In my opinion this is the best Chinese comedy kung fu movie yet to be made. I'm not very familiar with the previous work of the director Stephen Chow except for Shaolin Soccer but this flick has everything to entertain any movie fan.

Both the humor and the drama made me weep like a small girl, even thou I'm a guy almost at my 30's. The impressive camera techniques and the story sure made this a phenomenal viewing experience.

Sorry Jet Li & Jackie Chan - None of the Hollywood movies has ever touched me like this movie did. I recommend this movie to be watched with friends in order to share the feeling of joy and laughter. We'll be waiting for a sequel - don't let us down!


My best friend said, when I told him I'd seen this film, "Wasn't it written by Italo Calvino?" That's one of the best descriptions I can think of for how deeply imaginative, sly, and intellectually hep "Kung Fu Hustle" really is. I'm not usually the action flick kind. In the same night I also rented "The Farewell," a German film about the last days of Bertolt Brecht. That's more my typical fare: the quiet European character study of a great artist and the women who love him. I twiddled my thumbs through it after having seen Chow's mind-bending visual insights. Aside from the sincerity of the story--its good guy thinks he's a bad guy but becomes the best guy/hero theme--"Hustle" is a non-stop feast of turned tables, of the literal and figurative varieties. This is a wild and crazy action flick for people who don't like wild and crazy action flicks.


Forgive an old westerner for the iconoclasm of comparing a Chinese movie to a Japanese cultural phenomenon. I'm round-eyed, I can't help it. But this movie reminded me of the good old days, when I used to read "Dragonball" the Manga - before the same manga became overly stupid and boring and went too far with the whole "there's always a stronger enemy" thing. Back in the day, Dragonball was a quirky, funny, cartoony romp through martial arts. And so is this movie. It's a pleasure to watch. Just don't expect realism... the movie had a strange impact on me - it seemed predictable in retrospect, but it was nothing of the sort, while I was watching it. In fact, it effortlessly turned corners I didn't really see were there, all the while regularly introducing new interesting and colorful characters for our entertainment.


i think Americans should see this movie if for no other reason than to get a better sense of Chinese culture, values, and spirituality. This movie could be the first major Chinese film to compete with Hollywood films. Cinema could be the new arms/space race.

if i had to summarize the movie in one line, i'd say it's the story of a once criminal's spiritual journey to enlightenment that redefines the notion of "a kung fu movie." you'll laugh, you'll root for the good guys, and you may cry at the end (i did, and i am a guy).

and if you're concerned about violence for your children, there's plenty of it for them. (j/k) but seriously, read some of the threads on the message board about that.


It not very often that I go to the same movie twice while it's in the theaters, but this one was so good I almost stayed through another showing of it on the same night. The opening dance sequence is worth the price of admission alone.

The funny CGI effects are pretty cartoon like, but there's also PLENTY of action scenes to keep you going. It's almost like Roger Rabbit sometimes with the over the top effects. You're just waiting for someone to hit on the head with a frying pan and then have their head look like a frying pan.

Just about every face on the screen has at least one funny moment. There's the disgruntled tenant with perpetual Plumber's butt, the bucktooth and trampy local girl, the chain-smoking landlady and silent and ineffective sidekick who can only grr timidly when asked for backup.

The action doesn't let up much, but you still you want more and more. I've got to get this as soon as it comes to DVD. It's something you can watch over and over again.


With most Hollywood garbage these days being so formulaic and cliché we can all be thankful for those making movies outside of LA. Kung Fu Hustle combines humor, creativity, imagination (WAY out the box when compared to most US movies) epic fight scenes and wonderful cinematography. The references it makes are side-splitting and the Bugs Bunny and Shining examples stand out as two that are remarkably timed. I think if you go see this movie and check all your expectations and disbelief at the door you will have the fantastic movie experience of being whisked away to another world... the reason we see movies in the first place, right?


I don't have much to add to what has already been reviewed, except that this movie is "The One" ;-) A heck of a potboiler of a movie, with a touch of class! Sheer entertainment all the way. Truly amazing imagination on the part of the directors. 'Mortal Kombat' meets 'The Good, The Bad, The Ugly', meets 'Pulp Fiction' meets 'Dumb and Dumber' meets '36th Chamber of Shaolin' meets 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon' meets .. What a blast! Full marks for originality, full marks for copycat spoofing, full marks for grace, elegance, superb acting, special effects and entertainment value.

Oh, and full marks for Kung-fu :-)


Steven Chow has become one of my favorite directors. This somewhat dark comedy pays homage to Citizen Kane, The Godfather, The Shining and The Bugs Bunny Roadrunner Movie. The film has virtually the same theme and setting of "Gangs of New York" and still managed to create likable characters. Even though this is seemingly a more serious film than Shaolin Soccer, it still has the playful humor that made it such a fun movie.

Kung Fu Hustle is a great mix of action cinematography and cartoon like special effects. Chow's brand of humor and understanding of new and classic cinema techniques makes him a truly great director, writer and actor. I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. Kung Fu Hustle is what "Gangs of New York" should have been.


I feel like I do not need to see another fight or action scene in a movie ever again. Nothing could top this! Not the Matrix, not Star Wars, not Spielberg not even the most expensive Hollywood "block buster." But there's a BIG difference in the originality, creativity and subliminal nature of this action in a story with lots of heart and humanity at its center. I am amazed "Kung Fu Hustle" didn't do better on its opening weekend in wide syndication in the U.S. It took fifth place, even behind new Ashton Kutchner dribble. But I think word-of-mouth will build and this one will be around for awhile in theaters. People will eventually get over going to a subtitled Asian film to recognize they could not find a more entertaining movie -- anywhere. There are scenes, jaw-dropping and breathtaking in their sheer magnificence. They build and build and build until a majestic climax. I saw this in a theater in Queens, N.Y. where the crowd laughed throughout and stood up and applauded at the end. I am also shocked at the R-rating. Beyond a few bloody scenes, mostly at the beginning, there is nothing at all to offend the kids. Most of the violence is cartoonish, fun and with a few exceptions no one actually gets hurt. They could edit out the few lessor violent scenes in order to expose this to a wider audience, especially kids who should open their mind to the real potential of film beyond the stale, clichéd, forgettable Hollywood tripe sure to infiltrate the multiplexes this summer.


A masterpiece of cinema, Kung Fu Hustle takes everything from everywhere and mixes it up into a new breed of film. This is a film that sets the bar on what can be done to amaze us at a new level. Its not all amazing visuals but great story telling as well, something that will probably allow this film to live on for the next hundred years.

The film has been compared to a Looney Tunes version of a Quentin Tarantino film, and while its partly true, it has to be remembered that Tarantino has been raiding the work of filmmakers like Stephen Chow for years and telling people its his own stuff. Here we have the real deal and the action in this blows anything that Tarantino has done, in particular the House of Blue Leaves sequence in Kill Bill, off the map.

This is simply a great film.


WHOA-HO-HO-HOOOOOOOOOOOOO! WHOA-HO-HO-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Everybody was Kung Fu fighting'. Those cats were fast as lightning. Though it was a little bit frightening..... Man this movie was off the wall! I mean I would have to sing this Carl Douglas song to show my appreciation to "Kung Fu Hustle". The choreography was outstanding, the plot was magnificent, and the characters were out of sight. It's like part-Matrix, part-Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", part-Looney Toons, and all the slapsticks you can get out of this movie. I just laughed my head off when I laid eyes on it. Stephen Chow really did his thing here in this movie. He laid the plans down flat and BAM! A terrific hit! Playing this wannabe member of the "Axe Gang" would be the ticket for him, Nope! The Landlady(Qiu Yuen) would be the person I could just pop her in the mouth. But Pig Sty Alley isn't as bad as the "Axe Gang" thought it would be. Having Sing(Chow) set the fireworks on the gang would be bad enough, his fat sidekick wannabe was even worse. He stabs him, dump snakes on him, and worse yet, annoys Sing all the time. And for the Landlord and Lady, they would be experts in Kung Fu. I was surprised when the Landlady had the power of the Lion's Roar. No one could ever withstand that might. Even the Beast could stand up to that, except when the bell was used as a speaker. Hey! There were no speakers in the 1940's were they? Sing wises up after the beating he endured and I think he should have been more wary of con men, when he was younger. I think he should have been giving a big bop in a few areas. This movie was indeed a lot of fun and it very well made. This would put Jackie Chan's movies to shame, Forgive me Jackie, but this movie is great for all martial arts buffs in the world. WARNING: This movie is not for people with weak bladders. And call 911 IF YOUR SIDES SPLIT. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RATING 5 STARS!


