Must Love Dogs

This movie is not a romantic comedy . In fact it's not much of a comedy either. The story was okay for a TV Sunday afternoon movie left on while you read the newspaper. I only watched it because I like John Cusack and Diane Lane,the whole cast actually. And I still do... just not as much anymore cause now I've seen them with they're acting skills down and you know that's always embarrassing. This could have been so much more if only it had a real story but Diane and John had no chemistry together. John only had about 3 or 4 scenes and they were so short and unmentionable...I kept waiting for the romantic story between them and it just never happened.I wouldn't suggest anyone even rent this mishap let alone go to the theater for it.

I am so glad this movie was as good as I thought it would be. I have passed by it a hundred times on cable and finally sat back to watch it. I laughed like crazy during the entire movie. Go see it, stop what you are doing and watch it. I thought it was a wonderful movie and I am not even a fan of John Cusak, he is kind of creepy, but I think this movie showed a different side of him. As for Lane I thought she did an even better job in this movie than Under the Tuscan Sun, which was a greatly made movie. Every situation in this movie brings out such a hilarious event. You want to see it again and again, what is up with Lane and Cusak. He should stick to these type of films not the stupid guy in the hotel. Let us ladies be scared of monsters and creeps, leave him to being the lovable guy he is in this film.

I really liked the movie, I saw it in the movies and it was so cute. I loved the way it was put, and it was very funny.:] Diane Lane is such a talented actress and is such a pretty woman, that even though it was a movie, I would be surprised if she had trouble finding a boyfriend. I loved the boys she did choose, and I loved how each man had their own little details, how no two were alike. I know her & Jake make a wonderful couple, and have so much chemistry both off & online.:] This, overall, was an amazing movie. i would recommend it to anyone of any age, I mean who doesn't love a comedy plus a romantic movie. Some may call it a chick flick but I call it a romantic heartwarming tale for anyone young or old who can appreciate some good modern movies.;] Thank you for reading, Krista

Trite. Inane. John Cusack, you have done so many good films in your time. What possessed you to do this poor excuse of a romantic comedy? Diane Lane plays a 40-something individual who has absolutely no control of any aspect of her life except to berate the deli counterman at her local supermarket. Christopher Plummer... I'd hoped to remember him as Captain Von Trapp, not some randy old Irishman who likes to quote poets and juggle three chicks at the same time. For pet lovers, there are plenty of dogs in the movie, but not all of them have four legs and a tail. Most of them are spouting the ridiculous lines of the script. Gee. I can't wait for the sequel!

This in an agreeable film with decent chemistry between Diane Lane and John Cusack, a good supporting cast with real roles to play, and better writing than expected. The problems are twofold. First, there is not that much screen time for Cusack and Lane together or for Cusack alone. The man is funny and has heart so why cut his part so much? Second, the ending is not up to snuff. I wish the screenwriters had worked a bit harder to tie all this together into a more satisfying ending. The last five minutes are significantly lower in quality than what went before, which leaves one disappointed by an otherwise entertaining and funny romantic comedy.

This 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

This movie is pretty bland. About the only saving thing worth the watch are the 2 stars, and even then a lot of the scenes carry little if any chemistry. The movie terribly panders by the numbers and is bereft of emotion. Ended poorly in a fizzle. I didn't like the whole aging Dad side-story - Christopher Plummer hurtin for roles? They could've and and should've skipped that. Too often I'm reminded of the terrible television sitcom that this reminds me of. The dialogue once in awhile makes you grin and a few chuckles, but no real belly laughs. Diane Lane is cute, but seems out of her element a bit. Don't know if her innocent teacher character is believable by her. John Cusack had most of the best lines and plays his usual fast talking character, nervous poor guy. This is barely worth the rental. Sitcom fluff.

I like John Cusak in most all his movies, and I was not disappointed in this little movie. Dianne Ladd was delightful in her part, and it was good to see Stocard Channing working in a part that is her specialty. When I say little movie I mean it, as the story was entertaining but barely. Like most of the movies that are coming out these days the writers seem to have forgotten what a good story is supposed to be, as they are relying on updated reruns like the Dukes of Hazzard etc. This movie should do well when it comes out on a DVD, and that is my suggestion, wait for the DVD to be released (and it will be very soon) and save yourself $8 or 10 bucks. Everything that is coming out now is a rerun, or for the kiddies.