Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

ScoobyMint Disappointment for a huge fan!

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

alma_halliwell I loved it as it is simplistic and romantic. I know that is mostly the reason it got criticized. I agree that the end could have been better since it ends kind of abruptly from my point of view. However what I value in this movie is the reminder of past slow paced life and of course romance. Chick flicks are often blamed for people's desires that are based on silly dreams and scenes from these kinds of movies. But as I see it, we sometimes expect too much from movies and at times they should be just seen as what they are often intended to be - source of entertainment. That is the main reason I enjoyed watching this movie although the plot was a bit underdeveloped. Because sometimes viewers just need to lull into a two hour fairy tale before going back to a real world. When in need of 'future/past' romance I will surely come back to this movie.

SimonJack The great license sci-fi or fantasy films have is that they don't have to make sense. And, the fictitious aspects of the film can be as preposterous or outrageous as the movie makers want them to be. The idea of time travel has fascinated movie makes almost since the beginning of films. Yet, no more than a couple early scientists gave it any serious thought or attention. It's one of the goofiest of scientific possibilities, yet audiences still enjoy the occasional time travel movie out of Hollywood. Time travel fantasy has lived for decades on TV with the original BBC series of "Dr. Who" (1963-89), and since 2005 in the new "Dr. Who series. This 2001 flick, "Kate & Leopold," is a fair comedy romance that takes place all in New York City. But it moves through a time crack between 1876 and about 2000. The players all are OK, but nothing special. Most viewers would be interested just in seeing the romance develop between the two stars. Meg Ryan is Kate McKay and Hugh Jackman is the Duke Leopold of Albany. Methinks that the Miramax folks trifled considerably with the history of New York in 1876. I doubt very much that there was that much of a society with royalty yet from England. Of course, it's fantasy and sci-fi, so anything goes. The story is very predictable as it goes along, and it's slow. It's OK for a rainy afternoon if one can't find something better. But not a film worth going out of one's way for, or to buy.

krotkaia I really just adore Meg Ryan, and my low rating of this movie is definitely not due to her less than perfect acting. That's out of question. Also I cannot say that the plot is without interest, but it cannot be called original either. The thing is, this movie seems to resemble the more recent "City of Angels" starring the same talented actress. And I think the filmmakers actually did not even try to conceal the resemblance. The way the Duke of Albany jumps off the bridge to become a man in the XXI century, is a lot like the Angel (Nicholas Cage) falling to become a man. Only in this former film (which I gave a higher vote) the man also does not come back to his pre-fallen state. While "City of angels" is a drama with higher emotional value (though it doesn't aspire to be philosophical), "Ket and Leopold" is merely a romantic comedy. Meg Ryan is great in this kind of movies, and that saves the film from being tasteless. Then also the episode in the kitchen, when Kate gets mad at Leo for standing up and acting all weird and out-of-time, is a lot like the scene from "City of Angels", when Maggie makes Seth cut up the cabbage, and then cuts his hand, and upon discovering that he doesn't bleed, she gets mad and tells him to get out. By the way I think both scenes are made up to conform to the regular scenario of a romantic movie. I appreciated the character of Kate's brother, Charlie. I think it's a great trick to put him in the plot. He clearly empathises with Leo, and his belief that the latter is real is just very believable, given his naivety (also well-played). I also think that most of the scenes in which Steward appears are disgraceful. The first one is just in the opening of the movie, and we see him giggling at the use of the word "erection" by the architect of the London Tower Bridge. I think he acts really immature for a scientist who has the qualifications to discover a crack in the space-time continuum. But that's just me. And then I also think that the way he speaks with the nurse when he is in the hospital is arrogant and disdainful: "Have you been taking Earth Science? You look like a smart woman..." And that's just a mainstream movie, so perhaps that's too much to ask for. Anyway, I think

Armand romanticism in pure form. seductive performance by Hugh Jackman. Meg Ryan in her long time role. not very coherent but comfortable. seductive, nice, mixture of fairy tale - the expected prince is only duke - and history. nothing great but interesting because it escapes from many romance clichés, despite the not care for the fast adaptation to the XXI century for the poor Leopold. in many scenes, it seems be the film of one actor and that fact covers many errors of scriptwriter and impose the film as classic. nice and comfortable. that is Kate & Leopold. almost a fresh air because it is not only a romantic story but a seductive modern fairy tale. so, see it ! it could be a kind of soup for soul.