********** Spoiler Alert ***************




Okay, it's been a long time since I've seen a theater filled with people have all of the woman and girls collectively file into the Woman's bathroom to blow their noses.

whew! Brutal... but so very sweet, touching and very funny & enjoyable.

Saw it lastnight...was agood movie and there was alot of sniffling going on in the audience..I wont say much more and spoil it for those who have not seen it but I will say this...Aint no way in hell I'd leave Florida and a good job to move to Philly...

I'm going to go see it during a matinee so the theater isn't so full. Hopefully. No spoiler for me, though. I read the book. I was hoping the Warren might be showing it in one of the balconies, but I guess it wasn't exciting enough. I guess we'll be doing this one at Tinseltown instead.

I saw the movie and took away my views which are usually off point because I'm weird. But since the movie was not only about a dog but also about a humor columnist and since I write a humor column, I'm entitled to this skewed view:

The movie is misleading financially. It gives you the idea that a guy can go from being a beat reporter, metro reporter, whatever you want to call it and then make so much more being a columnist. How much more? There's a line where Alan Arkin, the assignment editor says "How about I double your salary if, instead of being a reporter, you get me two columns a week." Do you get the idea? Then later on in the movie when Jen starts having babies and quits her job with the Palm Beach Post (which, by the way, publishes my column once in a while) our hero goes back to Arkin and says he needs a raise and then Arkin, says, get this "If you get me a daily column, I'll double your salary." So that's the same as saying for five columns a week I'm paying four times as much as the poor schub, eight-hours-a-day, beat reporters.

Second very obivous beef, and I wonder if anyone else in the theatre felt this way, cause it was never brought up. Anybody in their right mind would have got rid of that dog. Eating your furniture is bad enough, but a dog that eats inorganic things is bad news. The ONLY reason, I can see, why they kept the dog is that he inadvertently, through the column, became their meal ticket. Without the dog, the readership would have completely left. That wasn't mentioned in the movie because that kind of thinking doesn't lead to a book selling five million copies. FIVE million copies.

My dog has bitten me more than a couple of times and even sent us to the emergency room for stitches. If we were in our right minds, we would have gotten rid of her long ago, too. Have you ever had a dog? You don't get rid of your child because s/he is a bit of trouble. Likewise, you don't get rid of your dog for that reason either. And you don't keep them around just because they're your meal ticket either.

My dog has bitten me more than a couple of times and even sent us to the emergency room for stitches. If we were in our right minds, we would have gotten rid of her long ago, too. Have you ever had a dog? You don't get rid of your child because s/he is a bit of trouble. Likewise, you don't get rid of your dog for that reason either. And you don't keep them around just because they're your meal ticket either.

Luckily you was the only one who got bitten. I've had dogs and they were all well behaved. My friend had a bulldog, who was cute and sweet, but suddenly it developed a tendancy to bite... kids in the stomach. it could no longer be in the city around people so my friend gave it to a farm family.

I researched John Grogan probably more than most would have and I know the movie deviated from his actual life. I know Grogan was a gardener and prized himself on organic gardening and Marley tore into his garden... a lot. I know Grogan didn't move to Philadelphia so he could be a reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News as the movie tells us but rather he moved there to be editor for the magazine "Organic Gardener."

Marley was a crazy and destructive dog, also loveable and loyal, but at some point he became the meal ticket. You don't get rid of a loyal dog but if he's destructive to the point of being dangerous, you do. If Marley had hurt the first baby that Jen brought home, he was gone. That was the test and Marley passed... and stayed. As I see it.

Stan I hafta say I agree with you. As much as I want to be into the message of the movie, a destructive dog would have to go. I once had a beautiful Irish Setter that was sorta like Marley. Once he turned the bassinet upside down, that was it. My baby's safety came first. We gave him away to a farming family. Some time later I saw him (seemed to be him) in the back of a truck, all wagging his tail and barking. Tore my heart, but my son's welfare came first. I believe he was much happier out on the farm where he could run, anyway.