Movie Reviews
My Dinner with Andre | Reelviews Movie Reviews
Some movies, no matter how highly regarded, can lose at
least some of their luster over the passage of time. When My Dinner with
Andre was released in the fall of 1981, it was a critical sensation, garnering
raves from all corners including accolades from Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel
(both of whom named it among their Top 10 films of the 1980s). The years haven’t
necessarily been kind to it, however. When it first arrived in theaters, the French
New Wave was still firmly anchored in the minds of many art-house viewers. The
freshness of that aesthetic, which informs My Dinner with Andre, has
grown stale with the passage of decades and there are times when it’s hard to
view this film as more than a curiosity of another age.
Okay, I’ll admit it – there were times when, while I watching
My Dinner with Andre, I found myself becoming bored. Not “eyes glazed
over” bored, but restless. Although the movie works as a study in acting, shot
selection, and editing, it has lost its edge in terms of telling a story. So
much of the film’s relevance is tied to the era in which it was produced. Although
aspects of the culture clash – between activists who believe technology has
created a robot society and those who prefer to simply live their lives day-to-day
without drama – remain as relevant today as ever, the anecdotes used to express
this are dated. Andre Gregory’s adventures in Poland, the Sahara, and Findhorn
(Scotland) are as believable as Paul Bunyan’s Tall Tales and his philosophy is naïve
and simplistic.
Although the movie is narrated by Wallace Shawn (who would
be immortalized six years later as Vizzini in The Princess Bride), he has
considerably less dialogue than the title character. Yet, while Gregory does a
lion’s share of the talking, director Louis Malle maintains the fiction that this
is from Shawn’s perspective. He is the only one we see outside the restaurant
(during the prologue and epilogue). The background is simple: Shawn informs us
in a voiceover that he is going to have dinner with an old friend and
colleague, Gregory, who has become something of a recluse in recent years. 95%
of the film focuses on their dinner conversation with Gregory regaling Shawn
with tales of his years away from the theater, then the two engaging in a debate
over rationality vs. mysticism in criticizing modern society. The movie ends
with them parting as friends.
One of the most amazing things about My Dinner with Andre
is how it manages to capture the seemingly off-the-cuff approach one might
normally associate with improv – sort of the thing Mike Leigh was famous for. However,
every word was scripted and the two actors never deviated from what they wrote.
The improvisational “qualities” were a collaborative result of Gregory, Shawn,
and Malle working to achieve it. It’s also amazing that Gregory (making his
feature debut as an actor) was able to memorize so much dialogue. There are numerous
long takes in which his monologues go on for stretches without breaks. Although
it would be unfair to diminish Shawn’s contributions, the heavy lifting
undoubtedly falls to Gregory.
Although the actors use their real names and some of the biographical
details attributed to their characters come from real-life occurrences, both
men have repeatedly denied that they are playing themselves. Instead, they
created fictional avatars that were intentionally different from their true
personalities. In an interview, Shawn even joked that if the two were to embark
upon a remake (something highly unlikely although, at the time of this writing,
both are still alive), they could swap roles without the need to change even a
line of dialogue.
My Dinner with Andre has the look and feel of a stage
show, although it was never developed as such. From the beginning, it was
intended to be a movie. Gregory and Shawn, however, have deep roots in theater
and they bring this to the film. Additionally, before going in front of the
cameras, the pair hosted ten rehearsals on stage in front of live audiences
with Malle not always in attendance.
At the beginning of the movie, I focused on the words,
allowing myself to settle into the rhythms of the conversation between these
old friends getting re-acquainted. Over time, however, I found myself becoming less
interested in what the characters are saying and more intrigued by how Malle chooses
to present the conversation: shot selection, editing close-ups into the master
shots, etc. Expressions and reactions (especially Shawn’s, because much of his emoting
occurs without words) are of paramount importance. Although My Dinner with
Andre may be of minimal interest to mainstream movie-going audiences in the
2020s, it should be required viewing for would-be actors and behind-the-camera
craftspeople. Although what Gregory and Shawn have to say may have lost a share
of its relevance, how it’s presented offers a clinic in the importance of the
non-verbal aspects of filmmaking.
My Dinner with Andre (United States, 1981)
U.S. Home Release Date: 2024-02-06
MPAA Rating: “PG”
Genre: Drama
Subtitles: none
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 1.66:1
Movie Reviews
Movie Review: Paul Feig’s ‘The Housemaid’ is a twisty horror-thriller with nudity and empowerment – Sentinel Colorado
Santa left us a present this holiday season and it is exactly what we didn’t know we needed: A twisty, psychological horror-thriller with nudity that’s all wrapped up in an empowerment message.
