Rating: 
Summary: A wonderful new spin on a classic plot!
Review: Admittedly the notion of time travel is not a new one to the cinema, but "Kate and Leopold" puts a new spin on an old plot. Very little of the film is devoted to the usual slap-stick comedy of the person displaced in time making "hilarious" mistakes about something-or-other. Instead, the 19th-century Leopold (Duke of Albany) has little trouble getting by after his initial confusion; he even helps Kate's brother, the truly hilarious Charlie, pull his social life together, and his 19th century views on life turn out to be astonishingly relevent to 21st-century life. Every actor in this movie is impressively compelling. I very highly recommend this truly romantic-and-comedic romantic comedy!
Rating:
Summary: A much used love story, with a new twist
Review: I feel the performances of Meg Ryan and Hugh Jackman were wonderful. The openness of "their inner feelings," was particularily both unusual and delightful. The characters were beliveable and likeable. The vulnerably of "Kate" was something most women can relate to and "Leopold" could have won the heart of any woman in today's world. The unusual twist at the end was fantastic as well. As an avid movie goer and watcher, I can generally figure out the ending within the first 20 minutes (or less). This ending came as a complete surprise which mad the movie even more enjoyable.
Rating: 
Summary: Great romantic fantasy!
Review: I loved this movie! I rented this movie last week and was very pleased. I am a Meg Ryan fan and definitely became a fan of Hugh Jackman! I went right out and bought the DVD that weekend. I watched the Original version and the Director's Cut. The Director's Cut is definitely better. It adds more history to Kate's character and helps the story flow more smoothly. The character of Leopold, Duke of Albany is excellently played by Hugh Jackman. Meg Ryan was her same cutsy self with a layered mop hairdo. However, this wasn't one of her best movies. Liev Schreiber and Breckin Meyers were also excellent in their roles. Breckin was really funny when his character "Charlie" was "in the zone" with his favorite girl and his replaying of Leopold's conversation about the Louvre. I think that is when Leopold realizes that he is falling for Kate. I love the scene where Leopold is sitting next to Kate in the restaurant and corrects J.J. on the location of his English home, the opera's characters and his view of J.J.'s trying to seduce Kate. My favorite scenes were Leopold's rescuing of Kate at Central Park; the rooftop dinner and dancing; the following morning when he made breakfast and the dishwasher lesson; the finding of his uncle's house; the evening listening to the soundtrack of "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and his tucking in and snuggling with Kate. Did you notice when Leopold called Kate "Your Grace"? I particulary like the part where Kate realized that she really loved Leopold and was willing to take that "leap of faith" off the Brooklyn Bridge to be with Leopold, because it meant that she was willing to leave her family and career to find love and happiness with somebody that treated her with love and respect. Who in their right mind would turn away from that? (I certainly didn't when I moved from CA to NJ to be with the man I loved.) I wish that when Kate and Leopold were dancing after Leopold announced his bride, the script could have gone further with the culture shocks that Kate would have experienced in the late 1800's. Then of course, that's the perfect excuse for a sequel! Overall, this movie was lovely and it became one of my favorite movies. I am sure that I will watch this many times over. This movie makes you want to travel time to find your own duke!
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding, Entertaining Romance
Review: I'm not really big on time-travel romances, but this movie is a real exception to the rule. I won't dwell on all of the particulars that make the time-travel possible; they are really secondary to the plot. However, what is really wonderful is the juxtaposition of modern mores and "old-fashioned" social behaviors as Leopold learns to maneuver in the present day. Many of my friends have said that they would love to find a man who behaves like Leopold ... with genuine consideration for others.
Rating:
Summary: Can everyone please leave Meg Ryan alone
Review: If there is one thing I can't stand in Hollywood is the type-casting that takes place. Examples? Jim Carey, Robin Williams, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro...and of course Meg Ryan. I wish I could blame the actors for not taking on challenges, but I really can't because if I were offered millions of dollars to make the movie, I would not have been able to turn them down. With this said, this is an okay movie. Although it resembles several of more recent Meg Ryan movies (You've got Mail, Sleepless in Seattle, French Kiss, IQ need I say more) it still set's itself aside as a pretty good movie. Question for all ya'll what happened to the days of The Doors, When a Man loves a Woman or even When Harry met Sally? Those days when Meg Ryan was much more diverse in her acting. No offense to the marvelous Meg Ryan, I think she could handle any acting job put in front of her. I blame the movie makers, producers, screen writers that make these movies that are 'perfect' for Meg Ryan. Okay I'm off my soapbox. Sorry Kate and Leopold is about time travel, love and chivalry. Wierd combination? Absolutley, so let me summarize. Kate played by Meg Ryan, is a modern day woman who has had problems with relationships, and is currently trying to deal with her most recent break up in addition to getting a promotion from a boss that apparently just wants some action. So needless to say she is currently struggling with her faith in the opposite sex. Her recent ex-boyfriend, Stuart, is a scientist played by Liev Schreiber, who has found a tear in the space time continuem, yeah I know it sounds like something out of Star Trek but that's what it is. While traveling through time Stuart accidentally brings his great-great-great grandfather Leopold back to the future with him. For some unknown and unexplained reason, Leopold can't go back in time until the next week and is forced to spend that time in modern day New York. During this time he meets and falls in love with Kate (Ryan). What's even more surprising is that Kate also falls for the chivalrous Leopold who stands when she leaves a table and insists on chaperoning her dates. Well before he knows it the time has come for him to go back, will he go is now the question?
