, especially since the film's start and end are strong- and I mean literally the first and last few seconds of each. You may not wish you were able to join in the conversation, as you did with My Dinner With Andre, but it's still a few notches above anything you'll overhear in a real restaurant. For that, I recommend this DVD.

I had mixed feelings about this one. I went into it knowing that it was largely based on conversation with very little vestiges of plot, so I was pleasantly surprised to find that it all sort of falls into place to mean something at the end. All in all, the conversational elements are richly written and very appealing. However, that's the end... it takes a while for it to be truly enriching.Sometimes the conversation is such that you feel like you're in it, and that's probably as close to good as the cinematography and editing gets, considering in general it really isn't that well done. I can forgive the hand-held look and a lot of how the image turned out from its independent production value, but try as I might I couldn't help but feel a lot of the work was just shoddy camera operation.Sometimes the conversation isn't very appealing and I can't help but think, "I'm obviously not in this conversation because I wouldn't go there." So there's that element too, a sort of discursive alienation one feels when the conversation feels less than involving.Mostly, however, the dialog is great and the characters are amazing. There are some really great performances all around and it's definitely worth a viewing or two, or more, but even as I say that I can't help but think that the play version of this story must be absolutely amazing because of mostly the format of the two media.--PolarisDiB

Four people, two guys and two gals, at different places in their lives, chance to meet at a restaurant for dinner one day, and end up revealing themselves and discovering each other in ways none of them could have predicted. For the most part, they are bright, young, upwardly mobile professionals, comfortable discussing themselves, and hence even without a psychologist to act as moderator, they interact in a manner reminiscent of group therapy. That is, they take turns admitting their secret thoughts and obsessions, take issue with each other on some points, and try to benefit from each other's experiences and perspectives. One of them even has some background in a field related to psychiatry, but of course with minimal insight.The point of the film seems to be that, thanks to their group discussion, they all develop a wider perspective on life, but especially Melvin, whose life had been spiraling out of control. In some regards he seems the brighter of the four, yet the least insightful. All of the characters become more aware of themselves through their interactions over dinner, but it is Melvin who benefits the most. How he grows, and what he learns from that encounter, are what makes this film worth viewing. Thanks to his opportunity, Melvin doesn't just go out to dinner, but learns to take control of his life. It is a very subtle story, but worthy of critical attention.