Melvin Goes to Dinner (2003)

A brisk, funny talkfest. Accidental meetings result in four people sharing dinner in a bistro, an encounter that becomes a bluntly honest discussion of sex, religion, and sex. Cutaways to other aspects of their lives bring visual variety (and afford opportunities for cameos by Jack Black and David Cross), but the meat of the meal is in how four people talk to, at, and against each other. The quartet is sharp and comic: screenwriter Michael Blieden and Matt Price play friends who haven't seen each other in a while, and Annabelle Gurwitch and Stephanie Courtney are the women they bump into. Their patter contains a couple of neat surprises, and ranges over a long menu of relationship issues. It's directed by comedian Bob Odenkirk (of Mr. Show fame), and he has two distinct directorial gifts: getting actors into a strong, naturalistic flow, and knowing where the jokes are. --Robert Horton Amazon.com

Ok film

On the down side is the fact that the 2003 film Melvin Goes To Dinner, directed by first timer Bob Odenkirk, is a watered down yuppy version of the great 1981 Louis Malle film My Dinner With Andre. On the up side is that if you are going to imitate something, at least choose something great, for the imitation, while not great, is likely to be good, which My Dinner With Melvin is. It was written by actor/playwright Michael Blieden, adapted from his play Phyro-Giants, and had a no name cast, as opposed to 2001's similarly themed HBO film Dinner With Friends, which starred Dennis Quaid, Toni Collette, Andie McDowell, and Greg Kinnear.... the film really does chicken out of putting its characters in emotional deep water. Yes, admissions of fetishes and infidelities can titillate, but given that this was filmed only a year and a half after 9/11 you'd think there might be a touch of political dischord thrown in. They argue a bit over religion, but no character seems willing to really stand up for anything. They are all, in that sense, preening wimps.
Still, I only wish there were deeper characters. Whereas Shawn and Gregory discourse on life and determinism, the four yuppies talk of things like ghosts with all the depth that a post-Angels In America America can muster, and then are amazed at each others' supposed depth, and how stimulating their conversation is. And when I reference Angels In America it's not a mere throwaway diss. There's a reason for the connection. Call it Post-Intellectualism. Call it, `Show, don't tell.' Call it a nice try that settles for copouts. There are too many synchronicities and pallid contrivances that line up to get these four people together in the first place, and then reveal so much about themselves. Yet, it succeeds just enough that I can recommend this noble attempt, especially since the film's start and end are strong- and I mean literally the first and last few seconds of each. You may not wish you were able to join in the conversation, as you did with My Dinner With Andre, but it's still a few notches above anything you'll overhear in a real restaurant. For that, I recommend this DVD.
September 14, 2008

Good Movie, but hard to find in the Video Store

I caught about three-quarters of this movie on IFC a couple months back and wanted to see the whole thing. The only problem is, most video stores don't carry the title. So I decided to buy it and watch the entire thing. I'm glad I did. The dialogue was pretty quick paced, intelligent and insightful. It examines the inner-thoughts of four people brought together by coincicence who end up sharing intimate details of their lives only to find out that one if not all the other guests feels secretly the same way. There are some uncomfortable scenes that reflect normal life all too well, and that is part of it's charm. I read that this movie is based on a play so there are bascially four main characters, but they do manage to squeeze in a couple of cameos that are interesting. All in all a good "art movie". July 28, 2008

My Take On 'Melvin Goes To Dinner'

I first saw this movie on cable (ShowTime). I just caught the last 30 minutes or so. I was so intrigued by the portion that I saw, I had to get the DVD. You probably won't recognize the actors or the producers names but the entire project is well done. It contains some adult situations (in the language) so this is something you may not want your kids to watch. The 'film' (it was done mainly with digital cameras) was adapted from a play that ran for more than a year in LA and the producers decided (quite against the grain of Hollywood thinking) to actually use the main actors from the stage production. The result is you will be artfully and masterfully entertained as you watch. Might this movie define a voyeuristic experience ? Michael Blieden wrote the stage play, wrote the screenplay, was one of the key actors, and was responsible for the editing of the movie production. Bob Odenkirk (Emmy award writer for Saturday Night Live and the Ben Stiller Show) directed the movie and was one of the main driving forces in financing the movie. His wife, Naomi Odenkirk (a well known Hollywood talent agent), along with D.J. Paul and Jeff Sussman used their resources to convince other talented actors to do cameos and participate in this movie production as well as to put their own 'good money down'. I won't even tell you the premise of the movie. View it for the talented piece that it is and for the 1000's of hours of effort required to give it life. You will be amply rewarded ! February 8, 2008

This and that

I had mixed feelings about this one. I went into it knowing that it was largely based on conversation with very little vestiges of plot, so I was pleasantly surprised to find that it all sort of falls into place to mean something at the end. All in all, the conversational elements are richly written and very appealing. However, that's the end... it takes a while for it to be truly enriching.

Sometimes the conversation is such that you feel like you're in it, and that's probably as close to good as the cinematography and editing gets, considering in general it really isn't that well done. I can forgive the hand-held look and a lot of how the image turned out from its independent production value, but try as I might I couldn't help but feel a lot of the work was just shoddy camera operation.

Sometimes the conversation isn't very appealing and I can't help but think, "I'm obviously not in this conversation because I wouldn't go there." So there's that element too, a sort of discursive alienation one feels when the conversation feels less than involving.

Mostly, however, the dialog is great and the characters are amazing. There are some really great performances all around and it's definitely worth a viewing or two, or more, but even as I say that I can't help but think that the play version of this story must be absolutely amazing because of mostly the format of the two media.

--PolarisDiB November 27, 2005

The rest of your party is already seated

Nearly all of Melvin Goes to Dinner's breif running time is spent observing a rambling but always interesting dinner conversation among four variously connected people in their late twenties. I was very impressed by both the writing and the acting. It's rare enough that we get even brief conversations that sound right, like real people really speak to each other; Here we have over an hour's worth.

All of the performances are very good. I especially liked Stephanie Courtney's ability to make Alex simultaneously annoying and charming. Others have noted the wonderful cameo by Jack Black as a mental patient with an impressively detailed conception of reality.

If you find yourself looking for a break from CGI and other special effects, give Melvin Goes to Dinner a try. The best thing I can say about it is that as soon as it ended, I wanted to watch it again from the beginning. August 26, 2005

More reviews at Amazon.com ...