OK. So you've seen a lot of movies. If that's true you know most of the genres just keep imitating each other and there is a serious lack of originality. However, when watching Kung Fu Hussle, the only thing I can use to describe it is "original." It takes from a lot of different ideas but the overall feel of the movie is non-stop fun to the end. It's more like a Warner Bros. classic cartoon in live-action than anything... complete with Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote style chases with the feet blurred into a swirl as the chase heads down highways. The actual look of this in the film is Hilarious. There's all kinds of cartoon like violence and such, but in the end it just gives the film more heart.

The film is a lot like watching a Japanese anime (animated) more than watching an old martial arts film. It has a surreal feel to it.

But it really doesn't matter what I think of it. I just say go see it. It does have subtitles, but the audience I was with did not care (and I never do anyway). There was laughter abound. It is one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time. The acting is SUPERB. If they dubbed it, it would have only taken away from it.

Kung Fu Hussle is worth every penny. Go see it with some friends together for maximum enjoyment.


I was lucky enough to catch a free preview screening of this masterpiece of slap stick kung fu genius, and i feel that i should now pay the theater anyways. Let me explain:

Suppose God had a bad day and decided to cheer himself up by creating a new man. This man was one part Charlie Chaplin, one part Bruce Lee, a half a teaspoon Jackie Chan, and an injection of every Looney Toon ever created.

This is quite likely how Stephen Chow came into existence.

Now imagine that after creating this man, God bestow on him an army of stunt-men, a type writer, a movie camera, a hefty special effects budget, and a eighty wardrobes worth of axes, black suits and top hats.

This is quite likely how Kung Fu Hustle came into existence.

Ebert has already said that this a movie where Jackie Chan and Buster Keaton meet Bugs Bunny and Quentin Tarantino, but i think that needs to be amended : Imagine a movie where Jackie Chan and Buster Keaton meet Bugs Bunny and Quentin Tarantino, and then the whole crew go to a opium bar for 36 hours. This movie was great, at least as good if not a little better than Shaolin Soccer, the smash hit Chow made back into two thousand. You never doubt the abilities of any random person to be a master of kungfu or, completely not a master of kung fu.

Also, the cartoonish beating and contortions that every character seem to be able to endure are so brilliantly installed in the film that despite their utter impossibility, no one ever questions their validity. Characters and fly through the atmosphere, surrounded in an aura of flame and not even have a scratch when they reach the ground.

Where Sin City was a living comic book Kung Fu Huslte a living cartoon, and no one stops laughing for the entire time.


The Secret Rivals (1976) is a fantastic independent kung fu film by the legendary Ng See Yuen and is perhaps one of the 10 best films of the martial arts genre. It is said that Ng See Yuen wanted to cast talented unknown martial artists in this film and in the process he helped to launch the careers of John Liu, Hwang Jang Lee and Wang Tao. The Secret Rivals is a story about two strangers who come to town with different motives, one is out for justice the other for revenge. While in town they display their kung fu on the locals and vie for the affection of the same woman. Eventually they have to work together to accomplish their secret shared goal.

Filmed in Korea among beautiful pagodas and ancient temples, the Secret Rivals features plenty of the local martial art- Taekwondo. This movie is perhaps the greatest kicking movie of all time. Real life Taekwondo masters and screen kicking legends John Liu and Hwang Jang Lee put on an absolute kicking exhibition with flying kicks, jump spinning kicks and nearly vertical side kicks. John Liu puts on an awesome display of flexibility and kicking ability in this film and proves that he is perhaps one of the most flexible actors in the history of kung fu cinema. Liu also gives a solid acting performance as the "northern leg" Shao Yi-Fei, a man who is a "loner by nature." Wang Tao gives a charismatic performance as "southern fist" Sheng Ying Wei. Wang Tao is in tremendous shape in this film and gives a terrific physical performance, perhaps the best of his career. There are shades of Bruce Lee in his performance, especially with the nunchucks. Secret Rivals was also a breakthrough film for Hwang Jang Lee. Lee brings a powerful presence to the screen as the evil "Silver Fox", one of the greatest villains in the genre's history. As a real life 7th degree black belt of Taekwondo, Lee convincingly holds his own against the talented Liu and Tao. He would go on to star as a villain for much of the rest of his career appearing in such films as "Drunken Master" and "Snake in Eagle's Shadow" with Jackie Chan. Lee and Liu would team up for a few more films including "The Secret Rivals 2," "Invincible Armor" and "the Snuff Bottle Connection."

The Secret Rivals is a bit slow starting as a lot of plot and backstory are introduced but the action heats up big time when the Silver Fox (Lee) drops in. Secret Rivals features a unique "spaghetti western" sound track (The Big Gundown by Ennio Morricone) with pounding drums, twanging electric guitar, blaring brass section and angelic choral singers. The film is really helped out by great supporting performances featuring many talented martial artists in smaller roles. The Secret Rivals does have its old school kung fu movie quirks: some overacting, bad dubbing, theatrical deaths, contrived fights and lots of evil laughing. Li Ming Wen (Tommy Lee) and Chang Chuan do a fantastic job at fight choreography. Many kung fu films around the same time had dance-like, over choreographed fight sequences. The Secret Rivals features a faster, more brutal, and realistic style of fight choreography. (Some of the best you'll ever see)

The Secret Rivals is a fantastic first effort for Seasonal Films and is one of the best independent martial arts films ever made. Solid writing and direction by Ng See Yuen, great physical performances by John Liu, Hwang Jang Lee and Wang Tao plus some nice stunt work by Yuen Baio make the Secret Rivals one of the very best films of the kung fu genre.

Martial Arts Genre Rating: 10/10 (classic)

-"I think you're looking for trouble. I might just oblige. That'll shut you up."

-"I'd be glad to accept."


This is one of the best martial Arts films I have ever seen, mainly because of the 1st rate skill of all the main characters. This is not a film you watch for it's plot or acting but if you want to see some of the best martial Arts ever filmed then this is one film you cannot miss. Wang Tao makes this better than the 2 sequels and his talent is exceptional, so much sop that I puzzle over why he has not been in more films? John Lui is his usual 'North kicking' Best and Hwang Jang Lee as Silver fox is outstanding. This is one of the few Martial Arts films that rivals Bruce Lee films for pure skill ( with no special effects or wire work ) My copy is very poor quality and I hope that someday I can get a better DVD of this wonderful film.


Secret Rivals doesn't have a great storyline, but the actors know their kung fu! The movie features a good deal of fighting, and some excellent practice sessions.

The version I saw had very poor picture quality and not all of the subtitles were visible. This is of course a shame, and contributed a great deal to the fact that I only enjoyed this movie moderately. But if it was available in DVD quality, with a clear and crisp picture and sound, it would be a great experience.

This is the kind of movie that Bruce Lee SHOULD have done. His presence here would have elevated this to a world-famous classic.

My rating: 7 out of 10.


This movie was the first karate/kung-fu movie that i had seen and still today i watch it definately a classic, the Silver Fox is one cool dude anyway good action tons of fights good plot and the usual dubbing but overall 10/10.


This is one of Hwang Jang Lee's first movies and it was pretty good at that. It concerns two men, played by Wong Tao and John Liu who are both after Hwang but don't realize it. The first half is standard kung fu. Things get good during the second half when John Liu, a great kicker also, and Hwang Jang Lee begin to fight. All leads to an excellent final battle between Wong Tao, John Liu, and Hwang. Hwang proves he's more than a match for the two combined. The kicking, although not as fancy as some other movies, is still impressive.


This was one of the first ever Karate films ive seen and i got it from a video shop about 8 years ago. The film is dubded like most karate films of that time. The plot is good and has a man avenging the death of his family and the other is the son of a genaral and they are both after the same man the notorious "SILVER FOX" hes one of the best fighters around. Both the men have to enter a fighting tournement to get near him and the fights are brilliantly staged plus the two men have to fight the emperors guards who get in the way through the film. At times there are funny parts to the film. In the end the two main leads both like the same girl but she only likes one of them they try to fight each other twice in the film to see which one of them is best but both times they get interupted and then they team up together to take on the mighty "SILVER FOX". This is a good film for karate fans but its a fairly rare film and it would be very hard to get your hands on it.


I was expecting it to be a bit cheesy and low-budget-looking, but I wasn't expecting to be insulted.

This "film" has similar production values and acting caliber as you will find in an average daytime soap.

It's as if the crew of "Days of Our Lives" borrowed the studio's gear for a weekend and went and shot a "Sci-Fi/Thriller" because those are popular these days, so we should be able to make some cash with it.

It wasn't scary, wasn't thrilling, wasn't even sci-fi-y, just boring and predictable. No plot, bad lighting, laughable critters, wooden acting, no reason at all to force yourself to sit through a turd like this one.

The rave reviews here have to be from people associated with the production, or else who haven't actually seen the "film".

