My Dinner with Andre (1981) User Reviews

2 great storytellers keep you entertained through a 2 hours conversation

[kneiss1 · 8/10 · 27 September 2010]

This movie is mainly a conversation between 2 people. There isn't much music, barely any camera work, there actually is barely any acting because both actors play themselves!... it can barely be called a movie, but it still is one - and a very entertaining one at that. Both Actors have a gift for languages and are amazing story tellers. My native language is not English (you probably guessed it while reading this review), but even I have been amazed by the beautiful language and their amazing skill to talk.

From a philosophical point of view, there is nothing new. I heard all the thoughts before. - The great strengths of the movie is the way those ideas are expressed. Even the most simple thought is coated by meaningful and beautiful words. You almost feel enlightened while watching this movie! But after the movie is over, you realize, that you actually learned nothing. It still has been a great experience. And I wished that there'd be more movies like this one.

Oh, Garcon -- Ketchup, Please?

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 20 November 2010]

Two aesthetes meet for a two-hour dinner in a fancy restaurant and talk. Man, does it sound boring. They talk all the time, especially Andre Gregory, the playwright and director. There is an absolute minimum of narration by the other diner, Wallace Shawn. The colloquy is relentless. There are no light moments, no obvious jokes, no badinage. The camera never strays from the faces of the two actors. There are no inserted shot of the meals they are served so we don't even know what they're eating -- and this is directed by Louis Malle, a Frog himself. The film just drones on, cutting from one face to the other. The momentary appearance of a waiter brings a breath of air.

It goes on for almost two hours, yet I found that every time I checked the clock, more time had passed than I'd expected. That's ordinarily the sign of an enjoyable experience. I remember working in the pattern department of Lubell's shirt factory and thinking the clock must have stopped completely. In this case I was unable to lose interest.

I'm not sure why it was hard to ignore the conversation. I'm a behavioral scientist so when someone says something like "we all live in our separate fantasies in order to avoid dealing with reality," I have no idea what it means. Mene mene tekel? I mean it. I'm sitting there while Andre is expounding on how having an electric blanket cuts us off from reality. We no longer are in contact with "cold." We lose our connection to the rest of the natural world, and the rest of humanity too, who may be cold and without electric blankets and who may have to heap their old clothes on top of the ordinary blankets they DO have and -- well, you get the picture. And I'm sitting there thinking, culture is a cocoon that tries to buffer the impact of natural events, of course. We don't even see our corpses until they're prettified. That's precisely what culture DOES. And here Andre is, carrying on like some pop psychologist about "transparency" and "fantasy" and "authenticity." But I could not tear myself away.

Wallace Shawn is an unprepossessing, balding little man who seems content with waking up to an unspoiled cup of coffee. Andre, on the other hand, is a different sort of animal. When Wally asks Andre what he's been doing lately, Andre launches into a full half-hour monologue about dancing naked in a Polish forest with forty Jews who play harps and finally baptize him before burying him alive. It's not a particularly erudite conversation -- there are a few reference to St. Exupery and Jackson Pollack -- but it's weird as hell. Andre seems to think like a combination of Andy Warhol, Timothy Leary, and Jack Kerouac, although he has an actor's impressive face and a deep, incisive voice that's at once soothing and authoritative. Think William Daniels. That voice, with its rolling and expressive contours, even makes it possible for us to believe that when Andre hallucinates a monster at a Christmas Eve mass -- half man, half bull, with poppies growing out of its toes -- he's able to interpret it as a helpful sign.

I still can't quite understand the movie. What was all that intense talk meant to be about. And I can't understand my response to it. Why couldn't I just shut it off and go back to reading my comic book? I've given it extra points for being absolutely, deliberately, suicidally non-commercial. The writers, Shawn and Gregory, and the director, Malle, have given the audience nothing to hang on to but the most wispy of surreal notions and the compelling faces of two decidedly odd people. Your brain may be racing a mile a minute but your adrenal glands will go into Standby.

