This is a charming movie starring Hugh Jackman- yet to hit his stride in the big leagues, and Meg Ryan- on a downturn. Featuring a bit of time travel an Englishman from the 17th century lands up in modern day New York City and falls in love with an advertising executive alongside trying to settle in the new century. The film is cute and would make for a great afternoon relaxation offering. Its rather sad to see Meg Ryan fall of the face of Hollywood because she has an endearing personality and an infectious smile. James Mangold directs(he would reteam with Hugh Jackman for Wolverine and Logan).

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.

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

In this movie, a tall, good-looking aristocrat from the nineteenth century goes through a time portal and ends up in the twenty-first century. He meets a woman named Kate, and befriends her brother Charlie, who is a funny-looking little-guy. Leopold and Charlie end up one evening at a nightclub, where they sit at a table with some beautiful women. Charlie tries his best to amuse the ladies, getting nowhere, while Leopold just sits there being the strong, silent type. Later, as they are walking home, Leopold tells Charlie that he is a Merry Andrew, a clown, and that is why he gets nowhere with women.Now, I guarantee you that if Leopold had acted like a Merry Andrew, and Charlie had just sat there being silent, it would still have been Leopold whom the women were wanting. In fact, the movie might have been more interesting had the actors switched parts. If Charlie had been tall and good looking, but was a flop with the ladies, while Leopold had been a funny-looking little-guy who succeeded with women on account of his Victorian manners and aristocratic demeanor, then that might have been interesting. Not realistic, but interesting. As it was, the hapless Charlie, whom fate had provided a plain face and small stature, had to endure the additional insult of being told by a man both handsome and well-built that he is "doing it wrong."