Avoid at all cost.


it was a pity that IMDb didn't have the ability to rate movies as 0 because that is exactly what i would have given it. however, i have had to give it 1 out of 10, but i mean 0......

plot was very poor, movie was too confusing and the poor plot didn't make me feel a connection, like or dislike anyone in the movie.

seemed like random things happening with no explanation or leading up to any event in particular.

acting was a bit wooden, and the accent from Dominic Keating was probably the most entertaining of any of the script.

please avoid this movie, as you can never get the 90 minutes of your life back that you waste on this.


Got see Species: The Awakening today and it was about as expected considering it is the fourth movie in the franchise ,a bit of a letdown from Species-111 but I could not say it was a bad movie. The acting was OK and associated special effects,definitely not a big budget movie and definite shortage of lighting for the most part. Helena Mattsson did not quite seem right for the part of Miranda,it was as though she was an understudy for Nicole Kidman with the soft voice and all associated gentle movements until it was time to be ugly, however I enjoyed it anyway for what it was,a good B grade Saturday afternoon entertainment movie.


I watched a screener of this film and have to say I was positively surprised. I was expecting a really bad movie, which it wasn't. I thoroughly enjoyed it and think that Helena Mattsson will be a new star after people see her in this. As a Enterprise fan, I also have to admit that I have a soft spot for Dominic Keating. He is so entertaining. I don't know much of Ben Cross's work, but he seems very good and I want to see him in more Sci-fi movies. The plot wasn't bad either, but it was at times a bit underdeveloped. But as a woman, I thought this would be a big booby fest but it wasn't. It was a good movie. I give it a thumbs up and hope that more films come out like it.


Just saw the entire Species collection over two days, and i was very disappointed over the fourth in the line.

After watching the first 15 minutes i sat the player to double time, and i sure didn't regret it. This movie doesn't have anything to offer, beside nude chicks and brainless "horror". Compared to the three other species movies, this is fare worst. If you have seen the movie "From Dusk Till Dawn" you sure don't need to see this one.

Lets all hope the line will end here.

blah. blah.

blah.


OK I was hoping that the fourth Species installment would be good, but I was truly surprised that it was this good. After seeing the second and third one, I thought I was convinced that they couldn't make another one that would match up to the original with Natasha Henstridge but I was wrong because this one came very close. The story is very entertaining and there are some good sequences of violence too unlike number 3. I was really entertained by this one because I watched it at like 3 in the morning and I watched it all. Overall I give it an 8 out of 10 because it was the best since the original and it is a great thriller. I would recommend it to all fans of the Species movies and of course to all the sci-fi fans out there like me.


I think it was obvious that another straight-to-DVD sequel wasn't a wise decision, you even see the letters PU at the beginning, so it was obvious to stink, lol. Basically college professor Miranda Hollander (Helena Mattsson) lives her life like any other normal woman, before suffering a mysterious blackout, and without her knowledge, transforming into a hideous alien creature. Her "uncle" Tom Hollander (Chariots of Fire's Ben Cross) tells her the truth he has kept from her since birth, she is a half human, half alien creature, created from alien DNA to create a hybrid. She has been injected with human hormones to stop the alien inside her coming out since birth, but it is obvious they are not working as well as they used to. The only person who may be able to help her, and explain another creature chasing after Tom, is co-creator of Miranda, Forbes McGuire (Heroes' Dominic Keating). The only way to save her, from dying, is to find a live female to clone from, and Forbes finds a prostitute (of course). The new Miranda is created, with the same memories, but even more vicious, blood-thirsty and desperate to breed, thankfully she is blown up in the end, by Tom. Also starring Edy Arellano as Calderón and Marco Bacuzzi as Rinaldo. The special effects are limited and not convincing, the gore doesn't do anything, and the acting skills, lame Australian accent by Keating, and most dialogue, are just terrible. I can safely say that this was even worse than the previous sequel, and I wouldn't be too surprised if they were stupid enough to make another sequel, or even a prequel. Poor!


This sequel was actually THE best of all the sequels of Species. It was sexy but actually there is a story attached to it that makes fictionally sensible. The IMDb rating of 4.1 of the time I am writing this review must have been given by those who were sexually frustrated because the way the movie was marketed (The Cover) it was for those who were perverted minded hoping they will get a full on alien soft-core flick which is not at all. For me the sexy scenes just spiced up the movie like any other which had a really good story, good plot, great actors and a good ending. The team behind the making of this sequel actually put much effort into making this a good movie which is worth its time watching, just hope they made a buck at the end. This movie should have went to theatres because it was good as the Alien series with Sigourney Weaver. This movie is probably not an Oscar type of movie but is much better than some of the movies that get so much attention like Twilight: New Moon.

This movie is two thumbs up like Ebert & Roeper would say.


It just didn't work.

Alien nun? WTF? Alien taxi driver? And he tries to kill his passenger for what reason? They live in Mexico? Where where they the rest of the time? So why are they suddenly just killing people when Ben Cross and the Blonde chick come into town? Wasn't good...wasn't scary, wasn't science fiction...just wasn't workable.

The writers could have come up with something more creative for the paycheck...and the locations could have been chosen better too.

Basically, it all could have been better.

Yeah...as far as sequels go...it should be written by the same people - especially if the script was big enough to have a sequel.


Out of all the Species movies series, this one takes the cake! After the offspring of Sil, this new breed of alien was doing the same thing: finding a mate for her offspring. Then there's another alien who wants to cause trouble by killing everyone in her path. Going to different places for some answers, someone gets offed. Who to trust, who to avoid it's hard to say there. The reason why I don't like this movie is because it's way oversexed, the plot was rather pointless, it was weak, decadent, and played out period. The cast of the movie was fine the only one I thought helped was the guy from the first Species movie as the motel manager who was indeed the original one. Everyone else just didn't sell me. Species 1, 2, and 3 gave out promises: 1 was subtle, 2 was slightly intense, 3 was hardcore and extreme. The 4 one is NOT a keeper in my book! SORRY! 1 STAR!


They just totally ruined that amazing SIL design by H.R.Giger...I really expected that "Species" series could be at least as good as Alien series but the ruined it. After being disappointed by Species 3, I felt absolutely wreck with Species IV...I mean I am a big fan of 1st species, and the alien-creature in species IV was like a puppet rather than being realistic. SIL design and special effects were good for 1995 situations...But now for 2007 movie (I think its all about the budget I don't know) I didn't expect that...It was utterly, awful..I wish I could give "0"... If they gonna make any other 5th one and if its going to be like this one, please No..Its will be a waste of time...Remember the 1st one please...


The person's whose comments read "Alien it ain't" couldn't have been more dead on.

The beginning of this movie starts with the girl, who is the alien in this film simply because of a slight resemblance to the blonde alien in the original (not because of ANY acting skills), is a college professor giving a lecture. She's as believable as a college professor as Steven Hawking would be playing a high school cheerleader. She looks like an 18 year old high school cheerleader. She delivers her "lecture" as awkwardly as it is for us to watch it. There wasn't a person in the world who bought her as a college professor including the director and herself. She gives the lecture and delivers the "punchline" so poorly, I knew at that point there would be no way I could finish this movie. It's insulting that anyone would think we're supposed to buy her as a college professor. It was one of the worst pieces of casting/writing I've seen this decade.

The "acting" in the rest of the film, including Ben Cross's performance, was terrible, literally unwatchable. I've seen amateur performances on Youtube that were better. About 20 minutes into the movie I was just fast forwarding.

The CGI looks like it was unfinished, like it was from 1992. There is nothing scary or tension building about anything in this movie. I wasted a Netflix rental on this garbage and was more mad at myself than anything - and mad at the rating this movie has in the IMDb (over 6 at this point - it HAS to go down). I really liked the original film. This movie should be taken off any video store shelf. It's just awful.


This title sums the movie up for me.

This is singularly, by far the worst movie I have ever sat right through. Start with a handful of no-name actors who surprisingly can't act to save their lives. Then throw in a storyline that a primary school child could do better than, and weave some budget SFX through the mix for good measure.

The stereotypical cowboy sounds like he comes from blazing saddles, and the "Australian" guy who can't work out if he's from Sydney or London all lend lack of credibility to this complete mess.

Please, please don't waste the hour & a half.


The first Species movie was awesome, the second was a big disappointment, the third was surprisingly decent, but this is even worse than the second...somehow. Species: The Awakening left me checking how much was left of the it every five minutes or so. Though the plot was not that horrible, the movie is just not entertaining.

After the first half hour, I must admit I thought this movie would actually be as good as the third. I was wrong, very wrong. As soon as the characters get to Mexico, this promising movie turns into a cheap, cheesy excuse for a horror movie. Why? There was no excitement. There is definitely not enough gore, almost all the sex scenes were unnecessary, and some stuff just didn't add up or made any sense whatsoever (the reason for Fisk's lies, the taxi-driver and the reason for Azura's actions when they arrive in Mexico - just to name a few).