An original, unique, fascinating and intriguing conversation

[Afracious · 8/10 · 31 March 2000]

This is the tale of two different men: Andre, an avant-garde director, and Wally, a theatre actor and writer. They meet at a restaurant and philosophise and discuss a variety of subjects. The majority of the dialogue is spoken by Andre. He is a far more loquacious and complex character than Wally. Wally is a laconic and soft-spoken guy, who enjoys a simple life with his wife. His epitome of bliss is drinking a cold cup of coffee left from the night before, without finding a cockroach in it. Andre is an intense ponderer. He tells Wally the stories of his experiences travelling around the world, from his time spent in far flung places such as Scotland, Poland, India and Tibet. Andre gives the impression he is exaggerating at times. Is he fabricating some of the tales? He could be. Especially the ones where he claims he has seen monsters and weird creatures. The premise of two men conversing for 110 minutes at a dinner table is not going to be the most appealing film, but this film holds your attention and intrigues the viewer. You become involved with Andre's musings somehow, and just as fascinated as Wally is. A great piece of arresting cinema.

A Film For All Time

[cinemaniac2002 · 10/10 · 26 December 2010]

There are movies made of every kind, of many different genres. While quite a few are entertaining, some films can actually be life changing. "My Dinner With Andre" is one of those films. I first saw the film in the early 1990s, around a decade after it was made. Caught in a vortex of corporate America office work drudgery as a single parent, the movie inspired me then to really examine my life and actively work to change it.

I struggled to understand how a theater director (Andre) could ever become disenchanted with his life enough to drop out and search for more meaning. For me, the ability to do anything artistic to earn a living was a dream come true. As I watched the film, it became apparent how even someone in the arts could become disconnected - in fact, even more so than other people, who had resigned themselves to live the way that they were expected to according to standards they didn't agree with. I came away with the conclusion that it is the artists in society who have an obligation to cast truth's light on culture and how it affects humanity. This is a huge responsibility, and it is often frustrating for creative people to have to confront the mundane aspects of life which can create soul crushing circumstances, driving people to behave in the most inhumane of ways.

Seeing the film again recently, it had a whole new meaning for me. Now that I am on the other side of the spiritually deadening life in corporate America - I can see how my goals and decisions to change my life were extremely necessary - in fact, imperative to my existence. Since the film was made, people have spent decades engaging in all manner of robotic and soul deadening activities - many to the detriment of themselves and everyone around them. We have also seen a technological surge that helped to liberate people to a certain degree, while further enslaving others. Regardless of which type of person one happens to be, at the end of the day, most everyone should work toward doing the things that give them joy - without harming others in the process. While this is much easier said than done, it doesn't make the goal any less important to accomplish. In fact, on a very basic level, it is just as necessary as eating, breathing and sleeping. Maybe even more significant, since human apathy, in its own way, can systematically destroy and sully the spirit driven intention of others.

"My Dinner With Andre" is every bit as relevant now as when it first premiered, perhaps even more so. A conversation about the meaning of life and how people choose to live it, along with all of the outside forces that exist to complicate it, will never go out of style. This is a beautiful masterpiece of a film, that can be watched many times, to produce different points of view which provoke interesting, engaging and enlightening discussions by those who experience it. This is very apparent as Shawn's character, who on the surface seems to disagree with a lot of what Andre says. Yet by the end of the film, on his way home, his eyes observe things in his environment as though a new light was been cast upon them.

Existential Paradox becomes Celluloid

[fideist · 10/10 · 21 March 1999]

MY DINNER WITH ANDRE is one of the greatest movies of all time because it works on a seemingly infinite number of levels. Yet at the same time it is one of the biggest failures in film because it only succeeds in connecting to the most insightful of its audience. The resulting paradox only serves to prove the film's lesson to be true. Brilliant!

This is either a movie you will turn off after fifteen minutes, or it is a movie you will watch over and over again to pick up all the things you missed in previous screenings. The former will be bored and lost by the endless, meaningless talk. The latter will find gold in every word, and veins left to be mined time after time.

In simple terms, the question is understood "If life is a stage, are you going to be an actor, a director, or a playwright?" It is the viewer's choice. Wally is a struggling playwright who has fallen back on acting. Andre is a former actor and director who has left the theatre entirely. Wally and Andre meet for dinner, and Andre recounts his experiences since leaving the theatre.

