No denying the fact that hugh jackman makes this movie. He is charming, gallant, and everything a 19th century duke should be and more. His character Leopold has the perfect "fish out of water" charm and curiosity without being repetitive or annoying . While I usually like Meg Ryan, her character Kate is quite bland and lacks depth. The Kate/Leopold romance feels forced there's no real chemistry. But overall it's different, fun, and at least worth one watch.
Add a Review
-
Calicodreamin10 January 2020
-
This movie wouldn't really be anything to write home about. You could call it science fiction because it's about time travel, but any serious science fiction buff would know better. But, there's something absolutely extraordinary about this movie that has me watching it again and again. I wasn't a big Hugh Jackman fan when I watched this movie. I suppose I'm still not. I'm too old for that kind of thing, but the character Leopold has a stillness, a quality of listening and putting other people (man or woman) first. He demonstrates an etiquette that is not at all stiff, that is less about precise forms and rules than about a genuine care for other people. I go back and watch Kate and Leopold when I wish I knew somebody who cared that much for me.
-
wezzel6 January 2003I wonder if Meg Ryan never gets tired of being Meg Ryan. She's been acting in the same movie for 20 years now and, no matter how much I like her, it's getting a bit old. Usually Meg could save the worst movie with being her cute self, but the thing is: Meg isn't cute anymore. Not with that hair, and not with that character. Luckily there's Hugh Jackman who does a Colin Firth, and Breckin Meyer who gets the funniest moment of the movie. (`I can do Canadian too!').
This movie gets a 6, (= ok for once but not really one to rewatch over and over again -
If you can accept the totally ridiculous premise of KATE AND LEOPOLD and enjoy romantic fantasies of this sort, you'll find yourself drawn into the plot because of the very charismatic HUGH JACKMAN. He is the main reason for watching and carries the film on his sturdy shoulders, so adept is he at being a "knight in shining armor".
As for MEG RYAN, she is giving her usual Meg Ryan schtick--a sort of slightly brighter version of Goldie Hawn--but here it doesn't matter because Jackman manages to steal every scene he's in. BRECKIN MEYER is excellent as her boorish brother who learns a few things from his 18th Century friend about manners and etiquette. But it's the time travel aspect of the story that is its weakest link.
Highly recommended as a romantic comedy that owes much of its charm to the performance of its leading man--an actor of remarkable skill whose hunky presence dominates much of the movie.
It's the sort of romantic fluff that would have starred JEAN ARTHUR and GARY COOPER had it been made in the '30s. The New York location photography is excellent. -
Dear folks who hated this movie,
If you didn't like Bewitched, or Dark Shadows, or oldie's but goodies, like Here Comes Mr. Jordon, or I Married a Witch, you aren't going to like Kate and Leopold. It's a fantasy which makes it your broccoli and spinach salad with cod liver oil dressing. So, please move on and let the rest of us enjoy it.
This is not to say the movie is without flaws. It's got them. K&L has been out for a couple of years now and people still complain about Leopold's suit and plot holes and the supposed incest. Interestingly, when I first read a very early blurb about the movie it said that Leopold was from 200 years in the past, which would have put him in about the Regency era. The 200 years would have also pushed the 'incest' concern back another three or four generations. It would also have explained his Regency style getup. The folks who were doing the counting on this incest thing would have to have at least admitted that at 6 or 7 generations removed, Kate and Start would have only shared something like 1/138th blood. That's a bit less than the 1/4 it would be for second cousins marrying, etc. If you keep it at 100 or so years separation, it would still be around 1/16th shared blood. But even that kind of thinking means we're getting away from 'it's a fantasy, folks!'
I have a few personal gripes about the movie. When it was out at the theater I saw it twice. Not a usual occurrence for me, even with Hugh Jackman's hunky persona. Frankly, during the first viewing, I could not get past Meg Ryan's hair. I was literally stunned by it. She's such a pretty woman, it amazes me that she thinks (or thought) that the Cookie the Clown haircut was cute. Not! Ms. Ryan, what were you thinking? Was this a mid-life crisis reaction?