“The Housemaid” is Paul Feig’s delicious, satirical look at the secret depravity of the ultra-rich, but it’s so well constructed that’s it’s not clear who’s naughty or nice. Halfway through, the movie zigs and everything you expected zags.
It’s almost impossible to thread the line between self-winking campy — “That’s a lot of bacon. Are you trying to kill us?” — and carving someone’s stomach with a broken piece of fine china, yet Feig and screenwriter Rebecca Sonnenshine do.
Sydney Sweeney stars as a down-on-her luck Millie Calloway, a gal with a troubled past living out of her car who answers an ad for a live-in housekeeper in a tony suburb of New York City. Her resume is fraudulent, as are her references.
Somehow, the madam of the mansion, Nina Winchester played with frosty excellence by Amanda Seyfried in pearls and creamy knits, takes a shine to this young soul. “I have a really good feeling about this, Millie,” she says in that perky, slightly crazed clipped way that Seyfried always slays with. “This is going to be fun, Millie.”
Maybe not for Millie, but definitely for us. The young housekeeper gets her own room in the attic — weird that it closes with a deadbolt from the outside, but no matter — and we’re off. Mille gets a smartphone with the family’s credit card preloaded and a key for that deadbolt. “What kind of monsters are we?” asks Nina. Indeed.
The next day, the house is a mess when the housekeeper comes down and Seyfried is in a wide-eyed, crashing-plates, full-on psychotic rage. The sweet, supportive woman we met the day before is gone. But her hunky husband (Brandon Sklenar) is helpful and apologetic. And smoldering. Uh-oh. Did we mention he’s hunky?
If at first we understand that the housekeeper is being a little manipulative — lying to get the job, for instance, or wearing glasses to seem more serious — we soon realize that all kinds of gaslighting games are being played behind these gates, and they’re much more impactful.
Based on Freida McFadden’s novel, “The Housemaid” rides waves of manipulation and then turns the tables on what we think we’ve just seen, looking at male-female power structures and how privilege can trap people without it.
The film is as good looking as the actors, with nifty touches like having the main house spare, well-lit and bright, while the husband’s private screening room in the basement is done in a hellish red. There are little jokes throughout, like the husband and the housemaid bonding over old episodes of “Family Feud,” with the name saying it all.
Feig and his team also have fun with horror movie conventions, like having a silent, foreboding groundskeeper, adding a creepy dollhouse and placing lightning and thunder during a pivotal scene. They surround the mansion with fussy, aristocratic PTA moms who have tea parties and say things like “You know what yoga means to me.”
Feig’s fascinating combination of gore, torture and hot sex ends happily, capped off with Taylor Swift’s perfectly conjured “I Did Something Bad” playing over the end credits. Not at all: This naughty movie is definitely on the nice list.
“The Housemaid,” a Lionsgate release that’s in theaters Friday, is rated R by the Motion Picture Association for strong bloody violence, gore, language, sexuality/nudity and drug use. Running time: 131 minutes. Three and a half stars out of four.
Related
Movie Reviews
‘The Spongebob Movie: Search for Squarepants’ Review: Adventure Romp Soaks up a Good Time for SpongeBob Fans of All Ages
I’m convinced that each SpongeBob movie released on the big screen serves as a testament to the current state of the series. The 2004 film was a send-off for the early series run. Sponge Out of Water symbolized the Paul Tibbitt era, and Sponge on the Run served as a major transitional period between soft reboot and spin-off setup. The team responsible for Search for SquarePants, which consists of current showrunners Marc Ceccarelli and Vince Waller, as well as the seasoned Kaz, is showcasing their comedic and absurdist abilities. The sole purpose of the film is to elicit laughter with its distinctively silly and irreverent, whimsical humor. More so than its predecessor, it creates a mindless romp. Granted, there are far too many butt-related jokes, to a weird degree.
Truthfully, I am apprehensive about the insistence of each SpongeBob movie being CG-animated. However, Drymon, who directed the final Hotel Transylvania film, Transformania, brings the series’ quirky, outrageous 2D-influenced poses and expressive style into a 3D space. Its CG execution, done by Texas-based Reel FX (Book of Life, Rumble, Scoob), is far superior to Mikros Animation’s Sponge on the Run, which, despite its polish, has experimental frame rate issues with the comic timing and is influenced by The Spider-Verse. FX encapsulates the same fast, frenetic pace in its absurdist humor, which enables a significant number of the jokes to be effective and feel like classic SpongeBob.
