MovieChat Forums > Must Love Dogs (2005) Discussion > No chemistry between Cusack and Lane

No chemistry between Cusack and Lane

posted 18 years ago by natasha_fatale
17 replies | jump to latest

Could it be because Lane is married to "wifebeater" Josh Brolin, who used to be engaged to Minnie Driver and she was involved with John Cusack? Vicious circle isn't?

As for the movie itself, the first part and second act were good, it fell apart right after the charming Cusack/Plummer repartee. It felt like the third act was chopped off and rushed into a cliched ending. Many of the supporting parts were horribly miscast (the sisters and Cusack's best friend) and they totally ruined the potential suitor, Bobby, which did a complete 180º character-wise. Ugh!

John, why did you have to make this piece of drivel???? You are better than this.

[–] pianocellolove 18 years ago

It was a cute movie but as I watched it, something was amiss. It must be chemistry 'cause I don't quite understand why. It had plenty of humor and irony but I just could not go along with it overall. I guess having been there and done that, per the theme, it made me kinda cynical regarding the plot of this movie yet overall I enjoyed it.

Peace.
PCL

[–] ubu55 18 years ago

Agreed, no chemistry.

I was put off from the family scene, beginning of the movie, on: contrived, tedious, NOT funny...
and if it weren't for Cusack, wouldn't have continued to watch at all. Lane is bland, and (apart from a completely rewritten script) her part could have been far better filled by several other actresses.

You make me wish my handle was Boris Badenov!

[–] do-bye 18 years ago

hard to say.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chelpablo 18 years ago

I love John Cusack. I love Diane Lane.

I don't like them together.

Absolutely no chemistry.

[–] laozii 17 years ago

I agree there is no chemistry between them their relationship is quite forced and there aren't even many scenes of them together

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446059/board/nest/54071938

[–] Isaac5855 16 years ago

I still stick by my opinion that Lane was miscast in this film.

[–] ravmeltt 16 years ago

Again I totally agree. I think it would have either been better if Dermot Mulroney had played the lead instead of John Cusack, or a different actress play alongside Cusack instead of Diane Lane. They had absolutely no chemistry together. It really felt like two adults playing a high school movie, yet the actors were too old for the part. Not that Diane and John are old, but the movie made you notice their age because you felt like you were watching a high school movie with adult actors in the roles. I could have seen Michelle Monagahan in Lane's role. Just my thoughts. For those who don't remember her, check out Mission Impossible III and North Country.

[–] RainyCloudz 15 years ago

I agree with the posts above. I usually like rom-coms, but this one was hard to get through bc there weren't any sparks or anyone to root for. Lane's character was unlikeable, and I didn't find Cusack endearing enough. He was kinda creepy actually. I didn't know why they kept seeing each other after the 2nd date, as there was only a tiny spark of chemistry between them.

[–] mlhalls 15 years ago

I agree there is no chemistry between Cusack and Lane. Lane's lines are meant to be funny but she doesn't come across funny at all

[–] dwp2 15 years ago

I was just thinking the same thing about Dermot Mulroney! He had much, much better chemistry with Diane Lane. John Cusack is a personal favorite of mine, and I've seen him create chemistry with many leading ladies, but he and Diane played this movie like they were first cousins who'd never much cared for each other.

[–] Danusha_Goska 12 years ago

when a movie is this bad it's hard to isolate one bad feature among m any, but, yeah, the lack of chemistry just made it all a slog

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]