One of the previous reviewers wrote: "It's Cyrano de Bergerac on the surface but more of a sitcom in its substance," and even that's a stretch.Cyrano is ugly, big-time ugly. So ugly that his own mother had no love for him, and no woman has been willing to love him.The female host of the radio show that gives this movie its name, "The Truth about Cats and Dogs," Abbey, is not ugly in any way. She may not be a striking beauty, but then, neither is Uma Thurman/Noelle, the neighbor she passes off as herself to the caller who wants to meet her. One is short, the other tall. One is brunette, the other blonde. One a little on the plump side - but only a little; the other skinny. Abbey is not ugly while Noelle is strikingly beautiful. Abbey has one kind of beauty, Noelle another.Cyrano de Bergerac is about a truly ugly man who wins the heart of Roxanne by the extraordinary beauty of his language, a non-physical type of beauty. He very definitely does not have just "another kind" of physical beauty. He very definitely has NO physical attractiveness whatsoever.Abbey, on the other hand, has bought into a socially-conditioned idea of what men find attractive - tall, thin, blonde - but it's really all in her mind, since her friend Noelle isn't all that attractive, and Abbey herself is certainly not unattractive. We don't really get a chance to see if Brian really started by buying into the same social convention, since he was told by Abbey over the phone that she was tall, blonde, thin, etc. We never see him attracted to tall, blonde, thin dumbbells whom he knows to be dumbbells.When Brian tries to explain what he finds attractive in the woman he has spoken to over the phone, he basically says: "She's nice." Abbey gives no indications of a remarkable, poetic command of language either on her radio show or over the phone. Noelle on occasion - but only on occasion, and not very convincingly - comes off as dumb. Brian says that he likes intelligence, but he gives no indication of being intelligent himself, nor of having been attracted to anyone else for her intelligence. So we never really understand why he becomes attracted to Abbey. She's pleasant, but then so is Noelle.The three leads are all pleasant, but the movie doesn't really seem to know what point it wants to make. If it's "a handsome guy can fall in love with a woman even if she isn't beautiful, as long as she has a striking character," this movie doesn't make that point clearly or convincingly. Abbey just isn't sufficiently not-beautiful, or sufficiently striking in terms of her character, for us to buy that argument. Nor, unlike Roxanne in Cyrano de Bergerac, is Brian ever presented as really interested in qualities other than physical beauty, so that his final attraction to Abbey comes off as convincing.

This film is one of the biggest pieces of crap I have ever seen. Both the leading ladies are fugly, especially Uma Thurman but she is supposed to be beautiful. I also love how they try to portray smoking as cool, as if this movie was made in the 1940's.The premise is thin and completely moronic. I can't believe someone was paid to write this garbage. It's not even good mindless fun and entertainment.Honestly, I really found nothing good in this film and I just want to warn others to avoid it at all costs.This is clearly a film aimed at very stupid women.

The title claims The Truth about Cats & Dogs, a little misleading, considering the movie has little to do with either, perhaps it is a metaphor for The Truth about Women & Men, or as the case may be Two Women & One Man, who thinks Two women are One. Confused? You will beThe plot is ludicrous at best, and expect a heavy coating of cheese, but what the movie lacks in realism it makes up for in charm, as we ride out the difficult journey for unconfident Abbey as she gets her man. If there were one flaw in the movie, that niggled me, it was that the more we get to know Abbey, the flakier and at times, downright rude she becomes, in the end i secretly found myself rooting for the silly but uncomplicated Noelle, whom we are meant to oppose. The male lead however is spot on, the female audience will find even themselves falling for sensitive Brian, and the equally charming Hank (the dog)Overall, a feel-good film, and a pleasure to watch if you can overlook the initial cheese and character inconsistencies

I liked it but then I think I might have been ironing at the same time. This reworking of Cyrano de Bergerac/Roxanne is an utterly undemanding, formulaic romcom rescued from straight-to-video ignominy on its release by the sharp turn of Janeane Garofalo. Playing the Frasier of Pets, she finds herself caught in a love trap when insecurity leads her to pass her best friend (Uma Thurman) off as herself when a caller comes a-courtin'.This is an interesting film in the fascinating career of Ben Chaplin. An average British actor, he gave the Hollywood treadmill a shot with this film. He is unremarkable and his anonymity in studio productions is unsurprising on the basis of it, although he has appeared in substantial cameos in both the later Terence Malick films. Uma Thurman does a ditzy turn on autopilot and Michael Lehmann packages it all together competently. Icky phone sex though. 4/10