gggg-97

I'm relieved to see I'm not the only one that thought this movie was over-hyped.

The concept was unique, but the story did not unfold in a tenable or compelling way. The main character is nothing but a self-absorbed shell of a ham actor who contemptuously refuses to transition a successful career into talkies. Why bother to care about this character or his self-destructive plight? He looks at virtually every person in his life with complete disdain from beneath a charming actor's mask. And how can one relate to the bubbly fan-turned-love-interest, who admires (then stalks) this shallow idol throughout her own blossoming career (a career apparently built on a fake beauty mark and a closet full of cloche hats)?

The music was distracting (scenes from Vertigo playing over and over in my head). The story was so uninteresting that the spangled costumes, glistening cinematography, and sets laden with vintage autos became the stars. And those soon felt clichéd to the point of unintended amusement. I lost count of how many times I watched a moodily-lit George Valentin toss down his last swallow of booze from a cut crystal old-fashioned glass. The ending fell flat with an awkward dance number finale and a main character unredeemed and unrepentant despite a revelation of sorts.

The dog, however, was delightful.

I find it interesting that so many people cannot grasp the notion that there are many kinds of friendships and many kinds of love affairs. So many people miss the point of the film. We've been taught to believe that lovers must consummate a relationship and become a couple. That our friends are only real if we know them in person. This movie is about how people we may never meet can enrich our lives. In the age of internet relationships, this story has a particularly significant voice.

I chuckled when I read Roger Ebert's review of this movie. How he found it boring and wondered why Helene didn't just jump on a plane to London. Then what? Destroy his marriage? Uproot her career? Or worse, drag this genteel brit back to 1960s New York? The story is about how people can live comfortable, perhaps even mundane lives, and yet find sweet escape through books and letters. The relationship itself is nothing more than restrained words on paper, and yet it's as real as any relationship either of them have with people they see every day. It's real because they share the same passion for the written word. Yes, it is tragic that they never meet. You want them to, but realistically, you know they can't. In the end, we realize they were lovers the whole time, and their love transcended the physical obstacles that kept them apart.

Why does George Sanders always play the cad? I think he's very sexy, and this was the perfect role for him. Too bad Sanders was always cast as the cad/rival. I would like to have seen him as a romantic lead more often. Anyway Sanders and Shearer are delightful and very watchable in this film. They're both extremely talented actors, and the chemistry was believable. Shearer wasn't at her best, and didn't have much of a script to work with, but she proves she's one of the great movie stars - you simply cannot take your eyes off her. However, Taylor stole the show with his brilliant comedic expression and timing. He's a marvelous actor and used those eyebrows to their full potential in "Her Cardboard Lover". This is a very cute romantic romp of a film with some truly funny scenes.

This movie had feeble comedy, no chemistry, and a plot that slogged along as if wading through knee-deep mud. Marta Heflin, presumably cast for her swan-like, melancholic countenance, was unbearably dull. It was as if she was in a Quaalude haze throughout the entire film. I could barely sit through the repeated almost-but-not-quite hookup scenes, watching Heflin affect doe-eyed bashfulness while flimsy garments were peeled off her skeletal shoulders. As for the band scenes, which accounted for nearly half the film, think vocal chords strained very nearly to rupturing and lots of white polyester vests. This movie is a bona-fide stinker. Were there any characters that were at all interesting? Well, there was a crying baby that made a few appearances.

Let me start by saying I don't recall laughing once during this comedy. From the opening scene, our protagonist Solo (Giovanni Ribisi) shows himself to be a self-absorbed, feeble, and neurotic loser completely unable to cope with the smallest responsibilities such as balancing a checkbook, keeping his word, or forming a coherent thought. I guess we're supposed to be drawn to his fragile vulnerability and cheer him on through the process of clawing his way out of a deep depression. I guess we're supposed to sympathize as he stumbles through a series of misadventures seemingly triggered by his purchase of a dog, but in reality brought on by his own contemptible nature. I didn't get the slightest hint at any point that Solo ever possessed any redeeming character, which became disturbingly apparent when he failed to feed his dog for a few days. No spark of humanity or glimmer of conscience gave me hope that he would ever realize his life is so utterly miserable because he's a self- absorbed, self-pitying lowlife. I didn't develop any connection with this character. He didn't seem to care, and so neither did I. I actually wanted him to get his kneecaps busted at one point.

The dog was not a character in the film. It was simply a prop to be used, neglected, scorned, abused, coveted and disposed of on a whim. So be warned. Even though "dog" is in the title, this film is not a romantic comedy for dog lovers.

Scott Caan's role is amusing and believable as the oversexed best friend/cad. Don Cheadle is sincere and magnetic - I always want to see more of him on screen. Mena Suvari was delightfully repellent. Lynn Collins role of a "stripper with a heart" was well acted, but the character was simultaneously absurd and clichéd, not to mention there was zero chemistry between her and Ribisi.

Romantic? Hardly. Comedy? If you say so.