I've gotten used to Ms. Ryan's hair now and just don't see it anymore. But her performance, seemed to be Meg Ryan phoning is as Meg Ryan. Hugh Jackman was utterly charming as Leopold and so was the young actor who played Kate's brother. Some of their scenes together are the best in the movie.
I though the use of profanity was overdone. My reaction is not out of prudishness (I can use the f-word and a heap of others when my car has a flat or won't start or I'm stuck in traffic, etc.) But it seems to me to lessen the authenticity of a character's intelligence. (Think about that the next time you overhear someone swearing continually in line at the grocery store.) It surprised me that Leopold didn't object to Kate's constant swearing (she was, after all, a lady) or that he didn't make a comment on it in general. I didn't feel he was reacting within the social attitudes of his own time. Even if it is a fantasy, he's not going to acclimate to our times all *that* quickly.
I read a lot of sci-fi and fantasy, so had no problem with the supposed 'incest' line. It's fantasy. And it's a paradox to begin with. During the time frame Stuart and Kate are in, Kate is NOT his several times removed great-grandmother. Think about *that* end of it. So, shared blood aside, I can't say I'm sure who it was who was getting their knickers in a twist over that.
That all said, it is a charming movie that could have been a blockbuster hit the likes of Sleepless but is not. I'm not sure where the fault lies in that. The Cookie the Clown haircut? Direction? The last minute/panic edit? Certainly in some of the writing. At this date none of that is going to change, so simply enjoy the movie for itself. There are far worse ways to spend two hours.
(6/10) -
Romantic comedies are, by definition, very predictable affairs, so it's always good to come across one that tries to add something new or shake things up a bit. This one tries a love spanning one hundred years, thanks to time travel (hey, far weirder things have happened in movieland). Leopold, dashingly handsome 19th century Duke (Hugh Jackman) is (unwillingly) contemplating marriage. 21st century career woman Kate (Meg Ryan) is climbing the corporate ladder at an advertising company, whilst her love life is somewhat less successful. But time gets twisted when Kate's ex-boyfriend Stuart (Liev Schrieber) finds a portal into the 19th century - and after an ill-advised visit there, winds up bringing home an unexpected guest; Leopold, of course.
Hijinks ensue as the gentlemanly and courageous Leopold navigates his way through 21st century New York, befriending Kate's brother Charlie (Breckin Meyer) and beginning a romance with Kate. And of course all ends happily in the end. I'll start with the good stuff: Jackman is absolutely charming, playing it straight as the fish-miles-inland-never-mind-out-of-water and succeeding admirably. You can't help but love him and believe in him. Breckin Meyer does nicely in a supporting role. Schrieber is essentially a plot device to move the story forward, but gets a few comic and touching moments that a less talented actor might have let fall by the wayside.
And what about our other romantic lead? >Sigh< I've never been a fan of Meg Ryan, but I'll try and be fair as possible. But to be honest, I didn't warm at all to her character. I get that Kate is a driven career woman, but what a high price she pays for it. "You're like a man" her boss says approvingly (huh?) but she isn't - she simply comes across as a bitchy, bad-tempered and cold woman (guess I'm losing the fairness battle) and to be honest, doesn't stand a chance in the popularity battle with Jackman's Leopold. And then she tosses her career away for a happy ending with her Duke, marriage and setting up a 19th century home. I do wish a career woman would be allowed to keep her job AND her guy just for once, rather than heading off to become the "little woman".
Okay, rant over. It's great escapism, and worth seeing for Jackman alone, but I doubt it will linger long in the memory. -
philip_vanderveken17 December 2004Kate & Leopold is more or less a romantic comedy that has been done so many times before. Woman and man see each other and don't like each other. Than they fall in love, but destiny comes in between them. In the end they overcome all problems and will live happily ever after...