The reason for this getting a 3 and not a 1, is the first half hour of the movie, and the not-so-terrible acting. Apart from that, I'd suggest staying away from this movie, since it's by far the weakest Species movie so far, it makes Species II seem like a masterpiece. Even if this film wasn't a Species movie, it's still a movie to stay away from.


I liked the first one. The second one was pretty much just an excuse to show as many boobs as possible. The third one definitely exceeded both the second film and my expectations. Honestly they should have left the story where it was at the end of species three.

This movie had almost nothing to do with the first three. None of the same characters and it doesn't explain how the scientists got there hands on the alien DNA. The idea's not bad, but after the first chase scene in the streets of Mexico the movie shifts to a series of dimly-lit night sequences which make it hard to even understand what's going on.

And let's be honest here: a large focal point/selling factor for this series is the sexuality that goes along with these reproducing aliens. The nude scenes were pretty pointless in this film. There was enough shown to attempt some arousal but the lighting was so bad that it's hard to make out what's even happening. If they wanted an excuse for nudity they should have lit the stages better. If they wanted to just convey the sexual point in the story they shouldn't have filmed full body sex.

Basically if you were happy with how they ended number 3, don't waste your emotions getting involved with these unrelated characters. If you just wanted to see boobs, pick a different movie.

Either way steer clear because you'll be disappointed no later than halfway through the film.


http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_reviews_2728.htm

Species 4: The Awakening Movie Review

by: Meh

We all know that SciFi films are not exactly the top of the bar when it comes to movies, or horror movies for that matter. I am here however to stun you all. As bad as Species 3 was, Species 4 is actually kinda fun. Thats right Species 4: The Awakening actually has some merits. Great special FX, good acting and even the expected low grade shooting styles have been stepped up. This is an MGM SciFi movie not a LionsGate SciFi movie. You can interpret that however you like.

The premise of the movie is a young woman discovers she's actually the genetic crossbreed between human and alien. She discovers her loving uncle is in fact the man who made her, and they set off on a cross country trek to Mexico to find out why she is sick. Species is one of those franchises that has gone down the toilet very steeply as of recently and I am happy to say that although #4 is nowhere near as good as the first film was it is night and day better then Species 3. Its action packed, the FX are nicely done and their is a good enough body count to keep you horror hungry horror fans happy.

Species 4 has a cast of B actors who do a great job at carrying the story and the level of CHEESE in the plot and characters was kept to a bare minimum making for overall a well put together made for TV sci-fi horror film. I think that folks who like SciFi Network films will love this movie and people who hate them will actually say 'Hey this ain't half bad'.


Being a fan of the "Species" films, especially loving Species II, I watched this with open arms. I did not think it worked. Partly because the storyline seemed so short-lived. The trailer did look a tad on the positive side though but that, is how trailers are designed. But this is nothing at all like the previous ones, except for the Alien DNA etc etc.

This has awful acting, one hell of a bad bad accent and an OK blond playing the Alien femme fatal, but not worth the 90 or so minutes that it ended up as. If the species films are ever going to work and be believable they need to be serious, with serious (good, well-known) actors. That alone would help the publicity! But no, they go for the opposite.

I even wished afterwards that I had been a director doing this film. Oh my god would I have made some CHANGES! Should have mixed the DNA with sense instead of aliens LOL

big no no no no no, cannot emphasize that enough.


I think i am obliged to write a comment about this movie, cause it is far underrated. The average is about 4.3, not even reach 5.

As a scary film, I saw many monsters , I achieved my objectives, got the feeling I wanted.

Well, yeah, the plot is not that good. but the actors are at least attractive but not ugly.

The appearance of the hybrid monster are scary enough. They look like a real monster which is unlike to usual ones.Efforts are seen from the productions. Thus it can be said to give you a surprise.

I think if you want to be scared , u can get wt u want. This movie worth 7 IMO


If you are collecting Keating this DVD is more than worth buying just to enjoy him in action and looking quite fit. He always seems to really enjoy playing villains. There is a lot more nudity than you get in most SciFi but it really is required to get the plot to work. The whole point is monstrous alien chicks on the prowl after all and not great literary work. Unfortunately it caused what is a major scene for the storyline to get cut for the U.S. TV version. For SciFi the plot is worse than most, but better than some. They missed out on using something about the 'mad scientist' messing with a bit of the alien DNA on himself. In the cut scene at one point it looks as if McGuire's eyes go alien blue. Following along that line would have made the plot a lot more interesting and twisted. A lot less Hollander mooning about would have helped a great deal. Favela makes good use of visual acting getting across the creepy aspect of the alien without having much dialog.


I got this DVD and hoped it might entertain me on an average level and that my friends would love it. I think I realized from the start this was a sex monster plot and designed to attack the wankie teen audience. It is the male aged 10-15 I think must be the top raters of this rather sad attempt at cinema.

What did I like? Well, the fight between the female Medusa aliens was cool. The sex and more sex scenes very low rated. Perhaps a 50 year old man has as his fantasy being raped by an aggressive female monster, but Somehow this just left me cold.

The plot was cheese and full of holes. The acting was so bad, I could have thought I deserve an Academy now.

But, I being a sci-fi buff of sorts, had to keep wondering, after the lab burns, how many more of those things are out there.

Having some mercy on their audience, they didn't pan to a million other morphing monsters, just ready to breed.

We can rest assured they are dead, until the next grade D sci-fi- clone of Species is produced.


This movie is not as terrible as the third one, but not as good as the second, not to mention the first. Where did the other monsters come from? What are they? Hybrids? Aliens? Where were they until now? Why are they killing people? Is it a sport? Hobby? We didn't knew it from the third part and we still don't know from this one. The third part was disgusting and stupid. This is simply stupid. Including a lot of blood, some monster and disgusting scenes doesn't make a sci-fi. It makes horror of the worst kind, that is not real horror, just a crap with some horrifying scenes. In this film Tom (Ben Cross) loves Miranda (Helena Mattsson) as his daughter. What will be in the next part? Will the human and the alien get married? Will they have children as well? It should be a remake of "Amanda and the Alien" with Nicole Eggert, and it could be called Species V: I married a (Human-Alien) Hybrid. Though, if I remember well, there are some movies with titles like this (I married: a monster, a werewolf, a vampire and so on). And of course they should live happily after killing their enemies. This movie wasn't that bad but I liked to know what happened to the people walking away to the woods at the end of the third part.


This movie su**ed. I did wanted to see it because i saw the other tow, but sadly i should have known that it will not be better then the second part. The plot was terrible and the happenings were so flat that i almost felt asleep. It was like they wanted to put something together but they only had $100. The acting wasn't that good and i was the one how felt ashamed of how terrible the events were. The first two parts had more too say. The first part was really the one which had it in it and think they though that people will see this one because of it. I really really hope that it will not be so. If you value your life, please don't waste it on this one. I truly have nothing else to say about it. It was just awful.


Lee Chang-Dong recently got a lot of attention when his latest movie OASIS one multiple Korean awards. OASIS is a unique movie that examines of the lives and loves of characters who normally do not get much attention from cinema or the public. It's an unusual sort of love story, and was a bad choice to watch with my girlfriend on Valentine's Day. Chang-Dong's directorial debut GREEN FISH is a far less ambitious film, but still shows the work of a talented and mature director.

Makdong (Han Suk-Kyu) is a naive young man who returns home after his spell in the army full of hopes and (small) ambitions. Now that he's a man, he wants to make a lot of money and be able to look after his family. Unfortunately, when he gets home he is treated to a little dose of reality. The area is economically depressed, and his family are not the close loving unit he wishes them to be.

Making lots of money proves to be a lot more difficult than he anticipated, as jobs in the area are pretty scarce. One area that does offer employment is crime, as the area is controlled by the gangs. A chance encounter with a young woman leads him to meet a gang boss who seems to be a little more respectable than most, and when he's told he won't have to break the law he accepts a job.

The boss takes a liking to Makdong's simplicity and straightforward character and looks after him well, to the resentment of other members of the gang. Despite the promise of legitimacy, he learns that gangs cannot really live by the law, and he gets drawn further into the criminal life.

GREEN FISH is a distinctly Korean film, which is not to say that all Korean films are the same (clearly not the case), but there are a few styles of film that do seem especially Korean, and this is one of them. It is a slowly paced and subtle film, allowing the story and characters to reveal themselves indirectly through the strength of the acting. The cast are all strong actors, and this allows the style of film to work. The story of an innocent young man drawn into the gangster world is not really a new one, and GREEN FISH does not try to add much that is new to it. It just focusses on the characters, their hopes and conflicts and their disappointments. The tone is not one of hope or happiness, with economic worries making reality hard. None of the characters in the movie are angels and none are devils - instead they are much more realistic human beings, full of good intentions and weaknesses.

