I mentioned this before in Goldie's thread, but I'll say it again just to fill up some space. Claire Cook the author of the book that the film was based on, was my former middle school fitness/creative writing teacher. She barely talked about her stories back then, or I just didn't listen, because I don't remember her mentioning them. Since I didn't know anything about her books, and since I haven't seen her for a few years now, it came as quite a shock seeing a gigantic picture of her in the newspaper, talking about how she has her first film coming out. To be frank, I thought she was a pretty boring person (Nice though) when I knew her, so to have this story turn out to be actually quite funny and original, was quite a surprise. She has created a very nice basis here for the screen adaptation of her book.

Now I have never read the book, so I can't compare the two, but this is a pretty good romantic comedy. It's not too cute and sentimental like some others before, and it doesn't all of a sudden turn dark with some dumb plot twist. Throughout the 90 minutes (Which also seems short for a romantic comedy. Most of them seem to be 2 hours or so.) I was very entertained, and I found myself laughing more than I thought I would. I wasn't bored like I am with 60% of romcom's, so it must be a keeper.

All of the actors were quite good, especially John Cusack. Without him, this might have been quite a dull movie. I found his small obession with the film Doctor Zhivago to be a nice little quirk to his character. I also liked Diane Lane in the film, but really, her character could've been played by numerous other actresses. Stockard Channing also had a pretty good role as the girlfriend to Lane's father (Christopher Plummer).

To my surprise, I was actually entertained with this film. It's a nice quick and breezy film that was funny throughout. It will be interesting to see how Cook's second movie (I think her second novel Multiple Chocie) turns out as a film. If it's as good as this, I will probably be pleasantly shocked once again.

B

While not groundbreaking, it does what it has to do well: the actors are charismatic and enthusiastic, and have great chemistry, there are plenty of funny moments (including one "chase" scene), and of course, the "aww, how romantic" moments. Diane Lane is gorgeous and a pleasure to watch on screen. A great date movie.

B+

ehh never seen it...yet

You're new here, so I'm sure it will be forgiven. But the board came to an agreement a few months ago that posts that basically say "I'm going to see this soon" in the Everyone's a Critic thread are not allowed, as they serve no real purpose, except to boost the person's post count.

wanted to like this movie but couldn't - just not up to the actor's other good efforts - very average > c

Sarah (Diane Lane) is a recently divorced pre-school teacher in her forties who is afraid she will never find true love. Thanks to the help of her two sisters Carol (Elizabeth Perkins) and Christine (Ali Hillis), she winds up back in the dating circuit through PerfectMatch.com, a personals website where members create profiles to woo the opposite sex. Initially reluctant about the process, she eventually decides to go along with it, resulting in many botched first dates. But Sarah manages to find a hidden gem in Jake (John Cusack), a reserved and caring man who also recently went through a divorce.

At first, Sarah thinks of Jake as a lonely and strange man, but Jake immediately falls head over heels for her. After some persistence, the two continue seeing each other and their attraction grows. But there is someone else after Sarah's affection, a single dad named Bob (Dermot Mulroney) whose son attends her preschool. With many obstacles in their way, is this really a match made in cyberspace?

Based on the best-selling book by Claire Cook, MUST LOVE DOGS is one of the few romantic comedies being offered this summer amidst the explosions, alien invasions and gunfights. Directed by newcomer Gary David Goldberg and starring Diane Lane and John Cusack, it is everything that you would expect and more. It is arguably the best romantic comedy of the year so far and a charming and entertaining experience at the movies.

The main reason the film works are the great performances. Diane Lane, who is no stranger to starring in romantic comedies after 2003's UNDER THE TUSCAN SUN, gives one of the year's strongest female performances. She is likable and believable in her role and the audience really forms a bond with her. John Cusack is also great as a romantic lead, once again proving himself as one of the most underrated actors working today. Lane and Cusack have great chemistry together as well. Dermot Mulroney makes the most of a fairly mediocre character and does a respectable job. Elizabeth Perkins and Stockard Channing both give fine supporting performances. A scene-stealer is Christopher Plummer as Sarah's widowed father, providing both comic relief and an emotional backstory.

