There are films I see that I want to root for, movies you just want so much to be good that even when they’re not, you mark them down as being “okay.” I just watched such a movie. I know it’s not new and I didn’t go to the theater and it’s not even just out on DVD, but I wanted to see it nonetheless. So this weekend, I made some popcorn, turned on the TiVo, and sat down to watch Must Love Dogs.
Perchance this is an odd movie choice for me, but it does have John Cusack and Diane Lane, two elements that certainly put you ahead of the game. On top of that, it even has an incredibly respectable supporting cast: Christopher Plummer, Stockard Channing, Dermot Mulroney, and Elizabeth Perkins, to name a few. I didn’t even expect that much, just to sit and laugh (at least a little) and feel good by the end of it.
The problem? It falls flat. It’s a romantic comedy, so we all know what the ending is before the opening credits roll. Hopefully, the trip will be worth it. In this case, it isn’t. Nothing absurd takes place, nothing is truly funny, and even the little side jaunts are not worth it. As I was watching, it seemed to me one of the reasons it didn’t work as a film was it was all a little too close to life and real world dating. It kind of had a whole Dragnet thing going on: the story you are about to see is true, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent. Which isn't what this type of movie should be providing.
Life got in the way, and I was forced to pause the movie with seven minutes left (I knew there were only seven minutes left because TiVo told me so), and the plot was nowhere near anything remotely resembling a resolution. And then, all of the sudden, Diane Lane was running after John Cusack in a mad attempt to make up and live happily ever after. The end credits rolled and that was it. Rarely would I argue a movie had to be longer (particularly a bad one), but this one could have benefited from about 20 more minutes of story-arcing. Cusack and Lane’s characters barely have any relationship and there’s no reason to think that this is some sort of star-crossed love. She just seems to jump for him because there are so many losers out there. Not quite the message I was looking for.
Article comments
1 - Katja
eu realmente não gostei do filme se voce gostou quem sabe se esforce em traduzir para saber que o elenco era forte porque o enredo e até os cachorros eram fracos
Atentativo de empurrar o filme ...............hummmmm
não deu certo.
vou tentar com o tranlator o resto se vire tá!
I didn't really like the film if you liked who knows if he/she makes an effort in translating to know that the cast was strong because the plot and until the dogs they were weak
try pushing the film............... hummmmm
It didn't give right.
2 - Phillip Winn
Amazingly, I watched this just last night on DVD. My wife watched it a couple of nights ago, but I was working, so I caught a couple of minutes as I walked to the kitchen or bathroom. That was enough to make me choose it when my wife demanded I pay attention to her last night.
And I enjoyed it. I'm not divorced, and have never done any online dating. Heck, I didn't do much dating, period. I'm married to a woman I started dating when I was 18. Perhaps my disengagement from the dating-at-40 scene made me enjoy this more. I'm not sure, but really the only three things that didn't work for me were:
1. Why is "Charlie" always hanging out at John Cusack's place?
2. How did John Cusack end up with Charlie's dog?
3. There wasn't enough arc with the butcher scenes. One more in the first half of the movie would have been better.
Other than that, it was predictable but good. I john John Cusack, and quite enjoy Diane Lane, but the movie wasn't bad overall.