GREEN FISH is perhaps a little too subtle, or perhaps the actors are not quite good enough for the director's ambitions. Either way, the characters remain a little vague to us, and our involvement with their stories is hence slightly diminished. It is still a movie of strong characters, however, and a well told story until the slightly weak ending.

Korea produces some very strong dramas, with a high level of "art" being found in much of the nation's cinematic output. GREEN FISH is an accomplished debut that fits well with recent Korean cinema, though it is a little too conservative to be classed in the higher ranks. Good for a first film though, and Lee Chang-Dong is definitely a director to keep an eye out for.


During his train ride back home after his term in the army has ended, Makdong decides to get some fresh air by hanging his head out of one of the train's open entrances. As he does this he notices a lovely woman doing the same. As the woman glances at him, her red scarf comes loose and lands on Makdong's face. Wanting to return the scarf, Makdong discovers that the woman is being harassed by three hoodlums. His interceding allows the woman to get away, but Makdong receives a beating for his efforts. It seems at first Makdong is going to let this slide, but when the three men get off the train, the young former soldier follows and cracks one of the three on back of the head with an award he received from the army.

Makdong eventually returns to his widowed mother's home where she resides with his physically disabled older brother. Before his father died, the family home had been well kept. However, the following years had been unkind, so the house fell into disrepair. Makdong soon learns that his mother does housekeeping work to keep herself afloat. Makdong dislikes this and tells his mother to cease working as a housekeeper. He goes on to say that he will earn lots of money to take care of her. These are big words for someone without a job.

Makdong's two other older brothers are not in much better shape. One sells eggs for a living and the other is a cuckolded police officer. Things seem to be going nowhere for our hero until he encounters Miae, the woman from the train, in a nightclub. It turns out that Miae is the, unwilling, girlfriend of Bae Taegon a high ranking member of the Korean mafia. Bae is impressed by Makdong's willingness to fight and later in the film, after Makdong clubs one of Bae's men on the head with a wooden post, the former soldier becomes a member of Bae's "family." _Green Fish_ is an interesting film. It has its moments of family tenderness and heartbreak and is also peppered throughout with gang violence. One of the most interesting relationships within the film is the one shared between Miae and Bae. Although Bae continuously tells Miae that he loves her, it seems that she is little more than a tool for him to use, meaning that she sleeps with whomever Bae tells her to. In one of the saddest parts of the film, Miae asks Makdong If he wants to sleep with her. She says it is okay if he wants to; everyone else has slept with her.


I see this as a film about how hard it is to do the right thing in the complex modern world. Makdong's family used to own acres of farmland that are now covered in ugly apartment buildings and now they get by selling eggs to the residents. All Makdong wants to do is make this easier for his family and in the process he becomes a gangster just to get by. Even the gangsters are between doing the right thing and doing what they must to survive. Makdong's "Big Brother" likes to think of himself as different from the other thieves and killers that make up the underworld but in the end he is no better.


This is director Lee Chang-Dong's first film (of three) and the third that I've seen after his well-made films Peppermint Candy and Oasis. It's a story of a young man who is recently discharged from the standard military service that young Corean men are required to serve and finds that life, or the real world, is a lot harsher than his idealistic self would've expected. He soon finds himself dragged into the Corean underworld out of necessity and finds his idealism and the idealism of all those around him at odds with reality.

In a greater sense, this film is about the constant struggle between chasing your dreams and dealing with the harsh reality. All the primary characters, the mob boss, the female lead and the protagonist all have their dreams and ambitions (building a great property from the ashes of his youth, escaping the prostitute's life and living a normal one, owning a restaurant with his family), but are struck by the world's reality, which forms itself as an enemy mob, the mob bosses' controlling nature and the young protagonist's dysfunctional family.

It's a study of the nature of the relatively modern world (of Corea) and the inevitable clash of youthful idealism and experienced reality. And it doesn't take too many sides either, although the ending does seem to show that action, and sacrifice, even unintended, is what's necessary to keep yourself from being beaten down by reality.

It's a slowly-paced art film with quiet but contemplative character development, modest acting and capable directing. Directer Lee still hasn't fully gained a strong grasp of storytelling yet as a director at this point as the film as it's sometimes difficult to make out why anything's happening in the film, but the potential shows as well, with honest characters and patient development. A good start, but you can see the Director side of Lee Chang-Dong really start to pick up with his later films. It's decent. 7/10.


Remake of the dreadful 1970 Jack Lemmon-Sandy Dennis "comedy" about a couple from Ohio who go to NYC (for a job interview for the husband) and have everything go wrong. The original was sick, morbid and had the very annoying Dennis. This one is funny, not hilarious, but funny. It has a better cast (Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn are comedians--Lemmon and Dennis weren't), and has John Cleese who is hilarious as a snotty hotel manager--his dead pan delivery of all his lines really worked. Not a masterpiece but not the disaster I heard it was--for instance the previous Hawn-Martin movie "Housesitter" was much worse. This moves quickly, has an excellent music score and the stars are both in top form. Worth seeing.


Surprisingly funny movie with the dynamic duo Martin/Hawn.

The movie brings to life the differences between the American cities and the countryside. Even if these exist, they are seldom brought up in the rest of the world.

This plot gives a warm feeling inside and brings up real problems and thoughts with comic twist.


Anyone who saw the original 1970 movie knows how an excellent cast, script, and director can put together a comedy masterpiece. By the same token, it's easy to see how the opposite of that can create another insipid Hollywood bore-a-thon! This movie was pathetic! Had it not been for John Cleese (a comic genius), I would have walked out about 15 minutes into this dreadful waste of celluloid.

Neil Simon wouldn't write another screenplay for this version (he said that he couldn't improve on the first), and I'm surprised that after this cinematic fiasco he wouldn't sue for defamation of humor!

Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis did such a wonderful job in the original, what were the producers thinking about when they cast this one? How could the director and editor look at these scenes and think any of them were funny? I don't know, but one thing I do know---it's no surprise why foreign and independent movies are becoming more and more popular.......


I despise Goldie Hawn usually, and I found her very funny and touching in this movie as a supportive wife who's sacrificed her career for her children and now hopes to "suck the marrow" out of life.

Steve Martin, as always, is hilarious. He is partially reprising his role in the BRILLIANT "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" with a vengeance in this film. His attempt at controlling his demeanor at the car rental place by keeping a big smile on his face was really funny. "This sign should say 'We have car.' honey!"

The homage to "Mrs. Robinson" looking through Goldie Hawns' legs at a sheepish looking Steve Martin took me by surprise as well.

And, what more can you say about John Cleese? The man is nothing if not funny in everything he does. He is the anti-Fawlty in this movie, and he has a fairly juicy part as well, so look to him for some great laughs as well.

Don't listen to all these people with no sense of humor. This isn't a classic film, but it's MUCH better than people have been saying. A little cheesy, a lot of fun.


Unfortunately, this movie is so bad. The original Out of Towners was manic and very funny, of course they used the script written by Neil Simon. For some reason Neil Simons script is not used in this film so it falls flat time and time again. Even the audience I was with never laughed. The direction is very slow and tedious and when there is a joke it is given away so the joke dies i.e. The couple having sex in the park. They announce it is a lighting ceremony for New York, well we all know the lights are going to come on and we will be able to see cute and mugging Goldie & Steve do a bit of slap stick. The whole movie winds up being like this...a joke is set up and given away. Why isn't Goldies hair ever even messed up in the movie. You will also notice every close up of Goldie (they use a very intense soft lens). I suggest you rent the original with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis, that's if you want to laugh.


I don't know why so many people are slamming this movie, I thought it was hilarious. Goldie Hawn, Steve Martin, and John Cleese make the movie very, very funny. A decent sense of humor is all one needs to laugh from beginning to end.


The Out-of-Towners is one of the better comedies I have seen. With a stellar (but not Oscar-worthy) cast, the Out-of-Towners is a classic to me. Acting in terms of Martin and Hawn (they play a stressed-out, overdue married couple who's kids have been sent to college) is good, but not spectacular. Martin is talented, (as he shows here), but he cannot carry a film by himself, which is where John Cleese comes in. Cleese is a uptight, cross-dressing hotel manager with a presence that takes the movie to the next level. This is a movie that is helped by its directing and writing, as many of the funny moments (which are clever and well thought-out) should be credited to the writers more so than the stars. This and Bringing Down the House are the best Steve Martin films I have seen since Planes, Trains, and Automobiles.


Let's face it, the Out of Towners may have been an updated remake about an Ohio couple dealing with the troubles in New York City but I think the original was more believable and realistic. I didn't like the ending because that's not what I expected. The purpose of the original movie was about an Ohio couple who may not have been as off the wall as the Clarks. True, Mr. Clark played by Steve Martin and Mrs. Clark played by Goldie Hawn are truly comedic talents and who can bring this movie to life. Don't forget John Cleese (Silly for turning down a CBE)as the hotel manager! The film has a great cast, the writing was not upheld to the original quality of the first film which I think was just better and less silly than this film. New York City is a tough place to live, work, and even visit. The ending just disappointed me.


