Kate & Leopold (2001) - Movie Details
NA
| Release Date: | December 25, 2001 |
| Genre: | Sci-Fi, Comedy, Romance |
| Director: | James Mangold |
| Writer: | James Mangold, Steven Rogers |
| Cast: | Bradley Whitford, Charlotte Ayanna, Liev Schrieber, Breckin Meyer, Natasha Lyonne, Hugh Jackman, Meg Ryan |
| Studio: | Miramax Films |
| Running Time: | 121 minutes |
| MPAA Rating: | Rated PG-13 for brief strong language. |
A group of scientists accidentally transport a man named Leopold from the late 19th century to modern times, and while they try to figure out how to send him back home, the ex-girlfriend of one of the scientists, Kate, takes him around New York city, and in the process falls in love with him. ...
Full synopsis »
Movie Review
While Dennis Quaid continues to rise to the top with films like The Rookie and Frequency, his ex-wife continues to move in the other direction. Once one of the most successful actresses in Hollywood, Meg Ryan has seen critical and box office failure in films like Hanging Up, Proof of Life, and most recently, Kate & Leopold. Full movie review »
Comments
No HTML. Be kind - your mom might read what you say.
Home |
Movies |
Movie Reviews |
Blog |
Media |
DVD |
Contests |
Links |
About Us |
Contact Us  Movie reviews © 2003-2009 Erik Samdahl. All other content © of its respected owner. Read our Privacy Policy |
Anonymous says:
December 8, 2007Lee sounds like a whiny Meg wannabe bitch who's having a bad case of the Mondays. In your words Lee, GET A GRIP. Preferably on reality. No, Rookie wasn't a good movie. And Frequency wasn't all that hot either. But neither was this steaming pile of horse-shit that my own self-described "chick-flick loving" wife couldn't get through. Perhaps you need to slow down Lee, and actually take some time to think about WHY you'd like a movie this awful. Or do you just not like having to think?? That's my guess..
Anonymous says:
November 20, 2003Whoever reviewed this movie sounds like some embittered misogynist. Get a grip. There are plenty of people out there who would like to see a return to the manners of the past--which is what this movie was about, if you had been able to get past your 'rot-colored glasses' outlook. Maybe when you think something is a cliche' you should question whether or not the cliched thinking is really coming from you? This movie was fresh and quite enjoyable, taken as it was meant. Even my husband, who hates 'chick flicks' and romantic movies, really liked this one. It was about slowing down and taking the time to enjoy what we have, as well as realizing that faster/more doesn't equal better, if we don't couple it with lasting/patience. However, this may be a concept too deep for the extremely shallow to grasp. In which case, go right on with watching your "Frequency" and "Rookie" flicks. Now THOSE were a couple of really unnecessary and BORINGLY PREDICTABLE MOVIES. . .Frequency was like a ten cent ripoff of that excruciatingly dull movie with Danny Glover and--oh wait, was it? Why, yes it was--DENNIS QUAID--where Glover played a serial killer and the 'ever inventive' Quaid played--GASP!--the cop tracking him! Zzzzz... For "The Rookie", only two words need be said; "The Natural". And Robert Redford did it far better. Dennis should have had the good sense to hold onto a good thing when he had it--namely MEG! A word of advice: if the person posting these 'reviews' wants to be taken seriously, let that person consider that people here are looking for a MOVIE REVIEW, not a post which inculcates that person's personal problems with successful women and the men who can't keep up with them.