+J. Craig Anderson Me too, but being an avid collector I'm concerned about their value depreciating due to damage. However, I believe I have solved the problem by storing them in my "Remains of the Day" lunchbox.
Now that's not right. I understand that nothing ever happens on Mars, but that doesn't give those fellows the right to get their kicks by just taking your stuff like that. Those Martians are real bastard people.
In order, if you liked this movie, be sure to see: "Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, Before Midnight." Same 2 people in each basically doing the same thing, having quality conversation. Strips away the Actors & we see 2 Human beings, which is relatable to most, & fascinating. Not for every1, including MdwA.
Yes that opening is strangely hypnotic, and so is the ending when Wally's in his cab watching out the window. Thinking about his world in a whole new light.
So glad to find this old clip of Siskel & Ebert who both seem wildly enthusiastic about the film. Ebert is correct about Andre Gregory's storytelling abilities: the mind conjures up images as Gregory relates his adventures. Its been years since I've seen it but I still recall so much of it: the description of the Beehive, the symbolic burial and resurrection, seeing a faun at a Long Island mass, Wallace Shawn enjoying the simple pleasures of life like curling up in his electric blanket while reading Charlton Heston's autobiography. The ending, with Shawn visibly moved by the experience of this fascinating conversation while not wholeheartedly embracing Gregory's New Age wackiness, easily doubles as the audience's reaction to the film they've just been seeing. There's truly never been another film like it.
Absolutely! They were excellent and not in the least bit biased. We are now living in a new era in which their show would not even be possible. People would get bored because S & E were actually film critics (I even hate to use the word "critics" because of what critics have become). We've actually lost far more than we've gained as a result of all of our never ending, unchecked "progress".
I grew up in New Jersey, and I'll always be grateful to Siskel & Ebert for showing me that there was more to movies than big blockbusters. And the rewards of seeking out smaller, indie, or foreign films. I remember watching this review at age 12, and it stuck with me.
Definitely worth a watch. It is an unusual experience because while you are watching this movie you are experiencing another one when Andre Gregory is talking. Your mind fades away to what Andre is talking about. I have yet to see a film do what this film accomplishes. This is a fantastic movie.
I thought it was interesting that this "spiritually enlightened" man is condescending and almost rude to the waiter. I think both men's interactions with the waiter say a lot more about them then the conversation.
Spot on, I remember seeing this when I was a teenager and it blew me away, just melting into the scenes Andre describes and only then realizing whoa, that was a guy talking.
It's weird but I remember in my childhood. My parents would talk with relatives and friends for hours. They would get so into their conversation that it seemed like time would go by without them realizing it. It kind of sad how we live in a generation that has forgot the art of conversation. I know I am guilty of this, I find myself tuning out in conversations and thinking what I want to do next.
One of the greatest hidden treasures of this film (I rewatch it every year, usually in summer) is that it invites you to participate. I always cook myself a nice steak with potatoes, open up a bottle of red wine and join them at the table. As I eat and drink, I feel like I am with them in that restaurant and quietly just listening. It's always a wonderful evening.
Every time I go back to watch this movie again I am almost surprised that it is just them sitting at a table talking, the imagery that their conversation creates is so powerful that I imagine having actually seen it.
I saw this film in the 70's or 80's but my attention was not completely there. I always new that I had to watch it again some day. 40 something yrs later I finally gave it my full attention and it was an emotional experience.
"Andre" is certainly one of the greatest movies ever made, but Gene, if EVERY movie was like this, just two guys describing something, don't you think it'd get pretty boring after awhile? Its uniqueness is what makes it so special.
Well, yes. If EVERY film was like that, but more can be made without taking anything away from it. Especially if there's more bookends to the dinner than this film has.
There's a great performance by both leads in this film but I love the dynamic of the conversation. Wally is just knocked over at first with all this new age stuff Andre is going on about but by the third act he's regained his footing and pushes back a bit. Very interesting to watch.
I loved the bit where he says Hollywood is spending TENS of millions of dollars to make movies, when now movies costing over $100 million is no big deal.
This is an overrated film. Not a bad film mind you just not the masterpiece some claim it is. Andre’s stories are not very interesting. “Spellbinding conversationalist”??? Please... Much of what he’s describing is utterly pretentious crap - and not believable (his right hand not burning in the flame??????).
How so much different "Sneak Previews" was compared to "Siskel & Ebert" where film clips were much more extensive and more numerous and the critics were allowed to expound more exhaustively on their reviews because of the absence of commercials.
Solid E, I'm the third guy you don't see at the table. After ten minutes of listening to Andre tell stories that fascinate him, I mention that I need to use the restroom, politely excuse myself, and leave.
I watched it three times the week I discovered the movie, I was blown away by it. However, when I referred it to a friend of mine, a really smart guy, he found it unwatchable, and stopped watching it after 20 minutes. Not for everybody!
