I was recently surfing through the on demand section of my Time Warner Cable subscription, perusing the “aisles” of premium movies under the moniker “HBO”. I stumbled upon the romantic comedy “Must Love Dogs”; a film which I have heard of yet never viewed. I suppose it was my interest in what this film was about or perhaps the fact that I simply am a dog enthusiast to say the least (I even talk to dogs in that annoying high pitched voice that only you and the dog actually think is cute) but I decided to select the film and dive in.

The thing that I find most significant about “Must Love Dogs”, a romantic comedy attempting to strike at the 30-something demographic of hopeless romantics is its utilization of divorce as a protagonistic theme. Both of our potential lovers had recently gone through one and talk about the event in a fashion that is clearly trying to relate to the viewer. This is the scary part: Divorce is a concept that American culture can “relate” to? In 1999, over 1,163,000 divorces were granted in the United States with 10% of our population being a divorcee. Just about everyone one way or another has been touched by divorce in some way and the concept has become sadistically romantic, everyone can relate in some way to the “feeling” of divorce.

The second theme I found extraordinarily odd in the movie is the reoccurring theme of having an openly gay friend as the supporting role to the female character. Stop and think about this for a moment, how many people actually have a best friend thats openly gay? In a society where over two thirds of people are unsupportive of the gay lifestyle, it seems statistically out of place that in the vast majority of films would have this role in place. This is not to say that I have an opinion either way, that is not the point of this article. The point is to merely highlight the cultural significance that a town in Los Angeles holds. A town thats not particularly controlled by the most “normal” or “logical” people (see: every celebrity being completely insane).

The last point of interest I think is extremely interesting about (the first 15 minutes) this film is the unabashed attempt to include every fopah of the human race. Every single conversation that does not actually happen in real life yet culture seems to think every conversation people have is about is included in this movie. The concept of sex in every situation (or the assumption that every viewer or person in the human race dates purely to hump), the fact that everyone seems to be “sad” (or have a best friend whos obviously sad - an oddity that comes about from the fact that absolutely no real male in the entire world would be so damn open about the fact that they are, in reality, a chick) and the ironic situation that seems to associate everyone will putting themselves in an awkward situation with a family member or friend.

In the end I really think this movie is culturally significant only because it is so culturally retarded. Every concept in this movie is such an obvious attempt at pointing out the obvious that they missed the obvious points in everyday interactions between male and female. In completion this movie totally sucks but I probably am going to finish watching anyway. And if I cry at the end it isn’t my fault, I will simply have to blame it on Hollywood.
Writers update: I ended up not crying at the end, however I did laugh hysterically.   Terrible.

Comments? Email Jay here.