[spoiler alert!]
Salon was an outlier in actually liking Marley & Me, in fact, in not being a bit harsh in saying they did not like it. The general sentiment was that this was bland claptrap sentiment though perhaps Owen Wilson was good in it. Ah well. I understand the sentiment, the movie has that, though Jennifer Aniston gave a decent performance. JA and Owen Wilson too really (that nose gets me btw -- it was broken and not fixed that well) adds to the blandness; in real life, the couple were not such a beautiful Hollywood couple.*
And, yes, you do not really get the idea of why this dog in particular was so special. Unless we take that on faith -- but hey, many people have pets, not all of them are book and movie worthy, right? Ditto the family behind them. Likewise, the reviews are right to the degree that they suggest the movie lurches from plot point to plot point (one extended collage of columns serving as a bridge) in particular without much grace. The movie is in effect lazy and unfinished, expecting its core and various performances to carry the film. It is akin to a decent first draft that still isn't enough to turn in.
Still, the Salon piece reflects that some of the reviews are too harsh. My sentiment as to serious aspects of certain films and such is that they have to earn it. To let some know, since someone I saw it with was unpleasantly surprised, the dog dies in this movie. We are shown the dog put to sleep. This is followed up by the family burying the dog. This is tough stuff, and the raw nature of it suggests this is not just a cute family film. Some -- and not just children -- will find this a bit tough to take. The film also has a quick but still quite serious scene involving an act of violence. Again, if the film is basically a bit of trash holiday sentiment, you would have a right to be annoyed that it in effect cheaply used such serious stuff.
But, I don't think it did. No matter how true it might be that the film as a whole doesn't work, that is too bland and so forth, I like the Salon review accepted the serious moments in the movie. This includes a few in which JA showed her ability to play serious. In fact, the movie is even a bit brave for including enough serious stuff to make some people (especially if kids are involved) not come. This makes it unfortunate the film as a whole was not that good. It had something that made you want it to be. I'm not sure if this is enough to recommend it, but does mean it deserves a bit more of a break.
After all, you expect some Hollywood gloss, especially this time of year. When it is done with some degree of talent, you should give credit along with the blame.
---
* The movie for some reason has one of those stock statements at the end of the credits that it was a work of fiction, when clearly it is not, even if certain scenes were fictionalized. Pet peeve alert! No pun intended! The right stock legal statement would underline that though there were some based on true life situations in the film, it should not be taken as fact. This particularly help if a movie is about events surrounding the election of 1992 and so forth, and the statement makes it appear Clinton is a work of fiction. See, e.g., Definitely, Maybe.
Anyway, Alan Arkin plays the "grumpy guy with a heart of gold" role here, adding to the stock flavor of the film, which again does not mean everyone is bad here. It is just too bland. One review also compares the goofiness to a Dave Barry column. This is interesting since they both wrote columns in Florida, though I'm not sure if Dave was as much interested in hard news as the guy here.