Must Love Dogs (2005) User Reviews

Not entirely a waste of $7, but...

[JCBar · 6/10 · 1 August 2005]

This movie had all the ingredients necessary to be one of those romantic comedies that are also 'good' films. The cast is competent, the actors all likable. But unfortunately, the writing is sub par. It is almost embarrassing to watch Diane Lane (or any of the actresses playing her sisters) recite lines like '...boob shirt? Boob shirt?...I don't have any boob shirts..' or '...that is disturbing on so many levels...' and other trite and trendy phrases. While John Cusack escapes most of the embarrassment (he has the best lines, and the best performance), it is still a film beneath him.

The movie has too many false moments in it to be entirely enjoyed - the obligatory gay friend Diane has, and of course his drop dead gorgeous model-like boyfriend; the large Irish family that seems to drop their accents from scene to scene; the trailer-park girlfriend; Diane's scene where she just shows up at Cusack's home (how did she know where to go, and what was her hurry?); and of course the 'chase' scene at the end where of course she had to bring her dog. And for that matter, it wasn't even her dog so even the title does not entirely make sense.

It's a shame, because like I said, the cast is likable. Just goes to show you that without the right screenwriter, even strong players can come across as high school acting students.

Familiar yet Enjoyable

[christian123 · 5/10 · 19 February 2006]

Based on the novel by Claire Cook, the plot centers around a kindergarten teacher named Sarah Nolan (Lane), a divorcée who swears off men after a devastating divorce. However, her close-knit Irish-American family decides to 'help' her along by signing her up for a number of online dating programs. She then finds herself caught between two men, as she starts seeing the father of one her students (Mulroney) and a man who she meets through the dating service who seems far too perfect (Cusack).

Must Love Dogs is a familiar yet enjoyable romantic comedy that should keep you entertained for a while. The plot is nothing new and there are many clichés to be found here yet the film is still funny. The film works well because of its two stars John Cusack and Diane Lane. They both give good, funny performances and they have nice chemistry together. If you enjoy watching these actors on screen then you should like the film. The supporting cast is also strong except for Dermot Mulroney. The good thing is that Dermot is not in the film very much so he does not suck out too much from the picture. This is his third film from 2005 and he was horrible in every one of them yet he keeps getting hired. The rest of the supporting cast consists of Elizabeth Perkins, Christopher Plummer, Stockard Channing and Julie Gonzalo.

A few things are keeping me from rating the film higher. One of the reasons is of course Dermot Mulroney. The film also has a few annoying clichés that are hard to ignore. There were also a few bad stereotypes that were not needed and they were not funny at all. Even though the film does have its share of funny moments, it becomes dull from time to time. The film, for the most part, is safe and this movie could have easily been an episode of Friends or something. That does not mean it's a bad film, it's just a little sitcom-ish. If you do give the film a shot, don't take it too seriously and try to have a little fun with it. In the end, Must Love Dogs is a surprisingly enjoyable romantic comedy. Rating 7/10

McDonalds Movie

[BollyLover · 6/10 · 2 May 2006]

My friend commented this is a McDonald's movie - that is, you don't go to Macca's expecting haute cuisine and the title and summary at the back of the DVD cover should have tipped people off that this is a Cheese Burger movie. ( Plain, slightly boring, inoffensive) John Cusack and Diane Lane play angst ridden characters, slightly caricatured ( no one I know is quite as oddball as Jake- is Cusack being typecast?- or quite as neurotic as Sarah). The movie IS somewhat clichéd but the dogs are very cute as are the kids ( if slightly precocious at times). The sisters are more realistric - mine could be just as mean under the guise of honesty and just as meddling. Christopher Plummer as the Dad was a shock ( esp with Irish accent) - but Stockard Channing plays the girlfriend very well - mature aged vanity and all.

I liked this movie - a pleasant way to end a Monday night...

Charming romantic comedy is quick with the quips...

