Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Ed Uyeshima This is the type of four-person drama that hardly makes it to the big screen anymore, and indeed this 2001 movie originally aired as an HBO film. Adapted by Donald Margulies from his own Pulitzer Prize-winning play, the film documents the unraveling relationships among two married couples who have been best friends for twelve years - Gabe and Karen, a perceived model of professional success (as renowned food writers) and domestic stability; and the other, Tom and Beth, in a state of irreparable collapse. Veteran filmmaker Norman Jewison (whose last successful film was probably 1987's "Moonstruck", his Italian-American valentine to improbable romance) has a proved track record for allowing actors to inhabit characters realistically in difficult situations. This movie proves he is still in peak form in this regard.The story begins with Beth breaking the news to Gabe and Karen that Tom has left her. Gabe and Karen immediately take sides and start to question the stability of their own relationship. In the meantime, Tom is basking in the happiness of his new relationship with a younger woman, even as his best friends have become judgmental about what they see as a vainglorious, selfish act from a husband and father of two. Beth also goes on to find a new lover but also faces similar disapproval for moving on too fast. Although the film goes into an extended flashback sequence to have us understand the genesis of their long-standing friendship, the movie pushes forward the individual revelations of each principal in superbly executed scenes driven by Marguiles' perceptive, sometimes clever dialogue. There are unexpected comedy elements as well, for example, when a post-meltdown Beth blows her nose in the expensive placemat Karen bought for her in Italy.The actors shine most unexpectedly. I always thought of Andie MacDowell as a rather flat but obviously lucky presence on the screen. Here she finally seems closer in proximity to a real, flawed human being as Karen. Her character is the picture of image-conscious perfection unable to tolerate, much less accept, disruptions to her controlling existence. MacDowell is still not a great actress, but at least she bravely reveals the unattractive underside of a character genuinely at a loss to deal with her best friends' break-up. As usual, Toni Collette nails her part perfectly as Beth, showing dimensions of the wronged wife that are both surprising and viscerally honest. The real surprises in the cast, however, are the men. As Tom, Greg Kinnear adds substantive depth to his standard happy-go-lucky guy and does not come across as his usual likable scamp at the least. The standout may be Dennis Quaid as Gabe, an assured performance from an actor who has not shown this much introspection on screen before. In fact, he brings an almost fey quality to the early scenes and then gains more heft as the uncomfortable situation comes closer to home.The most affecting scenes are the ones involving two of the characters at a time in revealing exchanges - Karen and Beth discussing Beth's new lover over lunch, Tom facing Gabe's resentment and jealousy at the bar, Gabe and Karen revealing their tactics to avoid intimacy as they prepare for bed. Given that Quaid and MacDowell play die-hard foodies, there are plenty of shots of luxuriant food that any lover of the Food Network will savor. The film is beautifully shot by cinematographer Roger Deakins, who uses effective burnished amber tones for the flashback sequence. This is not for everyone, but the maturity of the drama and the top-notch performances make this one most worthwhile.

WolfHai Two couples, upper middle class and no financial problems: four friends. They marry at about the same time, each have two kids, they spend a lot of time together, *best* friends... And then, one of them split up.The movie, by the way of dialogs, shows how each of the four's world is shaken up, as their unspoken contract, namely, to raise their kids together, to grow old together, is broken. Questions: Whose fault is the breakup, husband's or wife's? Which couple has it right: those, who stick to marriage or those who break out of the rut? Who has the right to judge: those who keep to their marriage vows, or those who acknowledge that their relationship has been a lie? Can we demand that our friends always tell us the truth? How do we react when our closest friends question the unspoken foundations of our lives? The movie follows the actions and reactions of our characters in this situation. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong. In a way, everybody is right. That is what makes the movie interesting. The men act the way men act, and the women act the way women act. The questions are not really answered, they are debated, and the movie shows that completely grown-up people are really unable to answer them. I liked the performances of the actors. Andie McDowell was as beautiful as she always is. I also liked the two guys. The environment, the camera, etc. seemed just right. But the most interesting were the dialogs. So, if you like movies in which people investigate themselves, their lives, and their relationships, without giving you a definite answer what to do, you may enjoy this movie.

MsMagic This movie never went anywhere. There was little point to this movie. The dialog was painfully boring. Andie McDowell was the only good thing in the movie. Her character seemed more natural and less forced. Dennis Quaid's character had annoying mannerisms and an irritating way of talking. Greg Kinner's character was all over the place. There was little or no cohesiveness to the character. Toni Colette who I LOVE was basically a non-entity in the movie. Her best dialog and acting came within the first 15 minutes of the movie. It sucked me in and made me want to see what happened...but NOTHING really ever happened. The movie also jumped back and forth between current time and 1988. This was supposed to show the beginning and end of the relationship. But there was very little explanation, and didn't even help move the movie forward. I wouldn't suggest wasting your time on this movie.

Ace_of_Sevens Dinner with Friends is somewhat unusual. Perhaps I''m just not as well-versed as I thought, but I haven't seen other movies about two couples that are friends, one splits up and its effect on the other couple.This movie obviously originates as a stage play as it consists of four people sitting around and talking. As such, you can only make it so interesting, visually.Because of this, the movie relies pretty much exclusively on the dialog and actors to make things interesting, and they mostly deliver. There were a few moments where the acting seemed very stage-style, for lack of a better term, but still decent overall.I would caution you that you won't like this movie if you can't connect with the source material. It's a study of marriages and why some work and others don't as well as the effects of a divorce on friends. I would recommend it mostly to people who have had long- term relationships and/or are interested in them.