Genres

Visitors Review

Gemma Tarlach 2013-06-16 04:30:09

As a spun-sugar, slightly screwball romantic comedy, it's a delicious 'portal' to an hour and change of escapism.

Robert W. Butler 2013-06-15 15:14:34

Will they fall in love? Does Fabio use conditioner?

Debbie Kennedy 2013-06-14 23:06:59

This is the best time I've had at the movies in all of 2001.

Hugh Jackman is so utterly charming, honest, and sexy as Leopold that heeasily carries this film. Meg Ryan and the rest of the supporting castarealso very good (if you can get past Meg's unflattering hair-style!). Athoroughly enjoyable romantic comedy with a sci-fi twist! I'm lookingforward to taking my 72-year-old Mom to see it (who will love it!) so thatI'll be able to see it again too!

Krys 2013-06-14 10:45:53

Wowie!

Being out of town with my sister, when she proposed that we go see "KateandLeopold" I agreed, having no idea what it was about. Needless to say, I amGLAD that I went! Hugh Jackman and Meg Ryan had REMARKABLE performances! Itwas the perfect mix of romance, comedy, and even a little sci-fi. It's adefinate date movie for ANY couple!

James Berardinelli 2013-06-12 08:53:18

Delivers the kind of warm, familiar mixed brew of romance, humor, light drama, and pleasant character interaction that has made many of Ryan's similar endeavors successful box office performers.

Sebastian 2013-06-12 03:03:47

Meg should throw in the towel

Meg Ryan in a romantic comedy? Say it isn't so! Unfortunately the answeris 'yes'. Kate is a woman unlucky in love. She has a great job, a niceapartment by Manhattan standards and is rapidly climbing up the ladder ofsuccess. Of course now a days, that is what women want - oh no, notaccording to this movie. Successful woman really just want to be winedanddined and travel back in time to where they had no rights to vote, work,ownproperty, smoke in public, drink at all or even open up their mouths tosay'no' - even if they did, their husbands had the legal, yes legal, right tobeat them in public. And if their husbands didn't do it, other menpresentwere allowed and saw it as their civic duty. Yeah, sure, this is what youbuild a rom-com on in 2001. The cliches are a-flyin' here people morefastand furious than room full of brides-to-be running through a bridal storegoing-out-of-buisness sale. Brecken Meyer is good, Liev Schrieber issolid,Jackman is on the ball and the best part of this movie, and poor Meg lookslike she left half her body wieght back in South America on the POL set.She has done this so many times before, even SHE looks bored to death.Thehistorical inaccuracies are laughable because they are so easy to researchand correct. Doesn't look like a lot of thought was put into this puppy,Iam sad to say. How modern woman can watch this and walk away with a feelgood glow is hard to understand. Why you ask? Because I find the idea ofamodern woman throwing away all that her fellow women in the past foughtforjust to have a man a sad premise to build a rom-com on. My 3x'sgreat-grandmother was a suffragette, and my granny is turning in her gravefast and furious.

Alex Ramirez 2013-06-08 02:46:28

Pasadera, divertida en algunos momentos, pero siendo exigentes con el género, lo mejor del filme sigue siendo la canción nominada...

avonlea3 2013-06-07 13:49:57

Hugh Jackman saves the day

I am not a Meg Ryan fan and this movie confirmed those feelings. Her rolein this film is completely unoriginal. She's done too many characters likethat. In the course of the movie, I never understood why Hugh Jackman'scharacter had any interest in her. Jackman with the help of Breckin Meyermade the movie worth sitting through. I would have walked outotherwise.