Every time I think about that movie, I always laugh over John Cleese's character, Mr. Mersault.

He's rude, sophisticated in the outside, but he's also a transvestite who loves to dress in ladies' clothes dancing to Donna Summer's Bad Girl! And when I hear Donna Summer's song, it reminds me of John Cleese.

Another scene I liked was when they were in the limo, and a drugged Steve Martin describes his wife as being "Frisky!. He tells his wife to say that word as well as Mr. Mersault. The hotel manager loved that new word, "Frisky!".

Years ago, I went to see John Pizzarelli in concert. Afterwards, I met him & told him I liked him the movie. He started singing "That Old Black Magic". Here's the zinger, I told him that his performance was very "Frisky"! Pizzarelli laughed at my comment!

That made the movie funny for me!


In an apparent attempt to avoid remaking the original movie an excellent cast that should have made this inherently funny, classic Neil Simon material better than the original failed on every level.

The chemistry between Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin that was magic in `Housesitter' was nonexistent in this effort.


Sorry to disagree with so many negative reviews. I have not seen the original with Jack Lemmon and I don't doubt the original is much better than the remake, but I feel the obligation to tell everyone that I really enjoyed this movie a lot, that I love Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn, who are in the list of my favorite actors, and that this movie is really funny. Therefore, I wish to recommend this version and I can assure you that you won't regret it.


Granted, this seems like a good idea. Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese in a Neil Simon comedy. Where can you go wrong? Watch the movie, and you'll find out.

In truth, Martin, the lead, is mis-cast. He's not doing the great slapstick he's known for, from movies like "The Jerk", but instead plays a sort of in-between character that doesn't work. Hawn, with no one to play off of, is terrible. Cleese is the only even partially funny member.

To top it off, the plot is pretty stupid. I can't say how much of it may have been changed, but the characters seem to lack the slightest bit of common sense. They blunder through New York, not doing anything right, and unfortuneatly, nothing funny. Not only is the whole premise completely unbelievable, it seems to give the message that people who don't live in New York aren't very bright, a theme repeated throughout the movie.

In summation, instead of seeing this, go rent the original "Odd Couple" again.


Well, it is a Steve Martin movie so of course you will laugh!! There are some very funny parts to this movie. It does, however, have a tendency to stop on a dime and go the other way - From humor to serious relationship discussions. But, ultimately, a Steve Martin/Goldie Hawn combination...with a touch of John Cleese...add to a fun movie that will make you laugh out loud!


Steve and Goldie have a fast-paced fun romp throughout Gotham. Cleese's in-drag antics brought audience to hysterics. Recommend it as a break from the more intense titles recently released.


Within 15 minutes, my whole family was rooting for Goldie Hawn's character to die, or at least for Steve Martin's character to leave her. At 40 minutes, we turned it off. There are only a couple of movies a year we try that turn out so annoying that we can't even stomach it long enough for the story to get established.

Normally I like both Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn, and I remember enjoying the Neil Simon original. So I blame Marc Lawrence and Sam Weisman. Combine the director of "Whats The Worst That Can Happen" and the writer of "Miss Congeniality 2", and I guess this is what we end up with.


Remake of 1970 Neil Simon-scripted movie about an older couple (Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn) whose children have moved out. They travel to New York City so he can go to a job interview - and they endure practically every sort of misfortune imaginable.

I definitely liked this one because I actually laughed a fair bit and I like it that the film doesn't overstay its welcome or go TOO far over-the-top. Top-notch comedy cast is a strong asset, with a well-cast John Cleese (as a hotel manager with a kinky secret) an enjoyable scene-stealer.

Some people may find it amusing that one of the "Sex and the City" stars, Cynthia Nixon, plays a woman in a support group who is a sex addict!

Trivia alert: that's Hawn's actual son, Oliver Hudson (star of a TV series that I think is called "My Guide to Becoming a Rock Star"), playing her and Martin's son in the airport scene.

It's been a while since I've seen the 1970 original and I can't remember if I really liked it or not. Anyway, this is a decent comedy and I'm going to give it seven out of ten.


One would think (as I did), that with Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese, a movie should be, at the very least, decent. These stars (especially Martin and Cleese) have produced some of the funniest works of comedy of all time.

Well, apparently I was grossly mistaken--this is single-handedly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It boggles my mind how one joke after the other can be so profoundly unfunny. It pained me to watch these talented actors execute one of the most positively lame scripts I have had the misfortune to come across. Based solely on the big names, I remained hopeful for a long time through the duration of the film, but it consistently failed to provide any entertainment whatsoever.

Normally, both with movies and in life, I try to stay away from biased comments and broad generalizations. But with this film, it's hard not to let loose. I can count on one hand, perhaps even two or three fingers, major Hollywood productions that left me more bitter than this. This is easily one of the worst comedies ever made.

I tried to enjoy this---I really did. But The Out-of-Towners ultimately fails miserably. If you really want time-efficient entertainment, just take your money and watch it swirl as you flush it down the toilet. Just please don't watch this movie.


This film so NOT funny - such a waste of great stars, who seem to be caught up so in their own stardom that they forget. Only shining moments belong to John Cleese as the hotel manager who likes to dress up - you almost fall out of your chair with helpless laughter when he dances to Donna Summer's "Bad Girls" while wearing high heels, a mink coat and a dainty hat. The rest: FORGET IT!


I've finally found the DVD and I'm really glad to see M.McDowell in a so different role before the legendary performance in Clockwork Orange. He plays a young typical middle-class English guy that has just begun to watch the girls as an unknown new universe; he has a family, a brother next to the marriage, and an ordinary social life. His destiny twist suddenly when he loose his senses the evening after his own brother wedding, and waking up the morning after in a bad hospital he discovers to be paralyzed from the belly down. We don't know, He doesn't know and worst of everything the doctors don't know the root of his illness. He takes the hard decision to move on an institute for paraplegics but even on a wheelchair he won't be able to hide is rage being apart from the usual guests of the institute. This unusual character is soon noticed by a beautiful patient,Nanette Newman excellent as ever,they will have the chance to go over the fear giving a kiss sitting on a wheelchair knowing the real love.

A big clap to Brian Forbes light and strong where and when necessary.


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.


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!


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.


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.


Through rave reviews and an outstanding 7+ rating on IMDb I have finally succumbed to the 'temptation' to watch this film. I found myself waiting for something amazing or even slightly interesting to happen and then the credits rolled. It is like watching paint dry but less happens. I have no idea why anyone likes this movie, there are two locations in the whole film, which is usually an intriguing quality, but there needs to be more. Why make this film? Why watch this film? Why even bother writing a review for this film? These are questions that were obviously answered by acting first and questioning the action afterwards.


My Dinner with André

One of the themes which André pursues with enthusiasm is

alternative conceptions of reality. He exemplifies this with the

Findhorn Foundation - a spiritual/environmental community

founded in northeast Scotland in 1962.

Having lived at that community for eight years and taken

considerable interest in the myths surrounding it and the care with

with which they are sustained, I feel like I can write with some

authority on the subject. Sorry if this spoils your favourite belief

system, but it is all complete nonsense. There *is* a Universal

Hall - I worked in it for several years. However, the roof stays put,

even in the fierce gales which are common in that part of the

world. It does not mystically rise, turn or anything similar. The only

things that are mystical about the Universal Hall are that it was

ever completed at all, given the permanent financial problems of

the Foundation, and the electrics, which are held together by good

intentions.

Equally, there were never any giant cabbages produced by

miraculous devic powers - that is myth started by one of the

founders, Peter Caddy (a nice guy, but possessing the marketing

ethics of Microsoft). Nor are there angels in the dustbins, or

anywhere else except the fond imaginings of the makers of The

Transformation Game (TM).

Finally, Eileen Caddy, another of the founders (who is still there at

the time of writing) may well be everyone's second favourite

granny (behind HRH The Queen Mother), but she does not talk to

God or even to god. The `still, small voice within' is Eileen, talking

to herself and others, saying the things she is unable to put her

own name to. I find it hard to believe that God (or god) is quite so

fond of vague, dull platitudes, which change over the years as

Eileen's views change. I am sorry to say this, because I really like

Eileen, but she is quite batty. And it doesn't take a PhD in

psychology to know where all that channelled stuff is coming from.

The only real miracle of Findhorn is how so many people can be

so gullible for so long. It is a great testament to the power of pretty

fantasies over less attractive but truly miraculous realities. Which

brings us nicely back to André and the film...


Reading over the bulk of the comments here, I have to wonder if I even watched the same film. Good lord, this is just a pathetic waste of celluloid (or whatever film was made of at the time).