Goldberg, whose line of work previously included a few television shows, writes and directs MUST LOVE DOGS with the skill of any romantic comedy veteran. The film has the usual cliches of the genre, but there is enough comedy and sharp dialogue to keep the audience from caring. The scenery and camerawork is very calm and not too chaotic, as it should be. It is nice to look at and serves as a good backdrop to the story.

Overall, MUST LOVE DOGS is a great romantic comedy. The leads both give great performances and have excellent chemistry, and there is enough humor to please all audiences. A charming, sweet and sophisticated film that audiences everywhere will enjoy.

8/10 (A-)

Must Love Dogs is a somewhat bland affair that manages to be surprisingly funny, but very weak when it comes to the romance aspect. Diane Lane plays Sarah, a role that most likely would've been played by Meg Ryan or Sandra Bullock had this film come out ten years ago. Fortunately, Lane is wonderful; she has never looked more beautiful and she manages to do interesting things with a character that is entirely unoriginal. The performances by Elizabeth Perkins and Christopher Plummer as members of her close knit Irish-American family are also quite good (the scene in which Sarah answers her father's personal ad by mistake is very amusing). Stockard Channing also delivers an effective supporting performance. While there is a sense of chemistry between Lane and John Cusack, Must Love Dogs screws up their romance by not developing it nearly enough and not having enough scenes between the two actors. The film finds it necessary to add a distraction in the form of Dermot Mulroney, who plays a character so bland it's hard to believe anyone could be attracted to him. The end result (although it is cute) may have been more satisfying if Sarah and Jake were permitted to spend more time with each other during the course of the movie. Dog lovers, fear not: as could be expected from the title, there are several cute canines who are positively endearing. Although I was disappointed by the romance Must Love Dogs had to offer, the film is very funny at times and was a cute film overall, although it is quite forgettable. The performances (especially Lane) make the film worthwhile. B-

Solid performances. There wasn't a single character that could have been better acted. I was surprised at how well-written it was; it wasn't like your traditional romcom. But like Libs said, the romance angle comes off as a bit unrealistic and shoddy. When the credits started to roll, I had a big smile on my face. It was simply a very heart-warming movie. B

A film that showcases what boring actors do when they are bored. A film show short on laughs it begs the question, "is this a romantic comedy?"

Diane Lane should be burnt at the stake for crap like this. Dermot Mulroney still can't act to save his life. John Cusack needs help.

D-

C+


Must Love Dogs was one of last year's lackluster romcoms. It is thankfully blessed by a very charming and well-acting female lead, Diane Lane who saves this film from being a disaster. However, it still failed to entertain me or enchant me like some other rmcoms managed last year. The romance between Lane and Cusack is horribly developed and I just never saw that spark between them. Not only do they have little chemistry, but I simply never saw the romance develoing between the two. Dermott Mulroney is bland as always, but at least Christopher Plummer delivers a very decent turn. This romcm is as generic and lazy as they come, but Lane makes it all shine in a better light.

B-

This film is a classic example of a film sabotaged by a poorly assembled script. The performances save this film, Cusack and Lane are in fine form - as their standard personas, and the supporting characters are well played, especially Plummer. Even Mulroney is tolerable here.

But the script, though it contains most of the right elements that would have been needed to make a fine film, fails miserably. The film in places plays more as a series of vignettes than it does as a driven plot, with scenes out of place or randomly contructed in ways that work against the main plot. The main reason for the failure is the screenplay's utter inabilty to follow proper conventions. This film wants to be a toned down screwball, and in fact sets itself up well as a screwball, but ultimately shows no understanding of the form. A screwball depends on two elements - that both characters cannot acknowledge their mutual attraction (one can, but not both), and that there be a clearly defined conflict that must be resolved, said conflict being the reason they cannot acknowledge the attraction. The film actually supplies two possible conflicts - the internet dating thing and the clear age difference between Cusack and Lane, but uses neither. The film then makes a serious if not fatal mistake halfway through - one which utterly violates the conventions and leaves the viewer wondering just what the hell one is watching. What makes this worse is that one could almost take the same scenes in the movie, rearrange their order, change a couple of lines, and you'd about have a really good film. With proper character development among certain side characters and an undertanding of how to parallel the main plot line in order to comment, you'd have a great one.

I recommend the film for the performances, which save it, but if you are not a Cusack or Lane fan, stay away.