Must Love Dogs Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
The hardest trick is making them stay.
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.
| Diane Lane | Sarah Nolan |
| John Cusack | Jake |
| Elizabeth Perkins | Carol |
| Christopher Plummer | Bill |
| Dermot Mulroney | Bob |
| Stockard Channing | Dolly |
| Ali Hillis | Christine |
| Brad William Henke | Leo |
| Julie Gonzalo | June |
| Glenn Howerton | Michael |
| Ben Shenkman | Charlie |
| Jordana Spiro | Sherry |
| Kirk Trutner | Deli Guy |
| Victor Webster | Eric |
| Michael Spound | Marc |
| Gary David Goldberg |
5.90 out of 10 (9463 votes)
Visitor Reviews
The dogs are lovable but the movie......................
posted on 20 Aug 2009Only in the movies will you find a recently divorced 40ish female (with no children?) being pressured by her siblings to find another mate immediately. Nothing like getting back on the horse you just fell off. The whole plot is simply terrible with no chemistry between Diane Lane and either of the leading men--John Cusak and Dermot Mulroney. The movie totally drops the ball when Lane's character sleeps with one of the leading men. A complete turn off for the viewers. Cusak seems oddly out of place the entire movie. No funny moments and why the "Must Like Dogs" title? Probably couldn't think of a better line--like "Must Like Turkey's". The addition of a family Psychologist would have worked wonders for the plot.
Very good romantic comedy
posted on 16 Aug 2009Diane Lane and John Cusack are individually wonderful and together, they are captivating. I wanted to see more of them together...maybe a sequel..."Must Love Kids" Just Kidding. All the characters were enjoyable. I really liked the her family-crazy but loving. Christopher Plummer did a great job as her Dad. I used to be so in love with him from The Sound of Music, and he was still as handsome in this film. Diane Lane and Elizabeth Perkins are best friends in real life, and that chemistry was fun to watch on the screen. No one does that nervous talking thing better that John Cusack. That goes way back to his early films like Better Off Dead and the classic, Say Anything. John...you can Say Anything and I will buy a ticket!
Shorten it up...
posted on 10 Aug 2009I wanted to go see "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," but was outvoted by the woman in my house. Who's sorry now? I wan't bowled over... Too much "chick" and not enough "flick?" Maybe I was just annoyed by the really so-so performances of Lane and Cusack and the really awful performance by Dermot Mulroney! It was a very nice story; Diane Lane is as beautiful as ever,Plummer and Channing were just wonderful, but while it was a good film, as stories go, it didn't thrill me. Maybe it would have been better with a few less or better thought scenes (the fifteen year old boy used as a device to get Sarah to the trailer court was just not well thought out). It was a little long. 45 minutes would have told the story.
Upbeat, fun flick - go see Must Love Dogs.
posted on 04 Aug 2009You just know that I couldn't wait until the opening next week - so, about a half dozens friends & I went to the Sneak Preview Sat. night. EVERYONE loved the movie. The lines were hilarious. My friends all want to read the book now. They were impressed with the writing and especially all the funny banter. We just had a great time and to quote a line from the movie....WAHOOOO!Far be it that we would go to an opening without a little excitement. About half way thru the movie (actually at the Thanksgiving dinner table) - the ceiling fell out - no, really. We were at a multiplex cinema in Ridgefield Park, NJ. Luckily we were sitting towards the rear - cause the MOVIE WAS PACKED (bought our tickets in advance on fandango)....anyway ...all of a sudden - the ceiling (tiles) were pouring down on us. To tell you the truth - we all thought we were under attack - Ridgefield Park is directly across the Hudson River from NYC. We were relieved to find out that it was just! structural damage. No one was hurt and NO ONE LEFT the theater. Too engrossed with the movie, so, after the initial excitement, the movie resumed AND we were all given free passes to the theater.....You can bet we will be at the opening as well. It was an evening full of theatrical firsts. Anyway, it was great entertainment ~ our crowd all left on an upbeat note...it's a feel good movie.... CONGRATULATIONS ..definitely going to be a hit.
I REALLY LIKED THIS... and I usually hate romantic comedies
posted on 05 Jul 2009I usually hate romantic films but i really, really liked this film. The writing and dialogue were zippy and fresh and free of cliché. The acting was fabulous by everyone in the cast especially the cute Diane Lane and the quirky John Cusack. The film is a very enjoyable experience and one that guys can like if they allow themselves to flow with the tide of it's relaxed and clever humor. I really liked the way the characters interacted and the chemistry was very palpable between Cusack and Diane Lane. I'm not a lover of romantic films but this is easily the best one i've sat through in a long, long time. Kudos to everyone for a really good film. Fabulous stuff.