[moonspinner55 · 7/10 · 6 April 2008]

Divorcée Diane Lane, a teacher going on eight months without a man, meets a divorced boat-maker through her personals ad on the internet; it's a tremulous courtship, hindered by her resistant attraction for the father of one of her students. Writer-director Gary David Goldberg, working from Claire Cook's novel, pitches this familiar material a bit high, and the whole scenario is rather unlikely. The boat-maker (a nicely restrained John Cusack) must have won the Lotto since he has never sold one of his handmade creations, and, except for a few early scenes at her school, Lane seems to be on a permanent vacation. However, it is escapist fare; one doesn't watch a popcorn-and-roses romantic comedy such as this looking for realism. The two stars share a dryly frazzled, witty repartee which is engaging, and Goldberg's old-fashioned comic timing works exceptionally well here. Although her role doesn't call for great modulation, Lane gamely plays up to the 'cute' writing and creates a fetching character. Her bustling, busy, family-friendly world looks so comfortable to live in, it is a little perplexing why she feels so alone. Set that aside--as well as the comic book finale--and there's a good movie here, one with a warm heart and put-downs (when they come) which are gentle and in tune with the overall playful spirit. *** from ****

Flawed, but enjoyable

[filmwatcher2002 · 7/10 · 31 July 2005]

John Cusack and Diane Lane, two of the most interesting actors working today, make this somewhat predictable romantic comedy work. They flesh out characters from a pretty weak script, and make you want to know those characters better.

This film is not rocket science, but if you expect to enjoy a bit of romantic fluff, you will not be disappointed. The only frustrating thing is knowing how much more both of these fine actors is capable of. Given a strong script and inventive director, can you imagine what a great film they could make together?

For this viewer, the weakest part of the script was the two-dimensional nature of some the supporting characters. For example, why would a sensitive, romantic boat builder like Jake have a strip-club-loving sleazy lawyer friend as his only male pal? And while the long suffering younger brother character is amusing and well acted, his wife is non-existent. Also, why would the father become a Lothario upon the death of his wife? If he was really a great guy, wouldn't he continue to act that way?

Also, the script never seems sure whether it wants Diane Lane's character to be comical or touching. The montage showing her entering computer dating with a gusto seemed forced - it aimed for a Bridget Jones type breeziness, but missed - and the singalong to the Partridge Family theme song scene was downright embarrassing. Thankfully Cusack was not subjected to that scene!

All in all, a good one to see if you love the leads, but don't expect belly laughs. It might leave you a little wistful for a romantic comedy as fresh as "Say Anything".... (sigh)

my staff loved it

[johnryan_newyork · 14 July 2005]

My company publishes The New York Dog Magazine and The Hollywood Dog Magazine and some of our staff (four women in their 20s) saw a preview of the movie yesterday (we have Diane Lane and John Cusack on the cover of our new issue). Now, they are a little biased (being dog lovers and all) but they were very taken by the movie. Diane Lane was real, vulnerable and more beautiful than ever (even without make-up as she is at times). The chemistry between her and John Cusack was truly believable. Although the story line is slightly predictable ( hey. it is a romantic comedy) the dialog sparkles. And the dogs, needless to say, are Oscar worthy.

Diane Lane again Divorcée of the Year

[timbobo3 · 7/10 · 29 July 2005]

Diane Lane is divorced again. John Cusack is too. Somehow they need to find each other amid the internet dating scene. Lane's character comes from a big Irish family that lends its support in her reluctant search for a new relationship. There are some Yeat's recitations. There are some gay friends that try and cheer her up. This movie is full of some great one-liners and sitcom situations. Many are plausible and elicited excited guffaws from the audience. But there are some very implausible situations toward the end that spoil the aura that follows the main characters in their pathos. Decent story, good actors, trashed ending. Usual Hollywood drivel. $6.75 please.

Kinda hits home

[wnterstar · 7/10 · 20 April 2006]

OK..so this isn't the greatest movie out there, but there are some absolutely outstanding moments in it.

It's the story of a woman trying to find love after divorce with the "help" of her family. All the clichés about dating pop up here, but this isn't a bad thing. The movie recognizes that these are clichés and that the reason they are clichés is that there is a basic truth behind them.

Don't get me wrong....there are some genuinely original and hysterical moments.

Diane Lane is perfect in this movie, as is Christopher Plummer as her father. Anyone who is in their thirties and is looking for love should see this movie.

Talented actors, appealing premise,uneven script, amateur direction

[dan-1272 · 5/10 · 30 July 2005]

I was surprised to find that this wasn't 'Must Love Dogs' director Gary David Goldberg's first attempt at film direction and feature screen writing. The steering of his own script adaptation was plodding at best, only made passable by the spirited and professional performances from the stars Diane Lane and John Cusack. Less surprising is the fact that much of Goldberg's experience comes from television comedy. The irregular cadence of the dialog almost leads the audience to listen for a canned laugh track, ironic given one of the character's penchant for poetry.