It's exactly the same as always, but this time they have added an interesting extra ingredient to it. Kate, her brother, her ex and Leopold all live in New York. The only problem is that Leopold is from the 1870's, while the others live in the 21st century. Kate's brother has found a way to travel through time, meets Leopold and accidentally takes him with him to the 21st century. I guess I don't have to explain everything that happens afterward...
Even though I'm not always a huge fan of romantic comedies, I have to admit that I had a good time watching this one. Thanks to the original approach, this movie is better than average. The actors are convincing, although I was surprised to see how easily a man from the 19th century adapted to the 21st. It never really seemed a shocking experience to him. If I had directed the movie, I would have accentuated it more... But hey, if you can see past that and you are a romantic soul, I'm sure that you'll love this modern fairy tale. You know it's impossible, but you would like to believe it. I give it a 7/10 for that. -
preppy-37 January 2002Liev Schreiber (badly used and miscast) travels from NYC 2002 to NYC 1862 (the how and why are never really explained). While coming back he accidentally brings a 19th century duke Leopold (Hugh Jackman) with him. Leopold meets Kate (Meg Ryan) and...well, you can figure it out from there.
The movie looks beautiful, is VERY romantic and Jackman is incredibly handsome, sexy, funny...God, those eyes of his...but this movie is really dumb. There are some plot turns that are unbelievable (the time travel is never explained; Jackman saves Ryan's purse from a mugger on horseback--literally; Jackman gets used to the 21st century way too quickly; do New Yorkers always leave their windows open so someone can clamber in off the fire escape?). Also Ryan has played this part once too often--she's getting too old and (sadly) she looks it. However, Breckin Meyer is very good and funny as her brother.
The only reason to see the movie is Jackman--he's just great. And it IS cute. So, it's worth seeing. -
tnkcool16 February 2005I'm a fan of Meg Ryan and think that she's one of the best there is in Hollywood right now. Yet, I believe that it was HUGH JACKMAN who stole the show in this movie. He is so charming and charismatic that you can hardly resist falling head over heels for him! Leopold is a duke from the 18th century who mistakenly lands up in the 21st century one day...and is obviously bewildered with everything he sees. He stays with the man who got him there at the first place, Stuart,Kate's (Meg Ryan) ex-boyfriend. Predictably, Leopold falls in love with Kate and she retaliates. Yet, he has to go back where he came from, and that poses a problem for their relationship. It's a cute movie, yet, I couldn't agree with the ending, though it was predictable. I just couldn't see eye to eye with the reasoning they gave us for the step Kate took. Okay movie...great if you have nothing else to do and like chick-flicks. That's exactly the reason I watched it. I liked it..but I've seen better by Meg Ryan.
-
SnoopyStyle13 September 2013Kate McKay (Meg Ryan) is a throughly modern girl climbing the corporate ladder at her advertising company. Her ex Stuart (Liev Schreiber) lives below her apartment. He's been working on time travel, and finds a time portal to a specific 19th century date if one jumps off the Brooklyn Bridge. Leopold (Hugh Jackman)'s family is broke hoping he would marry into money. He comes to NY to select a wife, but instead chases the strange Stuart with a modern camera back to the present.
This is a solid rom-com all the way. Meg Ryan has still got it. She plays the cute girl who just can't fall for the right guy. Hugh Jackman is a dashing fresh air in a world without manners or chivalry. No matter what the evidence, she can't accept that he's a time traveler. Hugh Jackman is a heartthrob. They create the perfect and unabashedly traditional romance with a side of time travel. -
elshikh419 October 2008Let me see: (Meg Ryan) + (Hugh Jackman) + time travel + romantic comedy + A (Sting) song = something definitely magical. But unfortunately, it wasn't!
I'm nuts about the main idea. We have an English prince charming from 1876, who's also the elevator's inventor, so he has both heart and brains (and in Jackman's case, muscles too). As for representing the lost romance and chivalry, it's the perfect character. And when you push him into the future, namely: our world, to love an advertising executive from 2001 (America's sweetheart Ryan), then it's the perfect idea. However, the "world" of this movie was very scanty.
