The Flipcritic

No matter how flawed many movies may seem, there are some that are able to wipe away all of their mistakes with their merits. One such film is KATE AND LEOPOLD, a film so contrived, so illogical (even by its own scientific standards), and in some instances so badly handled, that if it weren't for its lead's performance and pretty decent script, it would be another tiresome retread not worth showing even on TV.

The film follows the tried and tested formula of the "fish out of water" scenario commonplace in time-travel movies (e.g. BACK TO THE FUTURE, JUST VISITING, HAPPY ACCIDENTS, etc.). The 19th-century Duke of Albany, Leopold Mountbatten (Hugh Jackman of X-MEN), hurtles through a portal in space-time leading to 21st-century New York, which was discovered by his great-great-grandson Stuart Besser (Liev Schreiber). Stuart takes care of Leopold in his apartment for a short while, until an accident incapacitates him from doing so. Stuart's ex-girlfriend Kate McKay (Meg Ryan of WHEN HARRY MET SALLY) who lives at an overhead flat, doubts Leopold's claims of who he says he is. Nevertheless, Leopold waits in the company of Kate and her brother Charlie (Breckin Meyer) so that Stuart can help bring him back to his own time. Of course, as fate (or the plot) would have it, Kate and Leopold fall in love.

Effective time-travel movies depend not so much on the intricacies of its science as they do on the contrast of people existing in different eras. How would a man react to living in the distant past? Or in the future? the movie's characters, not its plot, are its strength. I expect many of this movie's viewers to go, "But how...?" more than once. For example, the portal is located somewhere below a section of the Brooklyn Bridge, and the only way to cross it is too leap off the bridge. Fine. But why doesn't the traveler hurtle to his death on the other side? This is one of the many gaps of logic that the movie gleefully tosses aside. Time-travel is such a complex subject, that in a movie like this (which is more of a romantic comedy), it is best to simply ignore the rules that the film sets.

What makes the film work is the likeability of its characters. Its filmmakers may have thought that casting Meg Ryan as the female romantic half will achieve this, but it didn't work for me. Nobody plays perky, cute, and snippy like Ms. Ryan, but frankly I'm fed up with her. She is Ms. Romantic Comedian, typecasting herself into these type of characters (FRENCH KISS, WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, ADDICTED TO LOVE, JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO, SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, and YOU'VE GOT MAIL) when she is capable of so much more (WHEN A MAN LOVES A WOMAN and COURAGE UNDER FIRE). She has got to take more interesting roles (PROOF OF LIFE) and not shove herself into so much mush. Right now, she is begging to be parodied.

The good news though, is that the film more than makes up for all its faults with Hugh Jackman (also on the list of my favorite actors). Quite simple, his performance is the only reason to see the film. How good? Let's say they could've dropped KATE from the title. He isn't only the film's heart and soul, but its entirety. The movie radiates with enjoyment when he is on the screen, and struggles to maintain its momentum when he is off it. All of the best scenes are with him: His charm with the ladies on his views of the Louvre, his expertise with floral arrangements ("Orange lilies imply hatred and begonias and lavender signal danger and suspicion".), his pursuit on horseback, his berating of Kate's opportunistic boss ("You are braggart and a cad."), his argument with a police officer ("Are you suggesting madam there exists a law compelling gentlemen to lay hold of canine bowel movements?"), and especially his oral delivery in a butter commercial upon which tasting he despises. His is the most charming performance I have seen since Renee Zellweger in BRIDGET JONES'S DIARY. His nomination for a best actor award at the Golden Globes is more than deserving.

It's too bad that the rest of the film is so weak. Liev Schreiber is a very capable actor, but not much is required for him here, except to wholeheartedly accept (without hesitation) that his ex-girlfriend loves his grandpa. The film's ending sequences leading up to the final resolution are poorly crafted. The film makes us invest so much into Leopold, that its frustrating that almost all of it has to be spilled on the floor with such a haphazard finish. It's a good thing that Hugh Jackman's performance is so solid as not for it to be tarnished. Many of the final events are unbelievable emotionally and rationally. I can't believe that Kate would do the things she did (at the end) with such reckless abandon without thinking them through. And as for the movie's final explanations, they can be described as bewildering, even maddening. Please do not try to sort them out because they cannot be.

I did like a lot of things in the movie. I liked the way the film showed Leopold as not being a blithering idiot getting to 21st century New York (He makes following instructions on household items so entertaining to watch.). I also liked the script wherein the words spoken by the film's characters are both entertaining and intelligent and not the usual romantic drivel. Many guys may view this as another chick-flick but there are so many things that a man can learn from this film. We can all thank Mr. Jackman for his perfect portrayal of a perfect gentlemen (Halle Berry and Meg Ryan have both attested to this in real life). He has "it", the very thing that will, I dare say, make him a star.

And as for the ending, will they end up together? What do you think? *Wink Wink*

Posted by FLIPCRITIC at February 19, 2002 12:00 AM