Additionally, Goldberg should return his directing credentials for allowing the flat and unflattering interior lighting especially inflicted on Lane. The technical direction would have been more appropriate on a three-camera TV set. Feature release of this film amplifies the shortcomings of the vision behind this work.

The sweetness in the film, no doubt, comes from Claire Cook's novel of the same name. Justice should have been paid to the book by assigning a true film director. There were many future-classic one-liners loosely strung together with flat dialog more appropriate to the legend of a map. I doubt this was the result that Lane and Cusack expected from the promising elements at the outset of this project, but no one can fault their admirable attempts to deliver a heart-warming film.

This romantic comedy is modern, funny, relateable and a bundle of cuteness

[triple8 · 7/10 · 14 August 2005]

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT:

Must Love Dogs is both fun and funny as well as being extremely relateable and filled with charm. It also features a terrific cast. This isn't a perfect 10 but as far as romantic comedies go, it really is tremendous fun as well as being very modern and true to life in the way it presents certain situations.

There is something inherently likable about Must Love Dogs. I knew it would be cute but was unprepared for, both the high degree of humor, and the quirkiness of some of the characters and situations, many of which were very relateable. It is not just a romantic comedy in the traditional sense but also unexpectedly hilarious and manages to be a bit different in it's approach.

The focus on internet dating is a plot that hasn't really been overdone yet and since that is such a major part of life these days, it was refreshing to see this highlighted in the movie. I loved seeing the various men Sara meets-from the crier to the guy who tells her she'd look really beautiful in handcuffs to being accidentally matched up with her own father. All of it was refreshing and fun to watch. I was engaged from the beginning.

Other plot points of particular interest-The all night "condom search" was utterly hilarious, the characters of Sara's father and his girlfriend Dolly-both played with excellence-were touching and realistic-and Dermot Mulroney's character, the "other man", was slick, yet somewhat charming and believable. All of the Supporting cast were very good.

Cusack and Lane, the two stars are good as always but interestingly (and this is the main negative) the subplots are more interesting then the two of them are together. I mean there is so much going on around them and they have such limited screen time together that other things wind up sticking in one's mind more. One quibble I have is that Lane's character of Sara never seems terribly into Cussack, it is Mulroney whom she seems most drawn to. The relationship between the leads is not built up so that when they do fall in love, it's kind of hard to swallow but then again this is a movie (and a problem in many romantic comedies.) Still, I'd have liked a bit less awkwardness between the leads and more natural, built up romantic chemistry.

I'd also have liked an ending that had one iota of credibility, especially because the rest of the movie really did. Really, the two leads could have gotten together in a more realistic way, maybe through internet instant messaging since the internet seemed to be one of the main themes of the movie. That would have been just as romantic in a much more believable way.

Must Love Dogs, though, is so likable it's almost possible to forget many of the flaws. The whole cast is great and I mustn't forget to include the dogs in that. It's a refreshing change for a movie such as this, to actually feature characters that seem a bit believable and it's a double refreshing change to see situations that really do go on in the real world. My vote on this one is 7.5 out of 10.

I'll keep the dog

[jotix100 · 5/10 · 15 January 2006]

Pairing attractive actors with cute dogs is something Hollywood loves to present, again, and again. This is a film that has that "cute factor" written all over it. Fortunately, we caught it in the form of a borrowed DVD, never having the stomach to spend full price on this formula comedy.

Director Gary David Goldberg's take on this situation doesn't bring anything new. The film is harmless enough not to offend anyone, but in retrospect, one has to wonder why was the film made in the first place? Poor Diane Lane, she keeps showing up in these inane comedies that don't do anything for her. She is a beautiful woman who could do better, but whoever is advising her keeps steering her in the wrong direction, unfortunately. Ditto for John Cusack. One wonders what attracted actors of the stature of Christopher Plummer and Stockard Channing to appear in a movie that will certainly not add anything in their C.V.s.

The cute Newfoundland puppies that were used in the movie should have been given more opportunities to show their talents.

