Metascore
46

Mixed or average reviews - based on 36 Critics What's this?

User Score
5.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 43 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: As thirty-something divorced pre-school teacher Sarah Nolan (Lane) braves a series of hilariously disastrous mismatches and first dates, she begins to trust her own instincts again and learns that, no matter what, it's never a good idea to give up on love. (Warner Bros.)
Watch On
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 36
  2. Negative: 8 out of 36
  1. 75
    It's a frisky romantic comedy with a great title and wonderfully appealing performances.
  2. 75
    View it as a fat-free but tasty cinematic treat in the middle of the long, hot summer.
  3. 63
    Bland and forgettable - a romantic comedy with affable characters and some funny lines, but where love never really takes flight. It fizzles when it should sizzle.
  4. Reviewed by: David Gilmour
    50
    What's curious about the film, in an anthropological way, is that it's made up of a series of false human moments yet remains entirely predictable.
  5. Reviewed by: Angel Cohn
    50
    The film makes no real impression; it's amiable, occasionally funny and indistinguishable from dozens of other romantic comedies just like it.
  6. Forces them (the cast) to reenact the entire unabridged Encyclopedia of Treasured Romantic Comedy Clich├ęs and Chestnuts, Revised Second Edition.
  7. No film that requires a woman to jump in water and dogpaddle toward a man has the "sisterhood's" best interests at heart.

See all 36 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 32
  2. Negative: 11 out of 32
  1. NW
    Aug 1, 2006
    10
    I laughed the entire time. Great chemistry and John Cusack is his usual rumpled, hilarious self.
  2. josephm.
    Oct 4, 2005
    8
    It was GREAT i could see it AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN.
  3. BarbaraM.
    Jan 1, 2006
    8
    It was great. Totally enjoyable. Laughed all the way through it. Maybe it is a chic flic but even my husband loved it.
  4. TonyB.
    Dec 22, 2005
    5
    Totally unnecessary and inconsequential, Must Love Dogs is pleasant enough to be palatable. The cast deserves much better material.
  5. MelodyT.
    Jul 1, 2006
    4
    I would compare this movie to the one with Hugh Grant and Sandra Bullock.... No chemistry. The roles they each played wasnt really suited for I would compare this movie to the one with Hugh Grant and Sandra Bullock.... No chemistry. The roles they each played wasnt really suited for them. But i liked the comedy tidbits. Collapse
  6. Elsa
    Dec 21, 2005
    3
    Bland and flat. The characters have no chemistry. It's filled with tired romantic comedy chestnuts, like the family that suddenly bursts Bland and flat. The characters have no chemistry. It's filled with tired romantic comedy chestnuts, like the family that suddenly bursts into a choreographed song at the dinner table. The dog angle was barely used and felt tacked on. It's like a computer created a bad Nora Ephron cloned movie, and this was the result. Expand
  7. BradG.
    Sep 3, 2005
    0
    One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

See all 32 User Reviews

Trailers