But one of the ironies is that their dinner itself is theatre, and both Andre and Wally have roles to fill. [Notice they wrote the script and use their real names. They are not playing characters. They are necessarily playing themselves.] And summarily the viewer also has a role to fill. If life is a stage, viewing the theatre is in itself theatre. The viewer is now in a place of choosing the role. And will that choice be made mechanically or deliberately? Mechanics is acting. Deliberation is playwrighting.

This is a brilliant, brilliant film. One of the greatest movies of all time. And its resolve is purely subjective to the individual viewer. The goal is to deliberate and come away enlightened (literally). Unfortunately the majority of viewers will act mechanically and turn it off.

Look Closer

[zetes · 10/10 · 6 April 2000]

First off, I love this film. I'm sure I will see it a dozen or more times before I die. Definitely a 10/10.

But I comment for a different reason. Sure, you see the philosophy in the conversation. It is very interesting. What I think a lot of viewers are missing, though, is the strong characterizations of Wallace and Andre. They very clearly reveal their characters throughout the movie. I also love the tension that arises between them. Andre subtly criticizes Wally several times in the film (note what Andre says about people who stuff their face out of habit while Wallace is eating; also notice that we hardly ever see Andre himself eat). Wally is perceptive enough to catch them. This movie hit so close to home it was unbelievable. I think I've had that conversation before. The dynamics between Wallace and Andre have existed before between myself and friends with whom I have argued. If you find Andre a little pretentious, by the way, which many people will, don't necessarily believe that that wasn't deliberate. Wally himself finds his friend somewhat pretentious. And I think many people will be fooled into believing that the director sides with Andre just because he speaks the most. Some people will just buy into Andre's ideas and believe Wally is a poor sap. Don't be too sure that Wally has his life in any order. Don't believe he understands all that happens around him. Remember the line in Autumn Sonata that made him weep. Also, notice that Wally is fibbing a bit himself. In his opening monologue, he complains how hard his life is getting. All he used to think about was art, but now the only thing he thinks about is money.

See, this film is filled, just stuffed, with layers. Who would ever think that the most multi-layered film ever is a film about two people who sit down to dinner and talk!

misconceptions in the slug lines used to describe this film:

[didier-20 · 10/10 · 4 February 2011]

This film is well described in the comments and reviews . however misinformation is affirmed through lazy use of incorrect descriptives.

Here are my correctives:

1. The premise is not so much about a conversation between familiars. In truth, Wallace and Andre have not seen each other for a significant period and Wallace actively avoids Andre. What we see are two individuals who, in the past, met as idealists and lovers of theatre at the onset of adulthood, encounter the reality of themselves and their life choices at the onset of middle age. They see that they are in fact total strangers to each other. The context is an attempt, in part, to critique the previous decade, the 1970s, where Andre embodies the most excessive experimental characteristics of that decade. Wallace is his opposite, an entropic and resigned realist, very NYC.

2. The dialectic falls along two fault lines. Theatre and Mortality. If there is one thing that should be said about this film, is that you should see it within the context of cinematic space and with the presence of an audience. Malle sets up an interesting technique. In many respects this film is a little homage to Woody Allen. This is where the cinematic familiar of the piece lies. However, Malle makes one crucial exclusion. He pushes the improvisational , the theatrical element to the extreme, but he removes the comic punctuational relief, the spacial permission to laugh. The result is that he induces in the audience a state of exasperation which at it's best invokes involuntary cries and gestures. He literally provokes the audience to acts of primal theatre. At precisely the point he has pushed them to their limit, Andre's conversation draws attention to the kind of gestures they are making, and instantly it is realised the extraordinary way Malle has acknowledged the presence of the audience. It's an electric moment, and it's worth seeing this film in a cinema to witness this exchange.Only within the last 20 minutes does the one real permission to laugh at the spectacle arrive, when Wallace exclaims complete incomprehension. But by the time of it's arrival, it's almost too late, and the first real collective roar of laughter from the audience feels like something earned, needed, perhaps even knowingly wise.

