Sarah (Lane) is a kindergarten teacher who is now divorced and her family refuses to let her wallow in despair. So her sister Carol (Perkins) puts Sarah's profile on an Internet dating service, using her high school graduation picture and the word "voluptuous." Meanwhile, Jake (John Cusack), who is also now divorced, finds that his friend has answered Sarah's add placed by Carol in his (Jake's) name. So Sarah and Jack meet, each taking a dog that does not belong to them, and it does not go well. This strikes us as being odd since they are obviously perfect for each other (their names appear before the titles, which is always a good clue). But then when Sarah answers a personal add in the paper it turns out to be placed by her widowed father (Plummer), so odd is apparently her lot in life. Besides, Sarah is interested in Bob (Mulroney), the father of one her students, even though obviously he is charm without substance. Consequently, you have this 98-minute film, take off five minutes for the end credits and add another five to that total and figure out that at around the 88-minute mark Sarah will (a) figure out Jake is the guy for her and (b) do something about it. The 2005 film is based on Claire Cook's novel, but since Gary David Goldberg did the screenplay and directed the film the fault lies not with the stars but with the guy who created "Family Ties" and "Spin City." For me the point where the film derails is when Sarah goes to the store to buy a chicken for dinner. The butcher tries to push a complete fryer on her for an extra 75 cents, but she does not want it and finally explodes. The guy is not hitting on her, just trying to help, so instead of the scene being comic because she has to confess to being divorced and not needing more it just makes her seem rude. It sets up a running gag with a bit of a payoff at the end, but by then it is too little too late. You understand that the characters are behind the viewers in that we know these two will end up together and they do not. There are obstacles thrown in their way, but they are so minor and transparent they should not matter. Then we get to the point where Sarah realizes she really likes Jake and goes to tell him only to discover he is on a date. This would be a bad sign. But the date in question makes it painfully obvious that she is from Pluto while Jake is from Venus (I also love "Doctor Zhivago"). The girl should be the only one in the scene who does not know that Jake is going to unhook her and throw her back in the sea, but, no, Sarah cannot see the obvious either (Jake sure can). The final nail in the coffin is when we get to the grand romantic gesture at the end that brings the couple together, because compared to standing there with a ghetto blaster playing "In Your Eyes," what this film comes up with is all wet.
Our Price: £3.37 (subject to change)
A pretty good cast is wasted in this romantic comedy
Review date: 2005-12-23 Rating: 6 out of 10
"Must Love Dogs" is not so much a bad romantic comedy as it is a disappointing one. That is because it features a strong cast that has Diane Lane and John Cusack as the romantic leads, with Elizabeth Perkins, Christopher Plummer, Dermot Mulroney and Stockard Channing is the supporting roles. I had a crush of Diane Lane when she was on the cover of "TIME" for being in "A Little Romance" and was grateful when she grew up so that such feelings were no longer inappropriate. I have liked John Cusack since before "Say Anything" (starting with "Eight Men Out" in fact), and have admired his choices for roles (and siblings). Put these two together in a romantic comedy and I might actually go to the theater to see it instead of waiting until it comes out on DVD. But I did not and I have to say I am glad that was the case.