It's funny, it's cute, and that's all it's intended to be
posted on 23 Jun 2009I'm finding it hard to believe that so many people on this website trashed this movie. Some of you really need to get over your pseudo-intellectual film school student snobbery, and others of you need to appreciate the humor in something other than a Three Stooges short. Yes, I'm male. Yes, I'm 48 years old. Yes, I have a doctorate. Yes, I've seen several movies (including foreign ones that are NOT the dubbed versions) that many of you haven't even HEARD of, never mind that they have more profundity than some of you would be capable of "getting"...and no, I'm NOT embarrassed, nor should I be, in divulging that I've also seen my share of light romantic comedies over the years. Look, light romantic comedies are just that. If you wanted to see Citizen Kane, then you should have gone to a revival theater in Greenwich Village somewhere, and if you wanted to see least common denominator humor because it's "funny," then go to your local Blockbuster and rent Tommy Boy again or a movie where there are at least THREE uproariously "funny" kicks to the groin. As some of you (thankfully) appreciated, there's a lot of cute and quick-witted banter in this movie, as well as some things that are funny simply by facial expression alone. The acting is just fine in this movie throughout, if not better than average. While I DO agree that there are some elements that challenge one's suspension of disbelief (something common in ALL romantic comedies if not movies in general), and some parts WERE in fact predictable and sappy in a "romantic comedy formula" sort of way, that does NOT make this a bad movie. Listen, I LOVE the movie "Clerks" and I defy you to name me a movie that has more "forced" dialogue in it than THAT...yet THAT movie is a RIOT. Why? Because the scriptwriting has inherently funny "banter" in it. That's why. Do yourselves a favor and just keep it simple before you believe these ridiculously overanalyzed negative reviews. If you're in the mood for a light romantic comedy, this one's a good one and will do what it was made to do...entertain you. There's nothing wrong with "cute and funny" when you're in the mood for it.
Decent chick-flick
posted on 15 Jun 2009The movie has received mixed reviews from bad to great. One thing the film definitely is is a 100% chick flick! I can't imagine many men enjoying the movie. And it's not only men that probably wouldn't enjoy it, women who have been married for a long time and never really experienced single life probably wouldn't be too into the movie as well. 'Must Love Dogs' is told almost completely from the POV of single women struggling to make it in a marriage-dominated society while also dealing with dating pressures. One of the faults I found with the film is just that-what about the struggles of single men? They did delve briefly into Jake's loneliness, but I feel that this should of been touched upon more. That character should of been developed more. And why did Jake suddenly decide to saw his beloved boat in half after all at the end? I don't recall any reason being given for this decision. I also found the sing-along scene to the Partridge Family song really stupid and out of place. It did not come across as a funny, impromptu family sing-along as it was supposed to. But that's all I have with the criticism. 'Must Love Dogs' is very funny, clever, and just the right amount of milquetoast sweet without being drippy or obnoxious. 'Beaches' it is most definitely not, thankfully! Christopher Plummer gives an Oscar-worthy excellent performance, I hope he gets nominated next year. Diane Lane and John Cusack are terrific as usual. I
A Real Mess
posted on 13 Jun 2009It's hard to think that John Cusack could make a really bad film, but this is it! This film doesn't work on any level - even the editing seems forced, the pacing poor, the jokes stale, the cutaways forced. Yes, it's a mindless romantic comedy, but they are all mindless for the most part; they are supposed to also be fun and have some life to them - this "dog" has neither. Compare it with another Cusack romantic comedy, "Serendipity" - which is as the very least charming, with a good buddy turn by Jeremy Piven as well (Ben Shenkman tries to do Piven in this film and fails). Serendipity also has chemistry and an interest in the characters fate - in this film, you're not sure why you should care about these people. Overall, a waste of time, even on HBO.
To Begin With
posted on 01 Jun 2009Hollywood was dead: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of its demise was signed by this movie and countless other samples of schlock. And Hollywood's name was good upon 'Change, for anything they chose to put their hand to. Hollywood was as dead as a door-nail.Likewise dead were the US movie critics. Berardinelli gives it 2 1/2 because he's a twit. He even calls it 'easily-digestible'. Evidently he can swallow strange stuff. Justin Chang of Variety commits the ultimate indiscretion in calling the screenplay 'literate'.Carina Chocano pegs it accurately however when she writes 'Must Love Dogs must not love movies very much'. And Neil Smith of the BBC hits the door nail right on the head when he writes that Lane's earlier Oscar nomination looks less and less deserved.But it's not Lane's fault and it's certainly not Cusack's fault - in fact it's none of the actors fault - you can even see how poorly they're directed and how painful some of the scenes were to play.Must Love Dogs is an insult: it's the kind of insult only a dead movie industry would dare come up with. It's effrontery. It perseveres only because said movie industry have a near 100% hegemony in the domestic theatre market. Even Turkish romantic comedies - if there are such - would rate better than this.Need someone to blame? Go all the way back. This abomination was supposedly based on a novel. By one Claire Cook. So start there. Next on the chopping block is Gary David Goldberg who unequivocally demonstrated his lack of talent by writing the screenplay. Goldberg is also the director and producer, so he's into this up past his eyeballs.Warner Bros and Fox are involved in financing and distributing it, so they're on the firing line too.But the ultimate cinema criminal here has got to be the boob who suggested taking this abortion and making it into a movie in the first place.Shoot them all.
