my dinner with andre be one of the great movie of all time because it work on a seemingly infinite number of level . yet at the same time it be one of the big failure in film because it only succeed in connect to the most insightful of it audience . the result paradox only serve to prove the film lesson to be true . brilliant . this be either a movie you will turn off after fifteen minute and or it be a movie you will watch over and over again to pick up all the thing you miss in previous screening . the former will be bore and lose by the endless and meaningless talk . the latter will find gold in every word and and vein leave to be mine time after time . in simple term and the question be understood if life be a stage and be you go to be an actor and a director and or a playwright . it be the viewer choice . wally be a struggle playwright who have fall back on act . andre be a former actor and director who have leave the theatre entirely . wally and andre meet for dinner and and andre recount his experience since leave the theatre . but one of the irony be that their dinner itself be theatre and and both andre and wally have role to fill . [ notice they write the script and use their real name . they be not play character . they be necessarily play themselves . ] and summarily the viewer also have a role to fill . if life be a stage and view the theatre be in itself theatre . the viewer be now in a place of choose the role . and will that choice be make mechanically or deliberately . mechanic be act . deliberation be playwrighting . this be a brilliant and brilliant film . one of the great movie of all time . and it resolve be purely subjective to the individual viewer . the goal be to deliberate and come away enlighten ( literally ) . unfortunately the majority of viewer will act mechanically and turn it off .