Procura-se um Amor que Goste de Cachorros

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.

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.

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.

Divorcée Diane Lane, a teacher going on eight months without a man, meets a divorced boat-maker through her personals ad on the internet; it's a tremulous courtship, hindered by her resistant attraction for the father of one of her students. Writer-director Gary David Goldberg, working from Claire Cook's novel, pitches this familiar material a bit high, and the whole scenario is rather unlikely. The boat-maker (a nicely restrained John Cusack) must have won the Lotto since he has never sold one of his handmade creations, and, except for a few early scenes at her school, Lane seems to be on a permanent vacation. However, it is escapist fare; one doesn't watch a popcorn-and-roses romantic comedy such as this looking for realism. The two stars share a dryly frazzled, witty repartee which is engaging, and Goldberg's old-fashioned comic timing works exceptionally well here. Although her role doesn't call for great modulation, Lane gamely plays up to the 'cute' writing and creates a fetching character. Her bustling, busy, family-friendly world looks so comfortable to live in, it is a little perplexing why she feels so alone. Set that aside--as well as the comic book finale--and there's a good movie here, one with a warm heart and put-downs (when they come) which are gentle and in tune with the overall playful spirit. *** from ****

Pairing attractive actors with cute dogs is something Hollywood loves to present, again, and again. This is a film that has that "cute factor" written all over it. Fortunately, we caught it in the form of a borrowed DVD, never having the stomach to spend full price on this formula comedy.

Director Gary David Goldberg's take on this situation doesn't bring anything new. The film is harmless enough not to offend anyone, but in retrospect, one has to wonder why was the film made in the first place? Poor Diane Lane, she keeps showing up in these inane comedies that don't do anything for her. She is a beautiful woman who could do better, but whoever is advising her keeps steering her in the wrong direction, unfortunately. Ditto for John Cusack. One wonders what attracted actors of the stature of Christopher Plummer and Stockard Channing to appear in a movie that will certainly not add anything in their C.V.s.

The cute Newfoundland puppies that were used in the movie should have been given more opportunities to show their talents.