For fans of LifeTime channel only
posted on 26 May 2009I felt something was wrong with this movie the second the titles appeared on the screen. (They were nothing--NOTHING--just white letters totally devoid of a concept, no imagination whatsoever) Still, I wanted to like the movie so I hunkered down with my popcorn and my date and . . there were a couple of chuckles, not many, John and Diane just didn't have much chemistry at all . . . . After I woke up I took my date to see the Wedding Crashers. Go see it, it is funny, genuinely cute, everything a romantic comedy should be--and then some. (But, you know this already)OK, enough of being nice. Here goes. . . . If you like dogs you'll love this movie. No, not real dogs. Dog movies, like Gigli . . . Ishtar . . Woof Woof, I think you have to blame the director on this one. Whomever it was he/she/it didn't have a vision. Or a script. Every stupidly overwritten, cloyingly cute scene played like something on the LifeTime channel and the camera couldn't even succeed in making the ethereal beautiful Diane look good. She looked both saggy and skinny and five years (no make that seven) older than a puffy for no apparent reason) John Cusack. Don't waste your money. Don't even rent it--just see Breakfast at Tiffanys (again) instead.
Do NOT rent this movie!
posted on 24 May 2009When we decided to rent this movie, we saw the trailer, and thought that because Diane Lane and John Cusack were actors in some great films, that this must be great. The trailer was pretty good. After the first 10 minutes, my wife says "Wow, this is kinda slow", and that was just the beginning.The movie turned out to be terrible. The characters were so unrealistic. Their interactions lacked chemistry, and the "wit" was actually awkward, and in my opinion, an embarrassing embellishment on the filmography of either of these main characters.If this movie has done anything, it has officially turned Diane Lane into a stereotyped role of a divorced woman who has to either find herself or someone else to make her happy. I think that when I was watching this, it was playing out in such a predictable fashion, that it was almost nauseating. Save your money, and DO NOT rent this one.
Witty romantic comedy, with a new way to find love that's thru the internet!
posted on 20 May 2009"Must Love Dogs" is about as amusing and simple a romantic comedy as it's title suggest. This movie is one as you watch you feel the need to laugh, but you feel a drag and a boring feeling as the script just seems so easy to follow it foreshadows a happy ending that you know what's going to happen. The story is a little interesting with Diane Lane as a mid 40's divorced and depressed school teacher who simply cannot find a date and also has given up on love, until her sister puts her profile on a match.com web site. She has lots of dates with losers, weepers, and weirdos, until she meets a guy named Jake whose a boat builder(John Cusack) that's the true love at first sight. Only she passes her true love by, only to later learn that was the one and she learns a lesson that sometimes to find love you must go back to that one chance after you've broken a heart. Overall this film is OK due to the sexy Diane Lane and witty lines, and the good acting from a veteran cast such as John Cusack, Christopher Plummer, Stockard Channing, and Elizabeth Perkins. Yet overall this film has very little touching moments and foreshadows it's story so you will know the ending and it's funny wit never makes it seem serious.
Boring is the word, average is another word, this film is not that good
posted on 18 May 2009This was another average romantic comedy. It was semi-successful because Cusack can act and Diane Lane wasn't too bad either. Dermot Mulrooney, Plummer and Channing provided some good backup performances. The jokes in the film were not bad but other than that, just another simple plot, decent acting and directing for a good family film... if it weren't for Cusack and PLummer i don't think i could have gave this film a respectful ranking... however it did finish up decently and overall was not a complete waste of time like some other films in its genre, although it was just to slow to be called "good" because it defeintely is not good, mediocre to be nice...7/10
Feel good comedy Romance not about dogs - much
posted on 14 May 2009Good feel good movie especially for anyone having gone through a break up/divorce and feeling pretty low. The write up for this film says it is a forty-something woman that the film is about however I'm pretty sure she is thirty-something (37 i think is mentioned at one stage) not that this matters I just wanted to set the record straight ;) The film is a little cheesy in places but the actors in the film carry it off well. Not at all soppy but a little romantic and a touch funny with a good cast and not bad story line. Stockard Channings character was a little misplaced i thought but still it adds to the odd mix of cast. All in all a good film especially if like me you like John Cusack.
