I just finished reading Claire Cook’s “Must Love Dogs.” While waiting for my Hubby to get out of class yesterday, in fact. Here’s the review I wrote on GoodReads:
rating: 4 of 5 stars
I read “Must Love Dogs” in about three days. (Not three days straight, obviously, or I’d have been done earlier.) I ordered it from the library, but so many other people were before me in line that my hold expired and I had to renew it. I’m glad I did. It is a light-hearted book with distinct characters. (Like Sarah Hurlihy’s crazy family. Sarah is the protagonist.)
Claire Cook has an amazing facility for realistic conversation between characters. I also enjoyed the details she used to make her story come alive – Sarah, DWF looking for love, standing in her kitchen or sitting on the couch, feet up on the coffee table, eating strange single’s foods – her niece Siobhan teaching Irish step dancing – the pain involved in a naval piercing scene.
All in all, an enjoyable book that’s engaging, but not overly serious. Good for lifting your mood. I can totally see why this was made into a movie.
Tonight, Daughter and I watched the movie version, starring Diane Lane as Sarah and John Cusack as one of her love interests. The movie captured the spirit of the book, especially the banter between Sarah and her family members and beaus. In some cases, I picked up on verbatim lines from the book. The thing that bothered me about the movie was how small details got altered. Sarah’s last name in the book is Hurlihy. In the movie, it’s Nolan. The love interest played by John Cusack was named John Anderson in the book; in the movie, he became Jake Anderson. And he built specialty boats. That was definitely NOT in the book. The character Dolly was more sympathetic in the movie (played by Stockard Channing), but was feistier and more interesting for her feistiness in the book. And the ending is completely different. And that’s all I’m going to say. Both are good; both are worth consuming. Maybe not in the same week, but still . . . .