Rating: 
Summary: Unwatchable
Review: Here's Meg again, with that spiky bad hair (what's that about anyway?) and a part we've seen her play umpteen times before. The screenplay is trite and mean-spirited at the outset; it descends into stupid and even gross (I really don't want to see a rearview shot of a dog doing its business.) This movie goes beyond bad all the way to terrible. Don't waste your time or your money. Poor Hugh Jackman is stuck in this movie, trying his best to do something with his role. And this is yet another of Meg's really bad choices. If you have a burning need to see her, get Sleepless In Seattle. It's a sweet-natured film, worth seeing.
Rating: 
Summary: Given the likeable stars a disappointing romantic comedy
Review: Don't you just hate it when Hollywood comes up with an idea for a romantic comedy, gets two likeable stars to play the leads, and then forgets to come up with a decent script? Oh maybe they make a conscious effort to just forgo one and save some money (especially if they have to shell out a lot for one of the leads). "Kate & Leopold" is just such a movie.
The hook is fairly simple. Leopold (Hugh Jackman), the Duke of Albany, ends up falling off the top of the Brooklyn Bridge in 1876 in pursuit of a mysterious figure (Liev Schriber) and finds himself in the New York City of today. There he meets Kate McKay (Meg Ryan), an ad executive who turns out to be the ex-girlfriend of the mysterious figure, one Stuart Besser. Kate and Leopold fall in love, mainly because they are the title characters and the names of the two actors appear before the title in the credits. I mean, we understand what she sees in him: he is polite, articulate, and dashingly handsome. But as near as I can tell he falls in love with her because she is Meg Ryan, so what other possible response could there be? Then again, she is different from every other woman he has met in his high society days, so maybe there is some notion of chemistry somewhere in there.
The time travel aspects of the film barely rise to the level of secondary considerations, which seems to be a big mistake given the premise. The portal idea is fine (after all, Christopher Reeves "thought" himself back to the past in "Somewhere in Time"), but if you are going to take someone from 1876 and put them in the present, you would think they would have more important culture shock moments than encounters with a toaster and the NYC pooper-scooper law (please note, these are separate encounters). Leopold is apparently the inventor of the elevator, or would have been, if he had not come forward in time. Somehow this explains why all the elevators in NYC (and one presumes the world) have stopped working. This is really just a minor plot device that allows us to know when Leopold is coming and going, as well as setting up how Leopold ends up on his own in our brave new world. But certainly the script does little to explore the scenario it has set up (contrast it with the milk it for everything it is worth approach used in "Groundhog Day"). Time may well be a pretzel, but that is no reason not to try and straighten out this script a bit.
This movie seeks to answer that age-old quandary, if a bird and a fish fall in love, where would they build a home? The happy ending is fairly predictable, although the specific mechanics of how it comes about are pretty much pulled out of a hat (if a time portal is always at the same time and place at one end then why is at the same place but at different times at the other end?)
Hugh Jackman's performance carries the film, at least as far as it goes. Meg Ryan's character seems to be moved by the script rather than motivated to do most of what she does; there is a telling moment early on when she complains that she has wasted her best years on Stephen and he responds unthinkingly but tellingly, "that was your best?" It is not a funny moment, and it could have provided a key to the character but Kate ends up being nothing more than a career woman who would not mind a Calgon moment of epic proportions. The audience ends up having to cross-apply their affection for Ryan from "Sleepless in Seattle," "When Harry Met Sally," and/or "You've Got Mail" to really develop their rooting interest for the couple. Actually, I found myself rooting harder for Kate's brother, Charlie (Breckin Meyer) than I did the primary couple.
I like romantic comedies. I have a romantic soul. I cry at the BEGINNING of "Sleepless in Seattle" when he says, "It doesn't happen twice." But the most touching moment in this movie is when two characters who are NOT in the title discover something quite important in a photograph. You know a romantic comedy is in trouble when the sweetest moment happens with neither of the title characters in the scene. Add to this the fact that the funniest scene in the film is the outtake version of Bradley Whitford's speech from the climax of the film you find in the deleted scenes section of the DVD and that is just another bad sign. Bottom line: "Kate & Leopold" might be one of the most disappointing films you see this year. Be forewarned.
Rating:
Summary: ...It could've been much better....(sigh!)
