An admirable experiment that, despite its abstract premise and philosophical rumination, is fundamentally very straightforward, sincere, and unpretentious. Written from Shawn's point of view but shot with an objective perspective, its tone is a bit incongruous, and though the characters may not be completely agreeable, the conversation is fascinating.

It takes a while before the conversation seems like it's not a waste of time. The point where Wallace Shawn finally steps in and joins the discussion is when it gets pretty fascinating.

Somehow, with 2 or 3 words of dialogue breaking up the wild tales coming in volleys at him from across the table, Wallace Shawn's performance manages to be unbelievable. It just seemed too mechanical, too rehearsed, too pensive and awkward. I respect the concept of My Dinner With Andre immensely and the camera movement and repositioning of frame is so subtle. The acting, or editing just seemed off which, in a film based on a lengthy conversation between two people is of the highest importance.

There are a few corny moments, the final voiceover springs to mind, and the form can be intermittently irritating, but the two actors have a lot to say about life, which just might be of use to someone. I have yet to determine, however, if that someone is me.

You get so swept up in the conversation that you forget these are two characters talking - somehow Malle's able to make Andre and Wally essentially mouthpieces (for themselves...!), and yet it feels natural and you don't question it for a second. There's no answer to the difficult questions they ask about the modern world and comfort, but they're definitely things worth keeping in the back of your mind - that knowledge of your good fortune being built on the misfortunes of others.

"But what an egg it is." - Joseph Jon Lanthier

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/5070/martinsdinnerwithandre.gif

It's essentially Frasier Crane cinema, but as far as those things go, it's still strangely watchable. It's all about the dialogue, of course, and luckily it's very smart and deceptively satirical of it's characters. The viewer is also given plenty of ammo, wether he/she sympathises with either Wally, Andre or neither. Cinematically, it's a bit of a cul de sac, but one well worth exploring.

a bit much talking

special, intriguing, slow, joyful.

I greatly appreciate well-written, dialogue-driven scripts, so this - essentially consisting of one single conversation between two intelligent people - seemed tailor-made. Even though I probably enjoy eloquent ramblings more than the next guy (for instance, I would happily do a Linklater-marathon), I did feel that Andre's stories dragged initially. Later on, when the narrator challenges Andre's views, I got on board. A more emphatic approach and more disagreement would have made it even better.

Probably a failed experiment, but I found the conversation absorbing most of the time.

I shudder to think how people who complain about "talky" movies would react to seeing My Dinner with Andre, 'cause this has to be the talkiest film there ever was. The whole film is essentially a big, fat middle finger to the notion that a movie should show and not tell. You can sense a wholly different film being made where all of Andre's wild stories are actually shown, and with the conversation simply being a frame story. Instead, the conversation IS the story.

It's sort of perfect if you can get past the few eye-rolling moments (deliberately so, I think) of Andre before the conservation hits an uncomfortable standstill. When you hear the line "Do you want to know my actual response to this", the film really finds its strengths. Is it a fault that it takes 3/4 of the full length to get to this? Perhaps, but it never felt like that. Multifaceted and absorbing like no other.

The film is literally a dinner conversation between two people. They both had interesting things to say, so I enjoyed this film.

I can totally see why in 1981 people thought this movie was A Big Deal. Showing American audiences that cinema doesn't have to fit the "hollywood mold" or whatever. It's very entertaining and certainly interesting, but I don't think it made a huge impression on me.

Portrait of a posturing, pretentious, and, above all else, an ineffectual elite. Everything that is wrong with highfalutin thought on display to see.

I've tried watching this on two different occasions and damn; this is one of the most boring, slow-paced movies ever. Maybe I just don't "get" it, but I can't finish the movie.

The film wasn't really boring as one might think it would be. At the same time I never really got lost in it. The two actors Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory were the right fit for the film but the conversation never drew me in. The begining portion where Andre does most of the talking is especially dull and feels pointless. Although it does pick up when they both start to converse the conversation ultimately leaves me unsatisfied as there are no definitive points or conclusions made.

It's the subtle directing that makes this seem more like a real life conversation you're just following than a movie.

Hypnotic is definitely the key word here - it's almost impossible not to get drawn into the conversation, picturing Andre's stories and understanding both of their frustrations. The subject matter - particularly the parts about how humans interact (which was a lot of it, but you know what I mean) - is interesting and engaging.

It shouldn't work, but somehow watching two people talk for two hours is amazingly successful. The idea of questioning whether or not we're watching a 'real' conversation or a scripted conversation throws up a couple of interesting philosophical quandaries that Malle doesn't readily answer, but all the while it deftly sidesteps feelings of pretentiousness and comes out of the other side as an extraordinarily honest piece of filmmaking. An absolute joy, and really one on its own.

On first viewing, I thought this was about the most pretentious piece of crap I had ever seen, until I realized, much later, that it is brilliant, utterly deadpan satire.

Provides interesting insight into the lives of two film affiliates. The conversation never stagnates, it's pretty impressive.

Two guys order dinner. The waiter blinks. Two guys talk. One goes home in a taxi. The end.

It's little more than a conversation, but it's a wonderful, engaging conversation. At times you just want to jump right in there and participate. At one point I had a bunch of things to say to Andre, and then Wallace Shawn piped up and said them for me. The discussion has a hypnotic ebb & flow to it, whether or not you agree with what's being said (sometimes you do, sometimes you don't).

My dislike for Andre is surpassed by my love of Wallace Shawn and the interesting dynamics of the conversation.

More than most films, My Dinner with Andre is able to tear down the barrier that normally separates a film and its viewers; there was more than one occasion during which the conversation was so engaging and interesting that I entirely forgot I was even watching a film. It's a brilliant screenplay, and Shawn and Gregory are both excellent in their roles, but Malle deserves serious credit for his understated direction that is subtly essential in making the film as engaging as it is.

Audacious in its simplicity and engrossing in its unapologetic intellectualism, it's an example of the satisfying risk-taking that was found in art-house theaters 25 years ago. Gregory expounds upon a bevy of philosophical theories and "artistic" immersion experiences and then, just at the moment when his existential enthusiasm is wearing thin, Shawn counters him with a New Yorker's pragmatic skepticism. Malle's gift for perfectly calibrated balance emerges as the film's most critical facet.

Given the complete lack of narrative tension and action, this talkfest is impossibly entertaining and insightful.