Phillyist thought romantic comedies were supposed to make us feel all warm and squishy about love; and so we went to Must Love Dogs expecting to weep happily into our popcorn, grinning dopily at leading man John Cusack (on whom Phillyist has crushed since The Journey of Natty Gann) as we wished we were in leading lady Diane Lane's place. Instead we were left squirming in our seats, our deep-seated fear of Internet dating validated ten-fold.

Jake (Cusack) and Sarah (Lane) are both recently-divorced, late 30-somethings (he a boat artisan, she a pre-school teacher) still nursing the wounds of heartache, who are shanghaied into Internet dating by a cast of butt-inski well-meaning friends and family. As one expects, there is awkwardness. There are shennanigans. However, despite a few poorly motivated laughs, the heart-felt hilarity one expects never quite ensues.

Dogs fundamentally fails on three levels: characters, chemistry and content. It's difficult to care about anyone in this movie; the supporting cast is lackluster (with the possible exception of Stockard Channing, who's too-little screentime as Dolly, would-be-girlfriend to Sarah's widower father, introduces some much needed depth and emotion to the film); Lane is cute but uninteresting; and even Cusack - perhaps all too comfortable in his familiar role as a grown-up version of Lloyd Dobler (charmingly cynical, idealistically jaded, and prone to short, fast-talking monolouges in which he reveals small truths about life) - fails to bring much more to the screen than his reluctant, crinkly-eyed grin and a few good sulks. Furthermore, although there is palpable chemistry between Lane and Dermot Mulrooney (the competitive love interest) - there is virtually none between she and Cusack. Their romantic interactions seem unnatural and forced - leaving audiences to wonder not if they will end up together, but rather should they.

Which brings me to my biggest complaint about Must Love Dogs - the content. Prone to the occassional joke, Dogs keeps insisting that it's a comedy - and yet the entire narrative provides an overwhelmingly bleak look at life and love. Not only do the main characters struggle with the pain, perils and indiginties of dating; but even the partnered well-wishers around them suffer from various stages of romantic dysfunction. (In fact, by the end, it is only the painfully vapid that seem truly happy when it comes to romance) Watching, one wonders if it's not so much that Sarah and Jake's family and friends want them to be happy - but rather that they want them to renew their own shattered hopes and fantasies about romance and love. (Either that - or they think it's high time Sarah and Jake quit their crying start suffering properly along with the rest of them).

The biggest disappointment is that Must Love Dogs could have worked as an interesting exploration of romance and the meaning of love (and Love)if only the movie had been willing to develop the one-or-two emotionally honest moments in the film instead of relying on the cuteness combo of unaturally frank children and furry, big-eyed canines to tug on the audience's heartstrings.

Phillyist knows the advertising for this film has "date movie" written all-over it; but unless you're at the gooey the-world-is-beautiful-and-everyone-should-be-in-love stage of your relationship - Must Love Dogs will likely spell Date Disaster. In fact, Dogs spends a surprising amount of time building up Dr. Zhivago is the quintissential, big screen love story - so we recommend that you skip Must Love Dogs, order a pizza, pop Zhivago into your DVD player and watch it with your favorite companion (canine or otherwise) instead.

Photo credit: Internet Movie Poster Awards Gallery