Adorable, not spectacular. (possible spoilers)
posted on 10 May 2009When I first saw previews for this, I wanted to see it not only because it was a romantic comedy with a great cast, but I wanted to see if Diane Lane would pull off the divorcée role yet again and not seem irritated by her recent typecast.What I found was a laid-back movie that seemed more down-to-earth and believable than other romantic comedies I've seen (if that's possible). In this film, a recently divorced woman struggles with the re-adjustment to the single life amidst her family's ongoing game of trying to play Cupid which is further fueled when her married sister posts a profile of Lane's character on an online dating site. The plot unfolds gradually without confusing sudden turns, although the path is predictable. True, the film has its corny moments, but it adds to its charm.Overall, it's a film with its spotlight moments, which are mainly comebacks or comments. No one outshines the other. Definitely a suggestion if you like chick flicks, or if you wish to see yet another variation of the romantic comedy scenario.
DIANE LANE shines in this fantastic film full of witty dialogue and funny scenes
posted on 26 Apr 2009I originally was put off this film because I thought it was going to be routine and clichéd, but it wasn't it was a very large cut-above the usual romantic film. DIANE LANE was exceptional as Sarah Nolan the lead character and she shows that she can do comedy as well as the powerful drama that she is known for. She has a great cast backing her up, namely ELIZABETH PERKINS, DERMOT MULRONEY, STOCKARD CHANNING, CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER and the wonderful JOHN CUSACK who steals many of his scenes with his quirky and funny style. The film is not flawless but it was never gonna be. Name me a flawless romantic comedy!? However, I believe that this is a great example of a quality romantic film done right and done well. The film is very likable and very funny. It is entertaining from start to finish and boasts great performances from it's starry cast especially JOHN CUSACK and DIANE LANE. Very highly recommended!
Fluff yes, but played for all its worth by a fine cast
posted on 24 Apr 2009MUST LOVE DOGS is everything you'd expect it to be with a title like that: a silly rehash of internet dating, this time with older candidates all recently divorced, trying not to appear to ridiculous in this cyberworld of instant matchmaking. The script is weak, the story old hat, but with a cast like this, who cares? Watching the likes of Diane Lane, Elizabeth Perkins, John Cusack, Stockard Channing, Dermot Mulroney, and Christopher Plummer in an ensemble covers a lot of cracks in a flimsy script. The overall effect seems to be one of an attempt to make a statement about the current conditions of relationships in the computer age among divorced people. It doesn't: it just throws out a lot of clichés which are delivered with as much panache as possible by this cast of talented actors, seemingly on break! Grady Harp
One of the worst movies I've ever seen
posted on 18 Apr 2009If you thought Under the Tuscan Sun was good you might like this too. It had the same lame acting and awful writing.I must confess I think Diane Lane is gorgeous, although she's looking a little older now, and that's attracted me to her movies. But frankly, she's chosen two of the worst movies in a row.The screenplay is pathetic with no subtlety whatsoever. Predictable pay-offs (the chicken guy), lame dialog and a totally unbelievable story. What preschool teacher previously married to a fireman could afford a house like this? Why is everyone in her family acting like morons about getting her fixed up again? The ending is ridiculous. She throws herself into the water and swims to her 3 date love! Come on people!!!!The only thing worse about this was that a few people in the audience were laughing at every pathetic joke! I can't believe I stayed until the end. I guess I love dogs!!!
Mr Kite Somersaults
posted on 08 Apr 2009There 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.
Veteran cast rescues a ho-hum script
posted on 24 Aug 2009This movie doesn't have a mean bone in its body, even if it also doesn't have an original thought in its head. The screenplay, about two people who meet through personal ads and then fall in love, might have been cryogenically frozen in, say, 1998 and only just thawed out (see You've Got Mail or Sleepless in Seattle or ...). There are cringe-making moments (the Partridge Family singalong, Diane Lane's "date" with her father, the super-suspenseful scull chase), as well as some insufficiently developed subplots (I had trouble following the character arcs of the various dogs, and the running gag with the butcher did nothing for me). But never mind. Any time you can get Diane Lane, John Cusack, Christopher Plummer, Stockard Channing, Dermot Mulroney, and Elizabeth Perkins (the queen of the best-friend roles) together in the same movie, you know there are going to be some memorable moments, and there are. Hearing Christopher Plummer, one of the great Shakespeareans, recite Yeats's Brown Penny gave me goosebumps. He's equally moving in the scene where he talks about his marriage with his late wife. Stockard Channing gives real vitality to a somewhat hackneyed character, and John Cusack is as charming as always, if a tad less cute than he was in Say Anything. But the movie really belongs to Diane Lane, a talented and beautiful actress who hasn't had the career she deserves. For my money, she ought to have been churning out romantic comedies for the last twenty years (even though she's only just turned 40). If you're in a sentimental mood, by all means rent the DVD, especially if you're the kind of person who tears up when you hear the Dr. Zhivago theme.