Mortality is so extremely forwarded via the vehicle of Andre's desperate search for meaning, that for the first time in my life, after the experience of a piece of culture, i left with the absolute conviction that there really is nothing beyond death, That death is absolute and final. I've had friends who become just as Andre, perhaps we all will have had in time. But there was something about the cinematic intimacy and the distance of it's voyeuristic gaze that enabled one to really see a man so consumed by his emotions that simply can't be achieved in the encounter with that in real life, largely because their 'fire' is too overwhelming to achieve such a distance easily.

Finally to say, Malle does not judge in the end. He expertly remains aloof, simply shows with such simplicity and via the brilliant melding of devices of the theatrical with the cinematic. It's this that allows this piece to claim a status of masterpiece.

I didn't think it was the masterpiece that some say it is, but it is definitely worth seeing

[jvisaggi-09771 · 6/10 · 17 September 2018]

This is a very strange film, indeed. There are moments of profoundness, but for the most part there is a lot of nothing. However, I feel like it is worth watching for those few minutes that are absolute gold.

A mighty interesting dinner

[Gloede_The_Saint · 9/10 · 5 May 2010]

Wally Shawn is about to meet a friend he has avoided for several years, Andre Gregory. He has apparently gone mad. The interesting thing is that Shawn and Gregory plays himself, they themselves wrote the script and what they say are supposedly parts of conversations they have actually had over the years.

With this in mind you should already know that you are about to encounter something out of the ordinary.

If you take away the journey to and from the restaurant, which can't have taken up more than a few minutes, all the action takes place around a table. The title says it all. This is Wally dinner with Others. The excitement lies in the words coming out of their mouths, and fortunately their conversation is extremely interesting.

At the beginning it seems like Andre is a maniac, just some crazy person babbling on about nonsense. However, at some point things are starting to make more and more sense. Threads are merged and a serious and highly relevant discussion about life and the roles we play occurs.

The film was never boring and most of what comes up is something to think about. You get this strange "tell me more" feeling, which so few other movies do, or even try to achieve. A very special film I would most warmly recommend.

Have to have (or have had) a lot of existential curiosity to be able to enjoy it

[rbrogan-61779 · 7/10 · 5 October 2015]

My Dinner with Andre is one of those films you may well hear about, because it is really pretty different. This is the kind of film where you have to have (or have had) a lot of existential curiosity to be able to enjoy it. The less you think you know about this world, the more interesting you will find Andre's tales to be. Beyond that, you may still find it interesting if you can relate to the quest for meaning and happiness and you think of yourself as a student of human interactions. On the other hand, if you have low tolerance for weirdness and fancy, then you are likely to find yourself to be irritated by it all. There is a question of how high to rate it as a film since it seems to be just a recorded conversation. I rate it down just a bit on that account (seems unfair to other films), though I find there are some subtleties to be picked up on, and I found Wallace Shawn to give a pretty good performance with his sincere and mildly intense reactions to Andre (and at one point finds something to be INCONCEIVABLE!). Recommended to artist- and entrepreneurial types that find themselves often wondering over the edge of the World of Appearances.

A miracle of a film!

[dkampion · 10/10 · 5 January 2005]

This film is a miracle -- that anyone would even make a film about little more than a dinner conversation is incredible enough, but the play of paradigms between Shawn and Gregory is such a Gurdjieffian tour de force that it creates a compelling crossroads for any astute viewer. This is a challenging flick!

Also, be it hereby said that the brilliant and understated performance of Jean Lenauer as The Waiter should have won an Oscar for the best supporting role. Watch again and see if you don't agree! The old gent passed on two years after this film was made, but, man, was he great! Thanks, Jean.

A worthwhile experiment.

[tombleyboo · 7/10 · 12 April 2011]

This film is an interesting idea, and worthwhile merely for that.

I've read the 10 star reviews, and I didn't find this film life changing, and I don't want to watch it a million times to discover all the layers. At first I was more on the side of the 1 star reviewers. I didn't know how many layers this emperors clothes had, but I couldn't see them. At first Andre speaks eloquently and charmingly, and appears self deprecating, and Wally seems a patsy. I couldn't decide if Wally was supposed to be pretending to be interested in what Andre was saying, asking questions simply to make the time pass, as he promised in the beginning, or whether Wallace was just a bad actor. Perhaps it was both.