Mainly, look at the dramatic conflict. In fact, there isn't one. Is it about a hard love story? Since (Ryan)'s boyfriend left her from the start, so falling for the good-looking, well-bred, mugger-chaser inventor would be not only easy, but axiomatic. So, is it about the endless ironies between the old age, and the new age's technology? No, since the movie summarized it in a brief sequence. So, is it about the deep irony between a romantic age, and a phony materialistic one? Maybe, but they did it simply through the making of the TV commercial. Generally, (Kate & Leopold) looked like another angel-in-our-home kind of movie, where one visitor gives ultimate happiness to his troubled hosts, then leaves. But did that benefit whether the comic, or the romantic part?! I think NOT.
Although the main irony is super, but the movie's ironies weren't. The comedy was careless; I can't remember one laughable situation (a dog's excrement isn't funny, rather anything excrement-related ISN'T FUNNY!). Even in terms of seriousness, the dialogue was untalented, except for the monologue of (Liev Schreiber) character at the hospital which was philosophically well put, but surpassed anything that was written for any other character, hence its high level exposed all the low level of the rest of the dialogue. I didn't feel the love story between the title's characters, or the urgency of its impossibility. All what we had was just light touches that didn't convince me; like the swift story of the unseen lonely neighbor, the love story of the heroine's brother (that we witnessed on the phone!), or the concept of capturing the time, because this criminally hasty script just wasted it all.
Look at what sounded as brilliant situations like stopping all the world's elevators; despite the imaginative spirit, the script didn't go with it to anywhere, so what about this unique romance between 2 persons from 2 ages?! Therefore the ending was too happy and dreamy to fabricated extent, without much of details or difficulties. So - as a whole - it went astray without strong feelings, or good meanings. And the romance eventually seemed superficial.
Director (James Mangold) was executing a bland TV episode. I felt fake tenderness from him. Especially when the only romantic scene, the waltz, was just accumulated well-arranged shots without effective emotions. Yes, the smooth cinematography and the warm lighting were a bit sentimental at that scene, but the final result was cold.
This can't compete with (Ryan)'s nice legacy of romantic comedies (it can't compete with the standard of its idea!). So (Ryan)'s as (Kate) didn't give us anything new, since the script didn't give her anything. And while (Jackman) seems so fit for (Leopold), he had the same dilemma. His role's type was attractive, yet not the role in particular. That's why these 2 lead actors were like 2 clever singers in such a poor duet. It's pathetic to watch shining stars like them, with possible chemistry, starring a movie that's suffering of self-induced abortion!
I hated (Schreiber), despite whatever he could reach, he got nothing to do with a romantic comedy, let alone being younger than (Ryan). I hated dealing with (Sting)'s masterpiece (Until), which was nominated for an Oscar, by putting it only at the closing credits, plus not even using its fascinating melody into the movie's music score the way (John Williams) did in (Sabrina - 1995)'s soundtrack with another (Sting)'s masterpiece (Moonlight). I just liked most of (Meg)'s chic clothes; they were cuter than the movie itself!
I'm sad to say it, but as a romantic comedy it lacks romance and comedy. It was all out of keeping with (Sting)'s (Until) which was more adept than the whole thing. It's deplorable to listen to it, and imagine a better movie for it! -
gorwell77726 November 2002Honestly, my wife rented this and I wasn't planning on watching - but the luscious cinematography and some interesting writing drew me in. Hugh Jackman sealed the deal with his totally straight portrayal - this guy's earning power can only go up! Looking for some fluff and a laugh? It's better than most of the romantic comedy crap out there. Not a waste of time if you are in the mood to have something wash over you.
-
ricoman00624 January 2018With all its cheesiness it offers a couple of good laughs, some good acting and good vibes.. and for that it deserves a 7. Do not expect anything out of the ordinary, just be entertained.
