Partnerperfetto.com

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.