But I watched it all the way through, and it was worth seeing. The film is smart, smart enough to make those wanting to believe in their own profundity think there is something existential and paradoxical here. But it's not that smart. Wally's soliloquy at the beginning seems like it's trying too hard. I'm charitable enough not to believe that the makers are trying to trick us with pseudo philosophy and cleverness, nor that they really think they're being super clever. I think it is nothing more than a kind of High Dynamic Range picture of a conversation between two people, of two characters. The characters are interesting, and the stories engaging. As the film goes on, they become more real. I found myself having more sympathy with Wally, but both characters have believable strengths and weaknesses. While nothing appears to happen, towards the end something is happening, and I even felt a little moved.

Talk for the sake of talk

[ivan-22 · 22 June 2000]

For the sake of authenticity here are various reactions from my diary:

1984

An interesting movie, one of the few non-comedies I liked. It consisted of nothing but a two-hour conversation between two friends. The conversation wasn't of very good quality, but infinitely above most of the drivel on TV.

1985

A recreation of a real life dialogue between a playwright and a theatrical producer about life, modern civilization and everything under the sun. I found it very interesting but neither of the characters are first rate-intellects. Andre came off looking kooky.

1988

It is SPELL-BINDING, but ultimately frustrating, like all movies. One is never sure what the writers really believe, and to what degree they believe it. I wish the two would appear on talk shows and carry on the same type of conversation.

2000

I'm afraid what looks like art in a movie would look perfectly banal in real life. If you were overhearing this conversation in a coffee shop, would you pay to listen? I wouldn't, nor would I listen free of charge. But a movie is fascinating, because it is an object, a product. A movie is an event in itself, regardless of content. There is a communal experience of watching what thousands have watched. Without meaning to, this worthy film exemplifies the tragedy of human communication: it is impossible. No one really knows what is being said or why. We are all wrapped up in ego, yet when we strip it away, there is nothing. But talking has a sensuality of its own. It is more intimate than sex.

Easily One of My Top 10 Worst Movies

[diarkosophy · 1/10 · 29 August 2021]

I was looking through peoples' favorite movies and because I love philosophical bottle films, I thought this would definitely be up my alley. It was not. Calling this movie pretentious just doesn't do the film justice. It's preteninity ( pretentiousness to the infinite power). I have tried multiple times just to get though the whole thing and my brain just can't take it.

Most reviews who love this movie will admit it's pretentious. Reviews who did not like this movie have referred to it as "Shut up Andre", " If I didn't stop watching I would l kill myself", " this movie is the root of all evil" and " complete insistent blatter ". One person even said this was one of their favorite movies until they watched it again with someone. They were both so bored they had to stop watching it and he now gives the movie a 2. Maybe this film is for artsy people or maybe it's past it's prime but it's definitely not for my kind. I watched peoples' favorite parts and thought... no thoughts, just confusion as to how one could find this enjoyable.

With that said, I thought it started out well enough and I enjoyed the setting. It felt a little surreal to me and in a good way. Everything was just fine until Andre started telling stories. Then it just felt like torture in the form of pretentiousness but the icing on the cake, the thing that really makes this one of my worst movies is when Wallace says " tell me more". It's as if my soul was hurt. Why god, why? How, how dude? How can you be interested in listening to this man rant on in the most mindless self indulgent way. I don't even care if your a fictional character. You should know better person that doesn't really exist! Anyways, just had to get that off my chest. First review. Be good to each other. Peace.

saw this film with my Dad...

[MarieGabrielle · 10/10 · 9 August 2006]

My Dad was sixty, at the time, and not prone to liking many movies. I have recently re-watched this, and see why a person who is interested in many aspects of life, would be intrigued by a conversation between two men; something unusual.

While several reviewers have mentioned, the film is not for everyone. I would concur, but give it a chance. Wallace Shawn is the less traveled, non-pretentious friend, while Andre discusses his travels to India, Poland, Scotland, and the many philosophies he has encountered therein.