-
ajnanou17 December 2007I was disappointed upon seeing this movie. I expected something different than what I actually got. The premise is brilliant, but the result is poor. I mean, overlooking the time travel thing - it wasn't badly thought out actually - I found myself thinking that Kate and Leopold really didn't have that much chemistry. They fell in love way too suddenly to make it believable. However, Hugh Jackman pulls this film through. He made it enjoyable to watch, especially in the scenes where his character is teaching Kate's brother about women (ironic though, since he's never been in love before). I was sorely disappointed by Meg Ryan, though. This movie is good to pass time, it's OK entertainment, but it lacks the emotional appeal and chemistry of so many other romantic comedies out there.
-
phantlers6 October 2008I watched this on TV and was appalled at how unsympathetic Ryan's character is, she is a utterly dreadful woman that in whom it's hard to believe a 19th century throwback might find any redeeming quality. Once you get over that gaping plot flaw the time travel is easy.
There are some charming moments though, mainly derived from the basic conceit and Jackman's performance, and the photography is good overall.
The best feature is probably the subtext that good manners are important whatever age we live in. Like the touching moment when we don't see Ryan make her 'leap of faith', we also don't quite see how, when or why this realisation hits her - the character she plays is cynical and graceless, quite how she manages such a profound personality polarity reversal is beyond 21st century science. -
gavin69423 December 2015Kate and her actor brother live in N.Y. in the 21st Century. Her ex-boyfriend, Stuart, lives above her apartment. Stuart finds a space near the Brooklyn Bridge where there is a gap in time. He goes back to the 19th Century and takes pictures of the place. Leopold -- a man living in the 1870s -- is puzzled by Stuart's tiny camera, follows him back through the gap, and they both ended up in the present day.
This could be dismissed as a romantic comedy, which in many ways it is. But it also has that science fiction, time travel element that will make it appeal to people (like myself) who may not be particularly interested in romantic comedies. We also have some great performances. Meg Ryan is alright (she has improved since the 1980s), and it is always nice to see Liev Schreiber.
This is a film that needs reevaluation. -
segacs5 February 2005Cute, light, fluffy. This movie doesn't make any pretenses of being smart or provocative or intelligent. It's not going to be a classic, win any awards, or stay on anyone's "memorable" list for any length of time.
But it was fun, entertaining, standard escapist fare. Nothing wrong with that. Both Meg Ryan and Hugh Jackman are good actors and are entertaining as a couple with fairly decent chemistry. The plot is fairly ludicrous, but the on-screen romance is fun. Bradley Whitford has a good small part as Meg Ryan's obnoxious boss - very different from the role he plays on the West Wing.
To quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, we can pretty much sum up this movie in two words: "Mostly Harmless". -
Aside from the ridiculous premise and tremendous number of plot holes, if you enjoy rom-coms, you might enjoy this one. Why? Hugh Jackman. He steals every scene. Well, OK. As silly as the premise is, it's still fun. Who doesn't like a little time-travel story?
Meg Ryan does her usual thing, which borders on boring, and her character's "style" isn't one of her best looks. Whoever did her hair, which looked badly cut and stringy, should have been fired. And whoever was in charge of her wardrobe should have been fired as well. It was the drabbest and most unattractive wardrobe I think I've ever seen for the female lead of a rom-com. In one scene, she's wearing brown suede boots with a blue-grey silk evening gown. Seriously? Do they not think viewers notice those things?
OK, enough of dissing Ryan. I will say that in addition to Jackman doing an excellent job with his role, all of the supporting cast does an excellent job with theirs. Ryan is the only "bad actor" in this movie. If Leopold likes lovely women with class and grace, I can't understand why he would fall for Kate considering the way she's played by Ryan because her "Kate" has neither.