Karina Montgomery 2013-05-31 08:28:38

"Life is not comprised solely of tasks, but tastes."

noralee 2013-05-30 20:27:19

Mindless Fairy Tale With Zero Common Sense

I had to watch "Kate and Leopold" with two minds, and keep shoving oneof them back into its rational hole.Primarily, Ozzie Hugh Jackman (here as a Brit) is, as the fictionalmarket research focus group in the movie put it, a hunk. At least thisis better than his previous Hollywood forays.Poor Liev Schreiber only gets one good speech, and he does it quitewell. Meg is Meg (though one would have thought her character could havehandled sexual harassment better).Here's the "buts" -- "Happy Accidents" is a similar and much bettermovie. Advertising and market research is a hackneyed target forcriticism of the modern world. Jack Finney's "Time and Again" (and almost any of his tales) are asimilar and much better story -- and far more historically accurate. Ihad to keep wincing on how the mattes and the editing got both old andnew New York all wrong, even mixing up Manhattan and Brooklyn Heights,Downtown and Uptown, as if Madison Avenue was just off the BrooklynBridge. Funny how modern times bothered the Duke -- but not modern women'sslight clothing or sexual mores, though the sex is off-screen (I expectKate would be more bothered by 1876 plumbing and pre-feminism). Andthat's after the director edited out the implausibilities that thecritics plotzed about at the previews or dealing with when La Boheme orPirates of Penzance were first performed.Not only are the music selections not special, but it oddly relies onHenry Mancini's "Moon River" theme from "Breakfast at Tiffany"s to putthe two characters in the mood - what does that have to do with a 19thcentury duke? If you can keep silly common sense out of your head, the movie is asweet chick flick.(originally written 12/29/2001)

jinnys 2013-05-28 21:53:36

slight problem with family tree

This movie was very interesting. If you haven't seen this movie yet,DON'Tread any further.I seem to be the only one who realizes that Stuart is the great greatgrandson of the wonderful Leopold. If Kate went back in time, she wouldhave been his great great grandmother. Stuart and Kate were dating for 4years before the galant Leopold reared his beautiful face. That means foreveryone that isn't following me so far that Stuart for 4 years wassleepingwith his great great grandmother.Now, am I the only one who has a problem with this?

effie-4 2013-05-28 06:20:51

Brilliant!

"Kate & Leopold" is one of the best movies I've ever seen. If you likeromance, nostalgia,and erotic tension (instead of in-your-facesexuality) blended with humor, this film is for you. I've seen it fiveor six times, first at the movies then on video. It's a film that Ican't stop thinking about. The chemistry between Hugh Jackman and MegRyan is dynamite. Hugh Jackman (Leopold) is at his best as an Englisharistocrat. Kate (played by Meg Ryan) is an engaging career woman, whois so accustomed to being treated as a sex object that she is confusedand overwhelmed by Leopold's show of respect and good manners. A friendgave me the video, and then I bought the musical score. The first timeI saw the film, I was so fixated on Hugh Jackman that I barely noticedthe music. Now I keep the CD in my car. The music complements thefilm's nostalgic setting, mood, and theme. While the entire cast isexceptional, Jackman and Ryan steal the show.

Rosie 2013-05-25 14:03:14

Kate and Leopold!

What can I say except that Meg Ryan iswonderful as an actress and she gave thismovie her best just like in"Sleepless In Seattle".I've never seen her give a badperformance ever and I loved the way itended with her leaping through time to bewith her guy.I recommend it to anyone wholoves a good love story.

shebacat 2013-05-25 03:26:43

it had potential

This movie has potential but just doesn't pan out. It had all theingredients of very good looking man, Meg Ryan who usually does well inthese films and an interesting story line. Instead it ends up being averycutsie movie that was so predictable that I wasn't sure I wanted to stayaround for the end. And what's up with Meg's hair????

antonjsw1 2013-05-20 15:27:45

Hardly original, but very enjoyable.