With lovely touches like gorgeous 2D artwork in flashback scenes and mosaic backgrounds during multiple action shots, Drymon and co expand the cinematic scope, enhancing its theatrical space. Taking on a darker, if not more obscene, tone in the main underworld setting, the film’s purple- and green-infused visual palette adds a unique shine that sets it apart from other Sponge-features. Its strong visual aesthetic preserves the SpongeBob identity while capturing the spirit of swashbuckling and satisfying a Pirates of the Caribbean void in the heart.
The film’s slapstick energy is evident throughout, as it’s purposefully played as a romp. The animators’ hilarious antics, which make the most of each set piece to a comical degree, feel like the ideal old-fashioned love letter to the new adults who grew up with SpongeBob and are now introducing it to their kids. This is a perfect bridge. There’s a “Twelfth Street Rag” needle drop in a standout montage sequence that will have older viewers astral projecting with joy.
Search for SquarePants retreads water but with a charming swashbuckling freshness.
Movie Reviews
Movie Review: ‘The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants’ – Catholic Review
NEW YORK (OSV News) – Cartoon characters can devolve into dullards over time. But some are more enduringly appealing than others, as the adventure “The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants” (Paramount) proves.
Yellow, absorbent and porous on the outside, unflaggingly upbeat SpongeBob (voice of Tom Kenny) is childlike and anxious to please within. He also displays the kind of eagerness for grown-up experiences that is often found in real-life youngsters but that gets him into trouble in this fourth big-screen outing for his character.
Initially, his yearning for maturity takes a relatively harmless form. Having learned that he is now exactly 36 clams tall, the requisite height to ride the immense roller coaster at Captain Booty Beard’s Fun Park, he determines to do so.
Predictably, perhaps, he finds the ride too scary for him. This prompts Mr. Krabs (voice of Clancy Brown), the owner of the Krusty Krab — the fast-food restaurant where SpongeBob works as a cook — to inform his chef that he is still an immature bubble-blowing boy who needs to be tested as a swashbuckling adventurer.
The opportunity for such a trial soon arises with the appearance of the ghostly green Flying Dutchman (voice of Mark Hamill), a pirate whose elaborately spooky lair, the Underworld, is adjacent to SpongeBob’s friendly neighborhood, Bikini Bottom. Subject to a curse, the Dutchman longs to lift it and return to human status.
To do so, he needs to find someone both innocent and gullible to whom he can transfer the spell. SpongeBob, of course, fits the bill.
So the buccaneer lures SpongeBob, accompanied by his naive starfish pal Patrick (voice of Bill Fagerbakke), into a series of challenges designed to prove that the lad has what it takes. Mr. Krabs, the restaurateur’s ill-tempered other employee, Squidward (voice of Rodger Bumpass), and SpongeBob’s pet snail, Gary, all follow in pursuit.
Along the way, SpongeBob and Patrick’s ingenuity and love of carefree play usually succeed in thwarting the Dutchman’s plans.
As with most episodes of the TV series, which premiered on Nickelodeon in 1999, there are sight gags intended either for adults or savvy older children. This time out, though, director Derek Drymon and screenwriters Pam Brady and Matt Lieberman produce mostly misfires.
These include an elaborate gag about Davy Jones’ legendary locker — which, after much buildup, turns out to be an ordinary gym locker. Additionally, in moments of high stress, SpongeBob expels what he calls “my lucky brick.” As euphemistic poop gags go, it’s more peculiar than naughty.
True to form, SpongeBob emerges from his latest escapades smarter, wiser, pleased with his newly acquired skills and with increased loyalty to his friends. So, although the script’s humor may often fall short, the franchise’s beguiling charm remains.
The film contains characters in cartoonish peril and occasional scatological humor. The OSV News classification is A-I – general patronage. The Motion Picture Association rating is PG — parental guidance suggested. Some material may not be suitable for children.
Read More Movie & TV Reviews
Copyright © 2025 OSV News
-
Iowa4 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa5 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine2 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland4 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota4 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
Nebraska1 week agoNebraska lands commitment from DL Jayden Travers adding to early Top 5 recruiting class