The discussions about daily life, its esoteric meanings, and how these two men interpret their lives, is quite interesting. Think of it as a brief exposure to a man's psyche (Andre) after he has lived and searched for meaning in his life. Also to be appreciated is the conversation between two men, something not often addressed in film. 10/10.

One of my favorite films of all time

[jgurevitch · 10/10 · 22 May 2011]

I haven't seen this film in a few years but have seen it several times. I think about it often; that in itself is remarkable--I don't generally mentally return to films again and again, particularly some years after seeing them. It is nuanced and layered as great literature or film is. This film is not about one thing and is not simple to characterize; you can see that by reading the reviews, which all seem to think it is about something different and who focus on different aspects of the conversation. I agree with the many reviewers who say that it is amazing how mesmerizing it is, with almost no action, no scenery, etc. I love Wally's musings on his way home in the cab maybe best of everything in the film. I think that Andre is charming and compelling but psychotic--I don't think he's making things up or exaggerating, I think he is an incredibly creative and very sincere searcher who has lost connection with what most of us would call the real world. But who knows? The beauty of the film is that it stimulates your own questioning and thinking about the wide range of things the two men talk about, as well as the stunning language and word-pictures used. Since this is something like Review #92 I wonder if anyone will read it, but if you do, well, stop reading the reviews and go get the movie and see it!

Leaves me floored everytime I watch it

[xavierborgas · 10/10 · 8 April 2019]

This film is the epitome of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. There is no individual aspect of My Dinner With Andre that it relies on for entertainment, although the acting, cinematography and script are formidable. Something about the way that it all comes together leaves me breathless and grounded no matter how many times I watch it, and that is an outcome to which I will happily grant a perfect score.

Certainly worth your time.

Captivating

[Hitchcoc · 10/10 · 5 August 2015]

I decided to see this film many years ago after it received two thumbs up on the first Ebert- Siskel movie review show. I have always enjoyed conversation and watching the two men here share experiences from different orientations and life experiences kept my attention from beginning to end. The men are polar opposites. One is quite rich and has travelled the world, not just observing but participating. As we pass through his experiences (he does most of the talking) we begin to feel an emptiness, a kind of sadness in him. It's as if he thought there were answers out there that would meet his expectations and they never materialized. Wallace Shawn, a man of great accomplishment in his own right, is the frumpy guy who approaches life in a practical, realistic way. He is the perfect foil and yet his fragility is there on his sleeve. He speaks for us, the viewers, while marveling at the stories his friend tells. He hearkens to his own existence which, while not earth shattering, is one of groundedness. I may need to watch this again soon.

Wally Shawn Before He Went Mainstream

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 22 May 2017]

Two old friends meet for dinner; as one tells anecdotes detailing his experiences, the other notices their differing worldviews.

This is very much an indie film -- lots of dialogue (and I do mean lots), overly intellectual discourse, and very limited settings (more or less a single table). I am almost surprised this came out in 1981, because it is very much along the lines of the sort of dialogue-heavy indie film we saw in the 1990s.

Most interestingly is Wallace Shawn. Maybe it is simply my age, but I was not aware of his existence before "The Princess Bride". And yet, here is he, a full-fledged writer and star of a film. An indie film, but a film just the same... and one honored by the Criterion Collection.

The conversation

[jotix100 · 10/10 · 26 July 2006]

Friendship between two men who can communicate their ideas to each other is a rare commodity. Women, it seems, are more in touch with their own feelings and they are more open to express how they feel. In contrast, men are always more reserved in the way they express to a friend things that are so deep and so different that it takes two great individuals to have an honest exchange without being cautious. To bear one's inner thoughts to a another man is not something frequently done.

As in the case of Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, two friends who haven't seen one another in quite some time, a dinner brings the two men together in ways they probably didn't think possible. In the case of Mr. Shawn, he is seen at the beginning of the film walking the streets of downtown Manhattan thinking about how he doesn't want to meet with Andre Gregory in his present frame of mind. After all, he is a struggling playwright who has not had a success in the theater in some time.