I also don't get why they're all giddy over the fact that the movie's action is just two people talking. It's really not that innovative by 1981. I'm kind of surprised by the inference that neither of these guys have ever read any Tennessee Williams or anything? Plenty of 'just talking' in theatre.
This could actually be siskel and ebert (my dinner with Andre is almost just like these 2 debating everything) and god chicago was lucky to have the weirdest and best film critics, I love and miss them!
I didn’t mind the setup of My Dinner With Andre. But, I do think the movie is a bit overrated. And the fact that things like the Findhorn Foundation are pushed is pretty weird.
I wanted to like this film, but the topics of their conversation are sooo dry. I usually like movies like this, but it’s too easy to lose your focus while watching it. It’s not the length of the film, but the really uninteresting conversation. If this movie was one of the real greats, it would be on tv more often. But as it’s aged, you hardly ever see it.
The first hour of this movie was pretty boring, and then it started to get a bit interesting. Not my favorite movie, but it pays off in the end if you hang in there.
So Wallace Shawn would prefer to stay home and have his girlfriend cook him something, but she can't because she's a waitress because they need extra money, so he goes out to dinner? Quite a plot hole, no?
Why not a sequel with just Wally? "My Dinner with Andre 2 - My solo TV dinner without Andre, just myself" - and we see him eating slowly, chewing his food... and every 15 mins he sighs, and goes on...
I saw this movie when it came out. I was a physics graduate student, and although it was an interesting setup, I found Andre's credulity and lack of discernment to be really annoying. It felt like you could tell Andre anything when he was in the right frame of mind and he would believe it. The fact that a supposedly intelligent person would say the things he did was unbelievable. I usually liked Siskel and Ebert, so this completely mixed up my calibration for them. For much of the movie, I thought he was purposefully acting as a self-parody. But I do believe he was playing the part straight. I might try the movie again as a golden ager to see if I have become less judgmental in my later years. I will have to say that I like the movie very much from a visual point of view, with the waiter standing by.
I can understand it's place in 1981 but I was born then and didn't first watch it until a year or two ago, and I was bored to tears, he tells good stories, but their absurdity in the modern age makes them feel unrealistic and borderline simple self serving garbage. Sounds like he's telling stories about what rich bored white people do to spend time since they've done everything else, I can't relate to that bullshit.
This film is painful to watch.... Almost as painful as watching critics pretend to like it. Like wine snobs pretending they can tell the difference in wines whem they cant
Man I am old I guess I remember going to the alterna-movietheatre in Seattle as a young man. I'd totally forgotten this film wish I'd bought the action figures too.
I have found that you can tell a lot about a person using this movie as a gauge. What ones reaction and level of understanding to this film are, if they “get it” or not, and to the level of how much they “get it”. It really says and reveals a lot about a person.
To me, the first monologue had me veering off with my attention. There’s a parallel to The Before Trilogy-it’s been said before. But here’s why ‘Dinner’ isn’t as good. There’s no ticking clock, there’s no variation of locations, and most importantly, there’s no love story, which is historically more of an engaging relationship. My Dinner With Andre-though with a couple good monologues-is ultimately overrated.
@@KatWoodland Funny you mention attention, contrary to your opinion I think you need a lack of it to properly enjoy this movie. The whole idea is to have a soft focus on the action on screen, and imagine the stories being told in your mind's eye, Ebert even brings it up in the video. If you are paying close attention, though, you can notice pretty easily that Andre's stories of luxury and exoticism, that turn into misanthropy by the movie's end, are incredibly trite (especially when he gets into how he believes "people these days" just live, instead of really *living*) and his domination of the conversation is boorish. Also funny you mention being young, because watching it I was reminded of an earlier time in my life, maybe early 20s, when I too was making attempts to be a struggling playwright, thinking to myself with a cringe that I probably would have been taken in by the vague noises of intellectualism that the pair make. Now I roll my eyes at the flagrant classism, affectation, and pretension.
I sat transfixed watching this film in New York City in 1981. Jean Lenauer’s performance as the waiter was memorable. Louis Malle, the director, was Candice Bergen’s husband until his death in 1995.
nah, this movie's corny and out of date. we need a remake of this with total hotties and where dinner is KFC™ and it takes place on Zoom™ instead. also, they should talk about not such wussy stuff. they should talk about MANLY stuff like SPORTS. it could be called _My Dinner with Andrew Cotter._
You'd think movie critics would hate this film. It's like, instead of MAKING a movie about all this cool stuff, they just got a guy to TELL you about it. Critics love to talk about how movies can transport you to other places; doesn't it bother them that the movie itself is completely unnecessary? Why did Scorsese bother making Taxi Driver when he could just have filmed himself telling the story of Taxi Driver to Wallace Shawn?
Well, Scorsese does love narration in his movies. Plus, the USS Indianapolis speech in Jaws is way better than the movie made about it starring Nicolas Cage.