Conceptually derivative and full of clichés, this film nevertheless isan enjoyable viewing mainly down to excellent performances by the castThe story concept is a rehash of the time travel romance genre, whichhas been done before in films such as Somewhere in Time, Time AfterTime, Back to the Future Part III, The Lake House, and more obliquelyin films such as the Terminator and Star Trek IV. However, compared with these films this film plays the comedy to thefore, though making comedic opportunities from a character coming to adifferent time period to set up a 'fish out of water' is hardly new.The strength of this film is, however, the excellent performances byall of the key cast. Congratulations have to go to Meg Ryan and LeivSchreiber, who are both charming and funny in their roles withouthamming it up too much. However, the real standouts are Brecklin Meyerwho is extremely funny as the Meg Ryan's character's brother, but alsowarm and accessible, and Jackman who is spot on as the 19th centuryscientifically minded aristocrat who plays his character with bucket'sof warmth, charm and integrity. James Mangold's directing isunderstated and he wisely allows the actor's to shine. He also doesn'treally emphasise the more serious considerations about time travel, aweakness in a lot of films in this genre, and Schreiber's character'sconnection to Jackman's character is insufficiently fleshed out. Technically the film is very polished, with impressive photography (byStuart Dryburgh), and a enjoyable score by Rolfe Kent. Sting's song"Until" won a Golden Globe for best song. The film's ending is clichéd but emotionally satisfying and makes foran enjoyable experience, if hardly a profound one.

Karla Peterson 2013-05-20 00:08:17

Even if the charming Jackman floats your boat, it's tough to swoon over Kate & Leopold.

MoonsofJupiter 2013-05-18 19:54:41

Why bother?

Mild SpoilersWhy bother with the time travel thing? The so-called science of it is murkyand unconvincing and it doesn't do a thing for the plot. They may as wellhave had Hugh Jackman as a modern upper-class Englishman coming to New Yorkand the effect would have been the same; he would have been just as offendedby the crassness of the advertising business without having to have comefrom another century, for Pete's sake. They didn't even capitalize much onthe fish-out-of-water angle. It seemed like no time before Leopold wascomfortable using the toaster and the telephone and wearing modernclothes.Why did they bother? Out of sheer desperation to try to inject thisrun-of-the-mill, chemistry-free, Julia Roberts reject of a vehicle with alittle pizzazz, but to no avail. Take away jumping off the bridge andyou've got "Sleepless with the Duke of Albany". Meg Ryan is getting a little long in the tooth to keep on playing the ditsyingenue who needs to be told by a strong man that deep down she really doeswant love over independence. And are we supposed to buy the notion that a woman with a choppy haircut whowears men's suits and strides around her glass-walled office building wavingher arms in the air will really find lifelong happiness wearing a corset andtidying the knick-knacks as a 19th century housewife?Rating: 3 out of 10.

John R. McEwen 2013-05-18 09:46:17

...An average, workmanlike production, virtually indistinguishable from any other example of the pat, easily digested, box-office-successful formula faithfully churned out by Hollywood every day of the year.

Donald F. Larsson 2013-05-17 02:01:57

Historical Anachronisms (Goofs) in Kate & Leopold

Leopold has fallen through a crack in time and has been whisked from theyear 1876 to contemporary New York. So far, so good, but Leopold alsoseemsto know quite a bit about the years in between:1. He refers to Thomas Edison's incandescent lamp, which was not inventeduntil 1879.2. He teaches a child to sing "I am the very model of a modern MajorGeneral" from THE PIRATES OF PENZANCE, which was also not composed until1879.3. In a key scene, Kate's boss has pretentiously declared his love ofopera,claiming that he learned French from watching LA BOHEME. Leopoldcorrectlyberates him because the opera was written and is usually performed inItalian--but it was not composed until 1896!

shedoesmagic 2013-05-16 21:10:45

an incredible romantic comedy

I found this movie to be an incredibly witty and romantic production. Ifound it in no way insulting to women. The characters are verycharming. The McKay's are witty and funny, and Jackman's character isjust downright romantic. Before I saw it I thought the idea of themovie was too absurd, and I almost didn't watch it. But in a way, thestoryline is so unrealistic that it makes one almost wish to be apartof it, because it could never happen. There is something about the lovematch which keeps one on the edge of one's seat. I found myself rootingfor the main characters the entire time. I absolutely loved this movie.It's definitely on my favorites list.