Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Must Love Dogs (2005)

This is topic Must Love Dogs (2005) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000959

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-28-2005, 01:59 AM:

Ok, after screening this film I now finally get the title. The word "dogs" has NOTHING to do with dogs as in 4 legged canines. It also doesn't have anything to do with "dogs" in reference to unappealing women. What the term "dogs" is really referring to is a "dog" of a movie, as in a really crappy movie. Hence, you "must love dogs" to enjoy this phenomenal piece of shit.

1/2 out of 5 stars

Save yourself.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 07-29-2005, 05:40 AM:

Seconded.
This movie was so rediculously awful I actually got up half way through, went upstairs and got a jump on the next days work.

Firstly some of the dialog had a cheese factor of 3 and higher.
There was absolutely no substance to it.
There "comedy" was childish and not very funny at all.
I was however impressed with the print of it.
Steady, clean focus, good color depth, excellent shadow tones.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-29-2005, 05:49 AM:

Not a single lab splice in my print either. Amazingly steady, razor sharp and just fabulous lab work overall.

Why do all of the SHITTY movies have the awesome prints??? [Frown]

By the way, did you notice the godawful furniture in this movie? It was so bad it was distracting (which was a good thing). I mean, not even Phil would have such UGLY furniture in his house!

Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 07-31-2005, 11:05 PM:

WOW. That was a really bad movie.