Just saw it and loved it

[hamer-prefect · 8/10 · 29 July 2005]

I read the reviews before I went (both pro and con), and I was reminded that often professional reviewers forget that movies are supposed to entertain, and this movie did this for me. Indeed, the familiar clichés that some of the critics derided are just what makes the movie a delightful diversion. Yes, it is much of what the reviewers said, but John Cusack and Diane Lane were just great to watch play their parts. Just because they've played these types of characters before doesn't mean that the movie is bad, to me it means that the characters they play so easily are enjoyable to watch. It was a people movie (no exploding cars, etc. although there are times I like that too). I particularly like romantic comedies, and I will buy this movie the day it comes out on DVD. I might even take a date to it before then. The heart of the characters (not the quirky details) are really worth the ticket.

fun movie

[cstrother-1 · 6/10 · 24 July 2005]

Saw this movie as a preview last night. I think they have a real winner. Perhaps even a major hit. Good movie, strictly a chick flick.

Some excellent writing. Some very clever banter and very funny segments.

Some of the plot seemed not credible and off, and the overall premise is fairly corny, although with some original touches. The kids and animals are adorable, and add good color to the movie, although Newfies generally slobber a lot. Setting seems to be in a combination of Boston, Boulder, LA, and San Diego, with blue collar folks living in modest houses with lavish interiors. Must be nice to be in grad school, living in a trailer, and driving a BMW M3 convertible.

But Diane Lane is utterly winning, classy, and stunning, when she is not rather convincingly looking a little dowdy and aging.

Cusak is really "on." The chemistry between Cusak and Lane is palpable. To me, but not the other three viewers with me, a point of lack of credibility was that Lane's character would have any ambivalence or uncertainty toward the Cusak character. The camera loves them both.

All of the supporting acting is great, particularly Stockard Channing as the brassy girlfriend of the father. That would have been an easy part to leave two dimensional, but Channing is nuanced/deep. Elizabeth Perkins is completely credible and engaging as one of the sisters trying to get Diane Lane back into the game after a divorce. Chris Plummer is perfect as the father--handsome, loving, wise, and sad. The Lane character's entire family is sweetly supportive and believable.

A comedy lacking wit and laden with clichés

[cliffs_of_fall · 2/10 · 4 August 2005]

A heavenly cast, yes, but even the charismatic actors can't overcome the flaws in this sodden tale of dating after divorce. What there is of plot is tired: girl and boy meet, girl and boy get off to a rocky start, girl and boy click, girl and boy get waylaid by various misunderstandings ... it's so ho-hum. The dialogue is wooden and even darlin' John Cusack doesn't come across as cute. There's just no spark between him and Diane Lane, no love scene worth watching. A protracted sequence in which the two go hunting for a condom in the middle of the night is just irritating to watch.

Frankly I was shocked to read so many raves here on the board -- till I realized most were from first-time posters who were treated to a sneak preview. How did so many of them find their way here, I wonder? As for me, I don't even recommend renting the eventual DVD. "Must Love Dogs" is just a big commercial for a particular online dating service.

Mr Kite Somersaults

[tedg · 20 June 2007]

There are only a few ways to mess up a Date Movie, because the form is so rigid and expectations so very low.

You can either just mess up on the basic film-making, and produce a film that has no effect. Or you can walk through the formula competently but with primary actors that are either unappealing to us or each other.

I think this has both failures. I'll focus on just one small bit, John Cusack. The man fascinates me as a performer. Its a challenge to see just where he fits.

I think you should always judge actors by whether what they do works. There's a large question of embodiment, which for me has a dual reality: how the actor brings his/her own body and soul to the character (which is to say the project if the elements are aligned); and how the actor in that embodiment understands the soul (intent, urge) of the project and thus supports it. There are more actors that can do the first than have mattered the second, I think.

As with most actors, Cusack has strength in one form, where he's playing a character who plays a character (usually one addicted to speedy, quirky phrases) and in doing so, he extends that self-awareness to the audience. So when he zips a quip in the movie, that quip is designed to serve some narrative need, to satisfy the character that he is in control in defining or pressing the narrative, and at the same time noodling off to the side with the audience, turning verbal somersaults to amuse us.

Its amazingly effective and carries from one film to another so that when he appears in "Identity" or "Fidelity" or "Malkovich" we willingly accept layered identity. That special relationship with the audience can be leveraged to provide appeal for date movies. I thought Cusack was effective in "Serendipity" and "Grosse Point."