Here you have a smug, TOXICALLY pretentious Frog, discussing the supposed weighty matters of life with a ridiculously insecure, middle aged lackey.

For hours they debate the lofty virtues of owning an electric blanket, what their dreams REALLY mean, and how they should eat dinner. And then it's up to the audience to insert meaning into otherwise insipid blathering. And - sad to say - we seem more than eager to do just that.

A monumental waste of time...


Back in college, I saw this once and was enraptured by all the layered meaning and the deep metaphysical discussion this movie brought out. I dragged several people to see it, including my mom and my sister-in-law, because I just thought they HAD to see it. Then, years later, I rented it for my nephew to experience. We watched about a half hour of it, and when they got to the part where Andre is talking about the blue monster with flowers growing out of its toes, I asked him if he'd seen enough. He said yes, and I turned it off with a great sense of relief. My perspectives had sure changed in 20-some years, but what I had thought was an incredible mind-bender had turned into a pile of garbage. I couldn't imagine a discussion I'd want to be less a part of. Andre seemed like a smug jerk who'd been doing some serious hallucinogens and Wally came off a sad loser. Then we watched Waiting for Guffman, which kind of meandered on its own. But what do you know - at the end, ironically, there just happened to be the little section about the My Dinner With Andre action figures. Both of us just about died laughing. What were the chances of that happening?!


Only one redeeming feature in this, the slowest moving film I have ever suffered through: Served as comic material for the later "Waiting for Guffman" as the credits rolled, the film memorabilia shop owner showed off his "My Dinner with Andre action figures."


I've watched whole film. The first 1 hour and 25 minutes are completely pointless, and after that, the movie gets more interesting. However, this 1h25m pinnacle is Wallace's debunking of the idea that a bad fortune cookie should prevent you from boarding a plane. That's about as profound as this film gets in contrasting a quasi-scientific world view to a quasi-luddite one ("I won't get an electrical blanket because that kind of comfort just separates you from reality in a very direct way [...] and instead of living under the sun and the moon and the sky and the stars, we're living in a fantasy world of our own making" (!?) Watch Waking Life instead, or just read some introduction to critical thinking or philosophy.


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.


Truly a terrible film. I pontificated about my belly button lint while Louis Malle didn't even make up for subjecting me to Wallace Shawn's whine-tastic introduction. What discourse: ''Tell me more'', ''So what happened after that?'', ''Inconceivable!'' are all examples of Shawn's gift of the gab. What an ugly, brown restaurant! What an arrogant old waiter. Sure, André Gregorie recounts his stories with enthusiasm, but getting to the end of this film took longer than waiting for ice cubes to melt at the antarctic pole. There is a reason why Wallace Shawn's voice was used for the dinosaur in Toy Story, and it's because, like Children during the Victorian age, he is better seen and not heard. Does it matter that Wallace Shawn is in fact not a Dinosaur? Well, to that sir I reply you're only thinking in the literal sense. Everyone involved in this film were obviously stuck in the Triassic period...in their minds...RAWRRRful!


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.


Wallace Shawn discussing the concept that someone flirted with him at a party! Ha ha ha. He he he. Ho ho ho. Good one.

The main problem with this is that it takes 45 minutes for them to say anything that means anything. Prior to that, it is just pompous celibacy.

Around the 45th minute, it begins to discuss NY and NYers. Having lived in Manhattan for 6 years, I have to agree with all the nasty things they have to say about NY, NYers, & their dominant shallowness and hypocrisy. Beyond that, there are other honest truths here, but the reality is that the people who will give this a "10" are the exact people who these truths are most honest about. Hypocrisy defined.

If you gave it a 10, go pay $10,000 to be castrated. You need to feel something.


This kind of movie frustrates me. The substance of this film is watered-down pseudo-philosophical tripe that is popular among the "free thinkers" of our time. Leave it to Hollywood to misinterpret the works of great intellectuals (Heidegger, Berkeley, Foucault) and produce something incoherent and meaningless out of it. If you think this movie does a suitable job explicating the philosophical topics it pretends to discuss then you're probably an idiot.

"... it also produces a disgusting hodgepodge of patchwork observations and half-rationalized principles, in which shallow pates revel because it is something useful for everyday chitchat, but the insightful, feeling confused and dissatisfied without being able to help themselves, avert their eyes ..." - Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge edition, Gregor translation)


Two men sit down and have a conversation over dinner. Is that the synopsis for My Dinner with Andre? That would be it on a super-simplistic level. Yes, they have a conversation, and (more or less) they have dinner. But what do they talk about? Why are they meeting? We learn from the narration from Wallace Shawn that he's been avoiding his friend Andre Gregory for quite some time, and that Andre's been away in foreign countries for years. The impression is that, at first, this will be an awkward dinner. As it turns out, it's anything but. As Douglas Adams would say, My Dinner with Andre is about Life, the Universe, and Everything (at least it would seem).

Oh, it's a bit odd to just have two talking heads as an entire movie. Louis Malle doesn't even go into the kind of visual technique that Richard Linklater would use on Before Sunrise and Sunset to at least keep the camera moving. And yet I found myself, somehow, even more engaged by the dialog between Shawn and Gregory than I did in Linklater's films (which is a close call as those are fantastic anyway). What makes it so captivating is that you feel like you're right there with Shawn and Gregory - at first we're more like Shawn, just listening and somewhat curious about what has been going on with this other guy. And Gregory tells stories, elaborate ones it might seem and epic in its scope around the world (Tibet, Poland, Scotland, Long Island) about his theatrical rituals and participation in New-Age type ceremonies, improvisations, what-have-you. The interesting thing is this: I started to see in my mind what Gregory talked about.

In that sense, My Dinner with Andre leaves the audience imagining as they would reading this in a novel. But then something else even more important happens, which is that Gregory, and then by proxy Shawn, go into depths that are unexpected. The entry point for this is Andre: he finally had enough of all of his soul-searching artist work (the final straw was being buried alive for half an hour, a scene that Malle finally does a perfect zoom-in close-up for), and how he feels like his career as an artist might be dead. Why? Because the world of theater is decaying, he says. What is there when people, intellectual theater types, wouldn't go near certain plays years ago that now they go to and say "oh, that was pretty good?" This leads into the philosophical meat of the movie, which is: what does it mean to really "be" in a society that numbs people, makes them feel mechanical in nature? What do to you about being alive or feel in love with someone, or actually do something with yourself?

Gregory's tactics to get at this might seem far-off at first - his descriptions of his time in Tibet and Poland, for example, seems silly, but it does lead somewhere for the audience, and it opens up Shawn into the dialog. The tables turn, so to speak, on who's talking and who is listening, as Wally, who can't seem to wrap his head around these rituals (a segway: "There was a play I saw, did you see it, where people got strangled on a submarine?"), and then it becomes about both men, as men, having to come to grips with where they stand in their lives. On the one hand Gregory knows that even if there isn't much hope in the transcendental stuff and meditating and so on, one has to try to at least see if one can live; on the other hand Shawn, as a near (or would be) bourgeois, is content to just stay at home and read his Charleton Heston autobiography and sometimes go out with his wife and so on. The reality of living, as artists and as existentialists would put it, is what's really on the table here, and it's utterly fascinating to watch this, as stories and as inquiry.

Sure, some people won't get into it. Some probably would do best to not go anywhere near it (and you probably know if you are if you groaned at "two hours of talk by some guy I never heard of and that 'inconceivable!' guy from Princess Bride?"). But for those who want something a little different, something that is not at all conventional, this is the movie, possibly, of a lifetime. It's certainly rich enough to warrant repeat viewing, and at the least, on director Malle's end, he never makes it feel static, giving us angles and shots that do keep the conversation moving and adding dynamic interest (if nothing else the cutaways to the waiter played by Jean Lenauer, are hilarious). It's a masterpiece of gab and thought, and about how men in an upper middle class setting think and feel and need to connect (or don't need) to something.


...because it literally demands all of your attention. This is a great movie for selected audiences who happen to be in the right mood for it. I will warn you that the rest of the review contains spoilers, but that shouldn't prevent you from enjoying the film since it really has no plot twists or turns. It's not about that.

99% of the movie takes place at a table in the New York restaurant where Wallace Shawn, a playwright, and Andre Gregory, a theatre manager, are having dinner and a near two hour conversation after a long time apart. The very beginning shows Wallace getting on the subway and coming to the restaurant and reveals that he has not been so successful in his recent pursuits, that recently he has found himself only caring about money due to this lack of success, and that this is a somewhat reluctant reunion he is attending.

The first part is Andre recounting his professional burn-out and his subsequent travels to Poland, the Sahara, England, and Tibet to look for meaning in his life. The next part is Wallace responding to all of this, and the final part consists of Andre and Wallace basically agreeing to disagree, all while dining at a fine restaurant.