At the arrival at the restaurant, Wallace Shawn seems out of place. In spite of the way he looks, don't be fooled by his appearance. This man grew up in the midst of affluence. He is the son of the legendary editor of The New Yorker magazine, William Shawn. As a child Wallace Shawn was surrounded by literary celebrities through his father.

Andre Gregory, is a great conversationalist. He clearly dominates what he has to say to Mr. Shawn because, after being successful in the New York theater world, he decided to give all that up in order to do what he really wanted, to explore the world to its fullest. His wonderful stories recount his experiences in Poland, Tibet, Scotland, and other parts of the world, where he meets an assortment of people that enrich his life experience.

Conversation between true friends involve listening carefully, something which Mr. Shawn is great at. He never interrupts Mr. Gregory, whose wonderful tales evoke images of discovery and the occult and make perfect sense in the context of the conversation. After all, these men are sophisticated individuals who have been exposed to a lot and would not bat an eye when something that might seem preposterous comes out in the conversation.

It took an excellent director, Louis Malle, to see the possibilities in a film about these two people talking without any action. Instead of being bored, we are riveted to what the two men are talking about and the camera of Mr. Malle follows them attentively without even hinting we are looking at something that was planned in advance. For all practical purposes Mr. Malle makes us 'peeping toms' as we listen to the exchange.

"My Dinner with Andre" is a wonderful movie that will delight viewers with open minds as we eavesdrop on the meeting of two friends talking about things that might be out of our own experiences, but who are fascinating to listen tell their stories for our benefit.

The Art of Blather

[utgard14 · 7/10 · 22 April 2020]

Well I never thought I would enjoy a movie that was just two guys having a conversation but I did like this. I've seen it twice now in the past year and it has managed to pull me in both times despite my resistance. I find little relatable about either the characters or the topics they discuss, but somehow I can't look away. Despite being a movie that's literally nothing but talking I wouldn't describe the movie as talky. The dialogue has action of its own. It helps that these are two good actors and there are no long lulls in the conversation. Honestly the film just breezes by once you get into it. I didn't want to watch it for years because the concept just sounds so artsy and pretentious, but I'm glad I finally gave it a chance.

Epic journey

[alexcosoveanu · 10/10 · 15 January 2019]

I think I only blinked 10 times during the whole movie. I was so absorbed into the discussion.

If you're a person who likes to know about different aspects of life, this is a must watch that can completely change your opinion on life in general. Also relevant up to this day.

10/10.

Pretentious, simple, boring, fascinating

[cricketbat · 6/10 · 1 July 2019]

My Dinner with Andre is such a strange movie. It's boring, but engaging. It's simple, yet pretentious. It's not cinematic at all, yet it's a fascinating experiment in film. Part of me wanted to relate to Andre's passion for life, but then I kept realizing that he was insane. I am glad that I finally saw this movie, but I have no idea how it gained such notoriety.

Pretentious and Boring

[alleykatchi · 1/10 · 12 January 2022]

Yes, I do get the attempt at being artistic and clever. Unfortunately this movie was neither. It was the most boring and pretentious movie I have ever seen. I forced myself to watch it because a friend recommended it. I hoped there would be some sort of enlightening moment, or redeeming ending, but it was just never ending drivel from start to finish with no storyline, no climax, not even mildly interesting conversation.

Andre who does the most talking, was simply pretentious and quite annoying with his long pointless stories. If you have ever had to make it through a two hour dinner with someone like that, well then you have already seen this movie. Hard pass on this on.

Life in a Movie

[Nietzsches_New_Neighbor · 10/10 · 8 September 2006]

I absolutely love movies that provoke thought, and this movies does exactly that, and then some. At first, being only 22, I was weary about renting it because it was released before I was even born, and thought that the movie could possibly be out-dated. I could not have been more wrong. I could write an entire dissertation about this movie and the aspects it raises about present day life, but instead I'll just simply state that this movie is flat-out amazing and will certainly make you reflect on the path of life you have chosen to follow. While watching this movie, I had to repeatedly rewind the movie because I would be in such deep thought about a point Andre had just made, that I would completely miss the next few minutes of the movie. Quit reading this comment, scrounge up some change, and go watch it!!!