Procura-se um Amor que Goste de Cachorros

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.

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.

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)

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.

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