But this is different. The filmmaker is so incompetent and the script so thin that the whole thing collapses. Into this, Cusack completely rewrote all his lines to see if he could overwhelm the void and pull through with charm. Others have done so. But he has no collaborators. Diane Lane can appeal, but she modulates around skills she has that have to do with projecting prettiness. When she's emotionally torn, for instance, what she works on is a deviation of prettiness. She just doesn't understand what Cusack is doing, and obviously neither does the director.

So the two live in different worlds. The critics see this as "lack of chemistry," an essential quality of the form. Really what they mean is that the two actors present distinct souls that live in each other (perhaps as accident) with nearly every motion building structure in each other. Its something different than "love" which is being sold and more of shared souls.

The story has so many unexplored threads its almost a case study in scriptwriting. One that is of a type that interests me is the "story" that individuals create (and believe) about who they are. The dating site business here starts some of this and never sustains it. Like the disastrous dates, and some "interviews" they are just an opportunity for comic episodes.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

What's not to like?

[=G= · 7/10 · 27 January 2006]

Sarah (Lane), the film's centerpiece, is fortyish, recently divorced, and, of course, cringing at the prospect of getting back into the dating game. The body of the film is all about Sarah, surrounded by assorted kith and kin, struggling to cope with the difficult process of finding Mr. Right. A light hearted romp which is just a new take on an old but tried and true premise, "Must Love Dogs" avoids the extremes of edginess, quirkiness, schmaltz, and corn and concentrates on just being a pleasant up-beat ride to a foregone conclusion. Hard not to like but not likely to be memorable, this little bit of fluff got respectable though nominal marks from IMDb.com's voters including an average score from that hardest of all demographics to please, the 30-44 age of disillusionment group. "Must Love Dogs" should play well with females and their significant others, Lane and Cusak fans, and anyone in the mood for a low cal romcom DVD watch. (B)

Dogs are okay; the film is lacking

[jason-795 · 6/10 · 15 August 2005]

Diane Lane and John Cusak star in this modern-day twist on the romantic comedy. Sarah (Lane) is encouraged to put herself out there, when her older sister (Elizabeth Perkins) signs her up for an Internet dating service, telling her after the fact. Borrowing her brother's dog, she heads to the park to meet Jake (Cusak), who was pushed into the effort by a friend who lent him a dog for the occasion as well. Not a film I would have selected personally, but I let my wife pick. I enjoy an occasional romantic comedy if it's well done, but this was no When Harry Met Sally. I'll admit that I laughed out loud more than once in the theater; there were a few funny lines. But, this story didn't engage me or entertain me. Jake was over-romantic and Sarah was too bland. Overall, save your money before spending it on this film.

Very Funny! It is truly a comedy.

[mlschell · 7/10 · 18 January 2008]

Must Love Dogs made me laugh out loud! This is more than I can say for many so-called comedy films that are higher rated than 'Must Love Dogs'. I had not heard any of the hype or read any reviews when I saw the movie,so I was not expecting greatness. I did find this film very funny and laughed which is what a comedy should cause one to do.

Today many comedies do not seem very comedic and often a good drama that has a few funny lines is labeled a comedy. Must Love Dogs is very funny despite the ridiculous and unbelievable swimming; that part was contrived for some reason (to show that the dog could swim, Diane Lane could swim, John Cusack could row or someone just wanted that boat).

This may not be Cusack at his best, but he is still very good. Elizabeth Perkins and Christopher Plummer are fantastic; so is Diane Lane (she is better and more believable than in 'Under the Tuscan Sun'). Although her affection for John Cusack is not convincing, despite the swim or possibly because of the poor execution of the swimming bit, it lacked in several areas like John Cusack's reception to her in the boat.

The last clip of Diane and John brought more believability to that relationship. This comedy is about romance, it is not a romantic movie. It is a very funny movie. There are many funny and hart warming sections and good acting. It is funny and it is worth watching. I did not laugh as hard the second time I watched Must Love Dogs, but I appreciated it more. It is cute and very funny.

Irresistible

[jpschapira · 7/10 · 8 April 2006]

The title refers to a reference made in an ad that Sarah (actually Sarah's sister) put on PerfectMatch.com to find a date and start a new life after being divorced for eight months. She is played by Diane Lane with the charm that only exists in a wonderful actress and the amount of shyness that is required for these kinds of roles. It was only four years ago when she left us breathless in "Infidelity" and one year later when she inspired women and us men too in "Under the Tuscan sun". She's the kind of actress you can't say no to.

