Touches You

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Just discovered this film and its in my favourites especially for those rainy evenings. Its full of wonderful actors and the writing contrary to some other reviews is witty and charming and so relevant- if you have ever internet dated this captures most of how wrong it could go. The delicious Christopher Plummer still with a twinkle in his eye, reciting Keats is masterful. The FAB Stockard Channing as an ageing internet dater is wonderful - Diane Ladd and John Cusack should be together always - what great actors- John Cuscack is John Cusack thankfully in this film - his lines are funny and great. I loved it ! Diane Ladd is such a wonderful actress and is just right in this film - I don't think I have ever seen her in a comedy. I honestly thought the writing was great and witty and fun ! A feelgood film. ( Oh and the dogs are great!)

Sometimes I like watching easy movies, when I have a slow afternoon and the TV's running in the background. I would like to point out however that regardless of how easy-going and mystery-free the movie is, it should contain some valuable story. This is one of the several movies, the ending of which I saw happening in my mind after I've seen the first 5 minutes of the film (another one like this was the 1995 remake of "Sabrina"). And when I say 5 minutes, I am not hyperbolising - I mean it literally. Opening credits included.So, yeah, if you're looking for a good movie and none of your favourite actors are featured in this one - skip it. It's not worth it.

Must Love Dogs is for John Cusack fans, because honestly, the story line is kind of boring. Cusack plays his usual philosophical forlorn character with excessive dialogs that we all love. The problem is, that's the only interesting part of the movie. Diane Lane is good, but her characters is very bland, just as every other ones.Everything about the film is kind of average, without spunk or spark. It's the type of chick flick that Hollywood loves to churn out because they know they'll make money. The recipe is tried and true. I've watched it a number of time, so I can say you'll be entertained, but that's about it.You want something simple to pass the evening away without being disappointed, this could be it for you.

The title is misleading, in that dogs do not really feature in this story. This is a failed attempt to make a romantic comedy. The recipe: add John Cusack and stir, as everybody likes him, since he is the archetypal 'Mr. Nice Guy'. Diane Lane is OK as the love interest, so add her to the mix. Think of a cute title. Keep stirring. But this mixture does not gel. The reason for that is the appalling and rather nasty assumption upon which it is all based: Diane Lane, having divorced, cannot be a real person with a real life unless she pairs up with another man without delay. So she is relentlessly pressured on all sides by friends and numerous family to find a man, any man, just a man. Then they can all relax and stop worrying about her. But this is nonsense and is an insult to women. Why should a woman be a 'failure' because she lives alone? Or does not go out and find a man? She is pressured by her sister into having an internet date. Her sister sends in the form. So she goes, reluctantly, and guess whom she meets? Her own father sitting there with a yellow rose waiting for the girl he is expecting from the internet to come along, which is her. This is meant to be funny. Ha ha ha ha. But I am not laughing at the joke, I am laughing at the pathetic film makers who concocted this offensive and revolting film. May they all lose their relevant organs in punishment! And may they never make a film again, please. I notice that the director and co-author Gary Goldberg has made nothing since. He does not deserve to. And as for Claire Cook, who wrote the novel, she should hang her head in shame, although there is no sign that she has any.