Must Love Dogs - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution movie review

'Must Love Dogs': Heart, dialogue, stars

By ELEANOR RINGEL GILLESPIE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

"Must Love Dogs" is a somewhat generic romantic comedy blessed with a generous heart, bright dialogue and irresistible stars. Plus, it's not averse to taking risks.

The biggest risk: this sweet, funny movie insists people can be around 40 and look like Diane Lane and John Cusack and still have romantic problems.

Lane is Sarah, a recently divorced preschool teacher whose family wants her back in the dating game. Perhaps not so much (it's subtly implied) for her peace of mind as for theirs.

Warner Brothers Pictures

'Must Love Dogs'

B-

The verdict: Lightweight but quite likable, with good work from Lane and Cusack.

Director: Gary David Goldberg
Starring: Diane Lane, John Cusack, Elizabeth Perkins, Christopher Plummer, Dermot Mulroney
Run time: 98 minutes
Release date: July 29, 2005
Rating: PG-13 for sexual content.
See showtimes

On the web
Official movie site
View the trailer
Trailers require Quicktime

So a family intervention is staged: Everyone, from her sooo-charming widower dad (the sooo-charming Christopher Plummer) to her loving but meddlesome sisters Carol (Elizabeth Perkins) and Christine (Ali Hillis), assaults her with photos and phone numbers of every available male they know -- available meaning anyone not in bed with a wife, girlfriend, boyfriend or respirator.

Behind her back, her sisters post Sarah's profile on an Internet dating site and the replies come pouring in. Some are, well, generic: the one with a bad toupee, the one prone to crying jags, etc. You know, the sort of parade of bad dates that's graced just about every romantic comedy for the past decade or so.

But here's where "Must Love Dogs" is different. One date, an attractive, age-appropriate, seemingly nice, normal man, takes one look at the drop-dead-gorgeous Sarah and says, point-blank, sorry, I'm looking for someone younger.

You never heard something like that in a Meg Ryan movie.

Such unexpected and all-too-credible moments are what set "Must Love Dogs" apart. Another difference: Cusack's Jake is the romantic here. He's the yearner, the idealist. We know that because he builds boats with integrity -- hand-polished wood, not plastic. And because he, not she, is the one who mopes in front of the TV watching his favorite movie, "Dr. Zhivago," which sets up a terrifically funny scene later on.

Dermot Mulroney turns up as Bob, another potential suitor who initially comes off as a lot more suitable for Sarah than Jake. Plummer gets to wrap his plummy voice around a Yeats poem. Perkins plays the tart, smart second female lead with easy assurance. And Jordana Spiro gives a heads-up, who's-that performance as a dim but likable bimbo Jake takes to -- what else -- "Dr. Zhivago" who can't understand his obsession with "all these depressed Russians freezing their [butts] off."

Emmy-winning writer-director Gary David Goldberg does fall back on familiar romantic comedy contrivances -- chance meetings, idiotic misunderstandings, the big "I Love You!" finale. But again, he'll try something not so routine. For instance, a late-night chase all over town for a condom -- an unconventional and grown-up way to postpone sex between the two leads. (Thus keeping their relationship on a lighter note for a while.)

That's not to say he doesn't make some glaring mistakes. Like the entire sappy soundtrack and the sisters' pleeeease-don't sing-along of "The Partridge Family" theme.

Basically, Goldberg's movie is character-based. Sarah and Jake are treated as credibly clever, literate people. They're quick on the uptake, not quipsters. It helps that they're played by two such captivating, seductive actors who share a rare trait: they both appeal to both sexes. Cusack's Jake has the same endearingly awkward ardor as his character in "Say Anything." Lane, though not as adept at romantic comedy, makes us believe someone like Sarah can be insecure and, when needed, cuttingly caustic.

And about the dogs . . . well, they're not as central to the story as the title implies. Still, it's nice to know they were considered an intrinsic part of the picture. We're told at the end, "No dogs were harmed during the making of this film. But they were petted within an inch of their lives."