And so is John Cusack, if we talk about men. His confidence and naturalness and selective role choosing make him an actor worth watching. He proved he wasn't just romantic comedies material with two fine performances in "Runaway Jury" and "Identity". Now he's back on safe soil, playing Jake, a divorced boat builder who also philosophies about life, love relationships, theories and possibilities. He has that good old look on his face.

When he and Sarah meet for the first time, they don't have any idea of what they are doing. He's with a dog he can't control and she's with a big dog. "The dog is not mine", he says. "So you came here on false pretenses", she tells him. "No, the ad said must love dogs; not must own dogs: I do love dogs". Soon, Sarah reveals the dog she's with is not hers either; and we feel the chemistry between the characters.

The story is the one we know by heart, and the one anyone should expect when watching films like these; because if not, we wouldn't even watch them. Sarah and Jake's encounters occur with various results that include a late night search for a condom and an honest talk that makes Sarah realize she could know more about this man than about her husband. There's also another man in the mix, Bob (Stallone himself, Dermot Mulroney), father of one of Sarah's student, who seems fascinating and also wants to win her heart.

Sarah is backed up by her family; they all insist the right man for her is out there and that she needs to look for him. They are portrayed by a very vivid cast of legends and talented actors. Christopher Plummer plays Dad Bill with all of his tricks, Elizabeth Perkins plays Sister Carol, Ali Hills plays Sister Christine and a graceful Stockard Channing is Bill's couple Dolly. Jake has his best friend Charlie, a sex fan played by Ben Shenkman.

The movie was directed by Gary David Goldberg, who also wrote the screenplay based on a novel by Claire Cook, with lots of beautiful lines and moving moments. It is visually correct and it leaves nothing to desire. Now is when I talk about why the film is not perfect and about why there were things I disliked when I consider it good.

When the music with the violins starts, if you know what I mean, you say: "Not again". Here, I went with it…I couldn't help it. I don't know, I felt the same about "Under the Tuscan sun" when I watched it but, it had Diane Lane. "Must Love Dogs" also has Diane Lane and a couple of elements more that make the picture simply irresistible. Let's not discuss about it.

Woof!

[anhedonia · 2/10 · 30 December 2005]

The one thing that amazed me as I watched "Must Love Dogs" was the cast - Diane Lane, John Cusack, Elizabeth Perkins, Dermot Mulroney, Stockard Channing, Christopher Plummer.

What were these folks thinking when they agreed to make this film? Did they bother reading the script? I realize it is their wont to make any film they wish, but surely the likes of Lane, Cusack and Mulroney are not wanting for good scripts.

I don't mind predictable scripts - and romantic comedies, by their very nature, are awfully predictable - if they're good, offer some laughs, a few nice moments, a few scenes that ring true. Unfortunately, there isn't a single moment in "Must Love Dogs" that even vaguely resembles anything real. There's not a single genuine character or an honest moment in this entire film.

Everything about this film screams "movie moment," from the family get-togethers to the plot twists, from the inter-family conversations to the dialogue between Lane and Cusack. Even the minor characters are "movie-made." Doubt me? Take a look at the guy behind the deli at the supermarket. Is there anything even vaguely honest or real about his scenes with Lane?

Writer-director Gary David Goldberg - who should stick to TV, where he's good - never bothers to introduce anything that is even slightly unpredictable to his story. He follows all the standard rules of the romantic-comedy genre and seems quite happy hitting the marks without any adding sense of novelty.

We have a woman - Diane Lane deserves so much better than this - who has two male interests. Genre rules say one of the men will eventually turn out to be a rotter. Well, guess what?

A talented cast is wasted is this utter waste of time.

Charming and appealing film, if somewhat uneven and predictable.