Although Andre's tale is fascinating, it is very hard to relate to him. It was easier to relate to Wallace as he enters the restaurant somewhat downtrodden, listens patiently to Andre's adventures, and then seems to find his spark when he responds to Andre's tale by saying that it seemed to him that all of Andre's exploits were an effort to strip away the purpose from his life in an attempt to experience life as "pure being". Shawn clearly states that he sees no value in just existing, as he believes we are all defined by our purposes and pursuits. Even if he was home, with nothing to do, he says, he would pick up a book. The two continue to talk, but neither is basically moved from their original positions. The final scene is Wallace taking a taxi home, and mentioning that each street holds a memory for him, from his childhood to the present, and how this cheers him. He seems more upbeat for the encounter, although the voice-over still has him thinking about practical matters at the end.

I've seen this movie several times, and I always enjoy it. Perhaps I am a bit too much like Wallace, in that I always pick up on practical points of Andre's exploits that always seem to vex me. For one, this movie is set in 1981, and Poland had been firmly under Communist control for the last 35 years. What exactly were the Communist authorities doing while Andre, an American, had several dozen Polish citizens out in the woods carrying on a theatre workshop? I can't imagine they would have been too sympathetic. How did Andre even get into Poland? Likewise with Tibet, which is located inside Communist China. Remember, this is years before China became the more easily penetrable capitalist machine it is today. Why was it that the practical matter of making a living, and the costs of world travel while not working, didn't seem to impede Andre from traveling around the world, or even seem to enter his mind? What was his family doing all of this time that he was globe-trotting? The story of traveling to Poland is not the result of a geopolitically unaware screenplay, as Gregory actually did drop out of theatre for awhile in the late 70's and travel about the world, including to Poland.

However, it is still a fascinating movie, but you must concentrate because the movie is pure conversation, and if you get distracted at all you'll miss something. Not getting distracted is difficult, as the entire two hour conversation is food for thought. This surely isn't a film for everyone, but I certainly enjoyed it. It's a great contrast between two people from the same world - New York's world of theatre - who have two completely different outlooks on life. One seeks for meaning in grand adventures in exotic settings and thinks everything in his life should be repeatedly examined for continuing validity, the other is content with the simple pleasures of life and enjoys stability and continuity.


Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory play Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory. Yes, as the story goes, these two old friends caught up much like in the film after Andre's return from an awakening journey of life through Asia and during dinner discussed philosophy, life/death and existentialism. They were so involved, moved and amused by their very deep and meaningful conversation that they both agreed to turn their night into a film. And not once during the film do you get the feeling that they were trying to remember what they said the night they had the original conversation. It just came naturally, because their ideas and opinions were fueled with passion and conviction. Their enthusiasm translated through their eyes, facial expressions and fidgety hands. I was so embroiled in their conversation, that the thought of sitting in a restaurant for two hours never crossed my mind once. I've always been compelled by films that are confined to a single set, a claustrophobic surrounding, whether it be one room, one house or one place. These films enable better character development because of the intimacy of the setting. Alfred Hitchcock, Roman Polanski and Sidney Lumet knew the great power of single sets and understood that great stories are never driven by visuals, special effects or mindless mayhem but by character(s) - everything else serves the character and not vice versa. If you were not taken, convinced or fascinated by a character - if you didn't care - the film has failed. And while visuals, attractive actors, special effects and over-the-top action adds value to a film, it however does not define a film. That is why those films which possess all attributes other than interesting characters have shelf lives shorter than the time it took to make them. The reason why Die Hard succeeded over Rambo is because we cared, loved and really got to know John McClane.

What is most fascinating about 'My Dinner With Andre' is that it ONLY has characters. There is no explosions, swearing, sex, CGI and none of the garbage that has attracted brainless movie goers for generations, but rather an intimate story of two friends catching up and talking about lost time. Not only is this film a character study, but the single-setting idea was taken a step further because for two hours while your whole notion of the outside world is erased you do not see a single house nor a single room, but a single table. Your only visual compass are knives, forks, plates and close ups of Wallace and Andre. The pure magic of 'My Dinner With Andre' is its ability to make us feel like we are sitting at the dinner table with them, contributing to the ideas and thoughts of the conversation. Every time there is a surprise twist or revelation we feel as proud and passionate as they are.

The greatest gift the film bestows upon its viewers is its remarkable storytelling. The script never bores. Andre, who does most of the talking, always has our attention. Even when we don't quite understand what he is saying, his obsessive eagerness to tell us something translates through his body and we are happy to listen and try to make sense of everything. Both men have an incredible grasp of language (both are real Theatre producers) and never were there any awkward or dull words spoken. Every word seemed to be dependent on the other in their philosophical debate. It is because this film is completely dialog driven and lacks visual interpretation that our minds create our own. That is the colossal power of the film. You look at the too men and their table but your mind is always elsewhere trying to make sense of their feelings and insights. In other words, you are there but you aren't. Their words feed our brains with rich and poignant imagery, yet no other location photography, sets or computer generated graphics are required and no violence is employed for cheap attention tactics.

'My Dinner With Andre' can be taken on many levels. It reminds you of how great it was to have a friend you could spend hours with talking about philosophy, science or whatever have you for hours on end and be completely oblivious to lost time. In that respect it is a timeless story of friendship. Another interesting dimension to the film is how Wallace represents the audience in his reluctance to accept all of Andre's philosophical views. We voice our concerns, opinions and disagreements through him. However Andre counters all our remarks and criticisms with confidence of a prophet. The film centers on Andre and his five year absence from home and theater. His travels to Tibet and India came as work/life anxieties took their toll on his life characterized by 'writer's bloc' to the point where his grasp on life was questionable. His experiences in Asia enlightened him to life's true reality and those theories, questions, ideas and truths that awoke him from his robotic death and taxes existence of Western Culture are the film's focus. You will find yourself mesmerized by opposing views which in the end combine into a single understanding between friends, an ending that will have you thinking and reflecting for hours, with ample conversation material with those who were fortunate to watch this masterpiece with you.

I can talk about this film until the saliva in your mouth dries and your tongue grows a daisy. This film is just so deep and masterfully realized. Nothing prepared me for it's perfect evaluation of all the thoughts, anxieties and philosophical ideas i've ever had. Whether you agree with what is said at the table or not, you will no doubt walk away from it as "Gymnopedie for Piano" plays in the background, thinking about what a great night you've just had with two very intelligent and interesting people. And you will never forget it!


My Dinner With Andre is a rewarding film that was far ahead of its time in not just style but topics and social commentary. Andre Gregory and Wallace Shawn, apparently playing themselves in the two leading roles in which for almost two hours they sit in a restaurant and engage in a completely believable conversation ranging from the surreal to the social to the metaphysical also write the film. This is a key contribute for why the film works because having written the material the actors appear to know it inside and out and therefore give it that extra sense of naturalism. The introduction also perfectly sets up the situation we are going to find ourselves in for the next two hours; it shows Wallace going about his normal, mundane activities, expressing discontent with his life and how he has to see his old friend Andre for the first time in years. Once they actually get into the dialogue it becomes apparent the script has vast layers to it, it essentially is a comment on modern existence and the conflicting views held by people, it uses the two characters in the film as symbols of society; Andre representing the new age thinking, while Wallace represents the rational scientific mind and shows the conflicting desire of wanting to retreat back to primitive living to find our humanity but also wanting to enjoy the benefits modern society grants us. The conversation as a whole is very well executed; the modest performances by the two actors never seeps into the overly dramatic, they maintain a natural flow and make it entertaining, challenging and realistic throughout. Some viewers may find it pretentious at first viewing, because it does deal with a lot of hard thinking topics and at times it can alienate the viewer by going slightly overboard with how it presents its ideas but most viewers should be able to relate to a conversation similar to this at one at some point in their lives, just maybe in a different way.

The major flaw of the film is undoubtedly the camera-work, this is especially worrying with a film like this because in theory this should be one the most easiest films in history to shoot but instead of simply taking a subtle approach and showing the characters through two or three angles, the camera will suddenly jerk from one shot to the next in a very disorientated manner. While this doesn't ruin the film it can make you loose concentration during a segment of the dialogue and possibly miss an important part of the conversation, lessening its impact. Its possible the director introduced these jerks to give the camera-work greater variety, but when you already have a script that is as tough and deep as this, pioneering cinematography should not be a major concern.

If you have seen films like 'Before Sunrise' or any other dialogue rich film and found yourself interested in who these characters are and what their thoughts on specific topics are I would suggest giving My Dinner with Andre a go. It kept my attention for the full two hours, which for a film almost completely composed of two characters and a restaurant table is an accomplishment in itself. The script is intelligent and thought provoking with excellent performances from Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory bringing it to life. Just be wary of some of the crazy camera-work that can jump out of nowhere and you should hopefully enjoy a thoroughly unique experience.