Two old friends meet for dinner; as one tells anecdotes detailing his experiences, the other notices their differing worldviews.Two old friends meet for dinner; as one tells anecdotes detailing his experiences, the other notices their differing worldviews.Two old friends meet for dinner; as one tells anecdotes detailing his experiences, the other notices their differing worldviews.
- Awards
- 2 wins total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
10fideist
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.
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.
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.
Just because a movie deals with philosophical and intellectual themes does not mean it's a great movie. While Gregory is great story teller his tales of psydo-pychadellic adventure get tiresome quickly. Had any of the scenes actually been acted out the audience would likely have found them too outlandish and unrealistic to be believable. Gregory's stories do however offer a much needed reprieve from Shawn's annoying world view and even more annoying voice.
While I think that there are lessons in this film and think there's a lot of interesting points made, it's still not a great movie. The acting when not just expounding dialog is awful and awkward. Any part of the script that is not part of a story being told is very heavy handed.
Did you know
- TriviaWallace Shawn and Andre Gregory mention electric blankets as one of the negative examples of technology in the modern world. As it turned out, because of the overly cold set they had to work on, many of the cast and crew resorted to using them to stay warm.
- GoofsIn some scenes with the back of Wallace Shawn's head to the camera, the shadow of the boom mic can be seen on his bald head.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Sneak Previews: Rollover, Quartet, My Dinner with Andre, Reds (1981)
- How long is My Dinner with Andre?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $5,073
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $5,073
- May 16, 1999
- Gross worldwide
- $5,073
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content