User reviews

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.

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

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...

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 ****

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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")

I get a lot of free tickets to movies, so I quite happily go to movies which I know will be bad. For instance, I recently went to see Stealth, he he. Badddd - but Josh Lucas has a dynamite smile. Anyway, so I went to see Must Love Dogs, and still thought it would be OK because John Cusack is a very charismatic actor, and Diane Lane is quite appealing. Man. I. Was. So. Wrong. This movie was awful. I have never seen a movie that was so utterly desperate to be cute and lovable, from the requisite gay friends to the animals, to the annoying yet 'lovable' family members. URGH. And I really hated seeing a fine actress like Stockard Channing play a nutty, in-denial, hairspray up-to-here, desperate woman who puts up with her man's roving eye 'cause he's 'worth it.'

But what really got my goat was Diane Lane's character. She was utterly and totally boring. There was nothing about her that was at all interesting, apart from her plunging necklines and perfectly tousled hair. She goes to bed with this one guy, who promptly loses interest and frankly, I'm not surprised. Completely one-dimensional. And please, why is it that Hollywood women are always so bloody desperate if they don't have a man in their lives??? Pathetic!!!!!

Guess that's it..... better stop before i blow a blood vessel.