So if you love Hugh Jackman and can take Meg Ryan without too much difficulty, you'll likely enjoy this little romp. The story doesn't have a lot of "meat" to it, but there's definitely much worse out there in this genre. -
Leopold (Hugh Jackson) is an English and broken baron living in New York in the end of the Nineteenth Century. He needs to get married with a rich fiancée to recover his family position from ruin. Kate (Meg Ryan) is a successful businesswoman living also in New York, but in 2001. Due to a time incident, they meet each other in the present days and (guess what?) they fall in love to each other.
This is another delightful romantic comedy. In this field, Meg Ryan is outstanding. The plot has many inconsistencies: the time travel is not explained, the problem with the elevators (why have they worked again?), the interest of Stuart in Leopold in the past (in the deleted scenes, there is a reference that Leopold and Stuart are relatives), how Kate, with her profile of stressed executive, would survive in the past only with love... But, anyway, forget these questions, be romantic, and this movie will be an entertainment for the whole family. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Kate & Leopold" -
amyldahlias28 December 2001Definitely a must see for guys & gals who believe romance still lives. Great lessons for all of us, and very much a feel good movie.
-
Movie's plot really relies on Jackman's charm as a fish out of water in c. 2000 New York. Hard to not be won over by his character. Worth a watch if you're a fan of Jackman or Ryan, or romantic movies in general. Best not to think to hard about the time travel plot; it's not that serious of a movie.
-
Even overlooking several major flaws, this movie still isn't very good. I'm willing to suspend disbelief to a certain extent, so I can forgive all the time-travel questions this movie raises. Furthermore I'm used to movies portraying people as falling in love in less than a week and assuming that that is a solid basis for a lifelong marriage - so I can't really fault this film for that too. My biggest problem was the way Meg Ryan's character was portrayed and how quickly she was able to throw away her entire life for some distant past that I don't think she quite appreciated what her new life would entail. Why did people (both Leopold and her boss) accuse her of being "manly" and "unfeminine"? Because she was assertive, good at her job, career-oriented? I found this highly offensive! Furthermore, even accepting that she had fallen in love with someone (in a week!) and that she was not that interested in keeping her own life (w/ a promotion, the love of her brother, her friends, etc.) -- how on earth could she decide (in less than 23 minutes) to travel back to live in 1876? (without even hearing from Leopold on his thoughts on the matter!) If she's thought to be "unfeminine" and "manly" in this day and age, can you imagine what it would've been like back then? Has she considered whether being with Leopold is worth giving up her rights? The right to vote, to wear pants, to work, etc. Were women at the time allowed to go outside unchaperoned, own property of any kind, even get divorces? Did they still wear girdles and other sorts of insane fashions she will be expected to adopt? I admit my knowledge of the past was sketchy, but I'd be worried about things like indoor plumbing, the state of medicine/hospitals at the time, etc.
The false romanticization of the past is nauseating. We're supposed to think it's better because men were more "gentlemanly" back then. It's not impossible to find polite, well-behaved men in this day and age - who also agree with feminist principles!
I could have handled the ending if he had come back to live with her in the present instead of her having to go back and give up her life for him. It seems as if he would've adjusted better to today's society than she to his. (It already sounded as if he was unhappy with his life back then, and other than his connection to Otis, had no personal ties). -
Anonymous_Maxine7 April 2003I can understand why people would be put off by a movie like Kate & Leopold, even if only because it's a little TOO cute. Consider, for example, the scene early in the film, just after Stuart (Liev Schreiber) has accidentally brought Leopold (in a wonderful performance by Hugh Jackman) to the present day, and Kate (Meg Ryan) sticks her head in the window to see what's going on. When Meg Ryan is kneeling down and looking in the window in this scene, she is probably more adorable than I've ever seen her in any other movie, and she is without a doubt one of the most adorable actors working in Hollywood today.
(spoilers) I can see that some people might be put off just by the sheer cuteness of things like this (of which the movie is full to the brim), as well as other things like the cheesiness of the conflict resolution, in which Kate literally takes a leap of faith off of the Brooklyn Bridge, with her ex-boyfriend as well as her brother urging her on even though each is fully aware that this will mean they will never see her again.