Review: I really, really wanted to love this movie. At first sight it had everything I wanted in a movie....Hugh Jackman, chivalry, time travel, love conquers all theme(yada, yada, yada). I've liked a few Meg Ryan films before and I certainly was prepared to be open-minded about this film. It started out fairly promising. Hugh Jackman looked marvelous as a turn-of-the-century nobleman. I fell in love with him right away. The supporting cast led by Liev Shrieber (as Kate's ex-boyfriend) and Breckin Meyer (Kate's brother Charlie) was entertaining and even funny. It was Meg Ryan (Kate) that I really had a problem with. From the first frame til the very last second, she really felt wrong as Kate. There's no sweetness or endearing quality about this character that would make me empathize with her or want to be like her. Meg Ryan as Kate was stiff and dull - it was as if she (Meg) was going through the motions just for the heck of it. You get that feeling of: "heck, here's another romantic comedy for me to act in. Blah, blah, blah." At times I even felt like smacking her. You'd think an actress who got paid millions could at least put a little more effort into her work than the usually drivel. This film in the hands of another lead actress would've made it much more interesting and enjoyable (Gwyneth Paltrow or Cameron Diaz perhaps?). Thank goodness for Hugh Jackman or the 2 hours I spent watching this could've really been unbearable! If you want an effective romantic comedy, check out "Serendipity," "4 Weddings and a Funeral," "Nottinghill," "Cutting Edge" or any of the Jane Austen-based films ("Emma," "Pride & Prejudice") instead.
Rating:
Summary: THE 4 STARS ARE FOR HUGH JACKMAN
Review: First, let me state that I love historic romance novels (I recommend anything by Jane Feather). And I really enjoy Diana Gabaldon's "Outlander" time-travel/historic romance series. So I hoped for good things here. My opinion: cute movie. Hugh Jackman is adorable. Meg Ryan looks too old for him. The plot had holes (for instance, if Leopold's uncle sent him to America when he turned 30, how could Leo have been raised in the Albany mansion?). But the most annoying thing in the movie was the mispronunciation (TWICE!) of the word "viscount." Actually, it is pronounced with a long i; it does NOT rhyme with "discount." (Hubby and I had a good laugh over that one, but I don't think it was intended to be comic. I suppose this is what happens when unwordly twenty-somethings run Hollywood.)
Rating:
Summary: Could have been terrible...
Review: This could have been an awful movie. It almost was. This literalization of the fantasy of being swept away by a Real Gentleman (dressed in gold lace, on a white horse, no less!) is painfully hokey sometimes. The ostensible moral of the movie, that if you just love a gorgeous man enough to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge for him (again, literally!) you'll find true happiness, is one that too many women have already taken to heart. And the science-fiction machinery is just plain embarassing. BUT there are three great performances in the movie. Jackman is wonderful. You really do get the sense of a Real Gentleman from him. For a movie that regularly goes over the top, Jackman's encounter with the modern world is surprisingly nuanced and low-key -- he's a scientist of sorts, an inventer, and his delight in seeing how things work is really wonderful. As is his incredulous dismay at how badly toasters work: one toasting barely warms the bread & two burns it. (There's a quick throwaway shot a bit later of a toaster he's jury-rigged to toast perfectly.) When he's tipsy and tells Meg Ryan's boss and would-be seducer that he's a cad and a serpent, you actually believe, not only that a man would talk like that, but that another man would be taken aback and reconsider his life when he heard it. The second great performance is by Breckin Meyer, as Ryan's brother. He does a wonderful job of portraying a manic young man who vexes people in hopes of making them like him. There's great chemistry in the scenes between him and Jackman, as Jackman teaches him a thing or two about how to approach women. The two of them sparkle together (much more than Jackman and Ryan ever do.) The third great performance was by Schreiber, who -- with the help of some magnificent directing -- does a wonderful job at the beginning of the movie, as a 21st Century man prowling about late 19th Century America, and appearing subtly, weirdly, surreally out of place. You don't really know why Jackman is fascinated by him in the opening scenes, but you're fascinated too. And the scenes between the two when Schreiber inadvertently brings him forward in time with him are wonderfully done. Meg Ryan on the other hand, is more of a place-holder in this than an interesting character. She's done much better work. The three great performances keep this from being an awful movie, but they can't quite it a success. The end is too disappointing. The movie parodies itself throughout, but that only makes the final descent into improbable schmaltz that much more painful -- you can tell that even the director doesn't believe in it, so why should you? The characters all suddenly lose their shape. Why should the self-absorbed Schreiber suddenly go to great lengths to try to make other people happy? Why should Meg Ryan believe him when he tells her to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge? Why does Meyer go along with it? Under what conceivable circumstances would any duke, let alone a Real Gentleman, have announced his choice of a bride in public, in the presence of all contenders, as if announcing the winner of a raffle?
So -- this movie wavered between being a great movie, and being a dreadful one, but it never quite managed to be either. It's not a bad cosy, Sunday-afternoon cuddle movie. But you might want to switch it off before the end.
|