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 7 June 2009]

The main problem I have with some romantic comedies is that they tend to become predictable and underdeveloped, and while on the most part Must Love Dogs is charming and appealing, it does have that problem. I will say that there were several things I liked about this movie, particularly the performances of the actors. Diane Lane is a delight as Sarah, while John Cusack is likable as always as Jake. They are well supported by Elizabeth Perkins as Carol, a wonderfully restrained Christopher Plummer (who is always excellent playing intense characters) as Sarah's father and Stockard Channing as his lady friend. The script did have some nice touches, like Sarah, Jake and Sherry(Jake's rather clueless girlfriend in the latter half of the film) talking about Dr Zhivago, but it is uneven on the most part. Sometimes it was frothy and underdeveloped, as well as over-familiar, but you can't help smile when Cusack and Lane are lighting up the screen. The story was very nicely done, if a little predictable in terms of plotting, and a little devoid of humour. (though I liked the scene when the whole family break into song)The direction was good, if rather amateurish in some scenes, but I have seen worse. Craig Armstrong's score is very fitting with the pacing of the film, but I personally think he's done better. Overall, a sweet and well-played film, if a little predictable. 7/10 Bethany Cox.

love dogs; hated the movie

[GOVT_ESQ · 1/10 · 25 July 2005]

The plot and dialogue are so forced that is was stressful to watch. Most important, the complete and utter lack of chemistry between Lane and mis-cast Cusack makes the viewer hope that they don't get together -- for everyone's sake! This is just another movie about a fretting, 40-ish DWF desperately seeking romance while moping around the house in her pj's. I lost count of how many times someone told Lane, "you're so beautiful" and "you deserve so much more." Give me a break! John Cusak is capable of so much more than this neurotic character had to offer. Also, if I had such a meddling family, I'd put myself up for adoption! Rather than being "cute," the family force was simply annoying. If you liked "The Truth About Cats and Dogs," this movie will be a great disappointment.

True and moving, a movie that touches your heart

[junling1 · 8/10 · 28 December 2005]

As a woman who went through the same experience as the main character, I feel every thing in this movie is so true. Everything, literally everything. From the woman's loss from her divorce, to her dating frenzy, and her heartbroken by a shallow yet good looking man. Tears came to my eyes when I watched this movie. Yes, the movie itself is funny, exaggerating to be a comedy. But the message is so true that it hurts. This is why I love this movie. It dares to be true.

I love almost every character in this movie, except some reservation for John Cusack. I love Diane Lane, for her fragility, her passion for life, and her standard of being respected in love.

People who made bad comment might not have gone through this divorce-dating process. If you have, you would know all the pain and all the laugh in this movie is very very true.

Silly, But Entertains

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 19 February 2006]

The preschool teacher Sarah (Diane Lane) divorced from her beloved husband eight moths ago, but she is still very vulnerable and alone. Her family presses her to find a new Mr. Right, and her sister Carol (Elizabeth Perkins) puts her profile on the site PerfectMatch.com. She has blind dates with odd guys, but she particularly likes Jake (John Cusack), who divorced three months ago and still misses his former wife. Jake likes her too, but Sarah has one night stand with Bob (Dermot Mulroney), the father of one of her students, and Jake gives-up on her. Later Sarah finds that Jake is her perfect match.

The beginning of "Must Love Dogs" is very funny and I particularly liked the sharp and ironic dialogs. In a certain moment, the story becomes absolutely silly, and the good character of Sarah is almost destroyed after her affair with Bob, when she freaks-out and has a ridiculous behavior with him. The conclusion is also awful, I expected much more of a John Cusack's movie, but putting the pros and the cons in a balance, it still entertains. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Procura-se um Amor Que Goste de Cachorros" ("Wanted a Love That Like Dogs")

The movie Cusack will regret

[WRCoughlan · 2/10 · 23 July 2005]

I just returned from a sneak preview of Must Love Dogs, and I couldn't help but check my watch repeatedly throughout. I love John Cusack, but come next weekend's critics' reviews, he will no doubt be calling his agent, hoping against hope to be cast in something that will revive his career after this horrible misstep.

It's not his fault -- the screenplay is absolutely atrocious. It comes across as if written by a first-year writing student. Every scene is played precisely on-the-nose, with nothing remotely approaching subtlety, character motivation, or any consideration save the single, straightforward plot. There are no subplots to speak of -- every conversation in the picture is ham-handedly directed toward its prescribed outcome.

There is -- quite literally -- not a surprise in the entire film. (And PerfectMatch.com clearly paid a lot for product placement; they beat you over the head with its name.)

Yes, it's supposed to be a romantic comedy, and there are allowances to be made for the genre. But the laughs are forced, the comic timing is nonexistent, and the entire piece feels like a low-budget student film.

Or -- as seems more appropriate given Goldberg's pedigree -- like a television producer overextending himself in making the leap to the big screen.