For my own part, I think that minor quibbles like these are easy to overlook just because of the sheer entertainment value of the movie and the fact that the time travel element (something that almost never fails to enthrall me) is so intriguing and well done. I love the part at the end when they see Kate in one of the pictures that Stuart took in 1873, meaning that the resolution includes her being sent back to that time to be with Leopold. Stuart tries in vain to explain this to Charlie (Breckin Meyer), Kate's younger brother, telling him that since in THEIR future they send Kate back to the past, then the future of that past includes Kate being their and searching for Leopold. Well, I can't really explain it any better than Stuart did.
There was one other thing about the time travel element that I thought was really interesting but wasn't explored as well as it could have been. There is a part of the movie where Leopold discovers, to all sorts of astonished amazement, that his uncle's house (his own residence in 1873) still stands even in the futuristic New York in which he finds himself. This is also, by the way, the point where Kate begins to realize that this whole thing might not be an act after all. Leopold runs upstairs and finds a secret hiding place where he kept all of his most treasured possessions, which still remain as dusty relics.
Something like this is usually a signpost that it is going to come back into play at some later point in the film, but I guess here it is only meant to show Kate that Leopold is for real after all. Later in the film, when Leopold is sent back to his own time, I was expecting Kate to run up to that room in his house and open the cupboard and find some sort of note or something that Leopold left for her to find there, but no such luck. Ah well.
As a romantic comedy, Kate & Leopold certainly has its shortcomings given it's conveniently packaged ending, the fact that so many things are ignored just to get to that happy ending (such as how Charlie's date REALLY went and what ever happened with him and his acting career and his love life, etc, and the same goes for Stuart), but as a film it is enormously entertaining, well-written, and thought-provoking, which is exceedingly uncommon for a romantic comedy. While it's true that the movie takes place mainly in society that can produce digital cameras the size of matchboxes but can't get toasters to work properly, this is the kind of movie that spawns discussion, which is what great movies do.
If nothing else, it is most certainly an in-depth look at the descent of chauvinism between the 19th Century and today, and provides a host of immensely valuable lessons for how men should act around women. I would certainly like to see a lot of these behaviors return to our modern society, so that we can remember that life is not composed solely of tasks, but tastes as well. Kate & Leopold holds that rare distinction of being a romantic comedy that is more beneficial for men than women.
Pay attention to this one, guys. -
len-2122 October 2004I love romantic comedies and Meg Ryan is the best. But, this wasn't one of her bests and not a romantic classic by any means. I liked the time travel element. That certainly gave it some meat. Otherwise, it would have been weak.
Ryan and Hugh Jackman had good chemistry. I actually thought he was the better of the two. I think part of the problem is that Ryan no longer looks like the innocent girl next door that you are rooting for. Well, OK, she looks like that person - just not as much. The fact that she got her lips ballooned up not only doesn't look good, but reminds us continually that she isn't such a young woman anymore. We don't want to be reminded of that!
The story did not flow very well. It seemed choppy. The script wasn't tight. And, her ex-boyfriend (who was good) was mostly wasted. I would have sure liked to have seen more of him. Maybe even a secondary relationship between him and her secretary.
Anyway, it was an enjoyable 2 hours, but I would have liked to see more. -
cbpearl30 May 2004While my wife and I enjoyed watching this film (except for the wretched haircut on Meg Ryan), I was amazed that the obvious historical anachronisms got past the writers and editors of this film. I was even more amazed that none of the comments on the film have pointed them out. For example, Leopold is supposed to be plucked out of 1876 New York to the modern day city. But in one scene, he shows more than superficial knowledge of the opera La Boheme, which was not composed until 1893. Further, he sings and teaches the songs from Pirates of Penzance, which had its world premiere in 1879. And the movie opens with the celebration of the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge (then called the Great East River Bridge) which was not completed until 1883. Didn't anyone check these dates and see that they were just out of whack with 1876?