Reviews

12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Charming, though could have been much better (Possible spoilers)
20 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Dear folks who hated this movie,

If you didn't like Bewitched, or Dark Shadows, or oldie's but goodies, like Here Comes Mr. Jordon, or I Married a Witch, you aren't going to like Kate and Leopold. It's a fantasy which makes it your broccoli and spinach salad with cod liver oil dressing. So, please move on and let the rest of us enjoy it.

This is not to say the movie is without flaws. It's got them. K&L has been out for a couple of years now and people still complain about Leopold's suit and plot holes and the supposed incest. Interestingly, when I first read a very early blurb about the movie it said that Leopold was from 200 years in the past, which would have put him in about the Regency era. The 200 years would have also pushed the 'incest' concern back another three or four generations. It would also have explained his Regency style getup. The folks who were doing the counting on this incest thing would have to have at least admitted that at 6 or 7 generations removed, Kate and Start would have only shared something like 1/138th blood. That's a bit less than the 1/4 it would be for second cousins marrying, etc. If you keep it at 100 or so years separation, it would still be around 1/16th shared blood. But even that kind of thinking means we're getting away from 'it's a fantasy, folks!'

I have a few personal gripes about the movie. When it was out at the theater I saw it twice. Not a usual occurrence for me, even with Hugh Jackman's hunky persona. Frankly, during the first viewing, I could not get past Meg Ryan's hair. I was literally stunned by it. She's such a pretty woman, it amazes me that she thinks (or thought) that the Cookie the Clown haircut was cute. Not! Ms. Ryan, what were you thinking? Was this a mid-life crisis reaction?

I've gotten used to Ms. Ryan's hair now and just don't see it anymore. But her performance, seemed to be Meg Ryan phoning is as Meg Ryan. Hugh Jackman was utterly charming as Leopold and so was the young actor who played Kate's brother. Some of their scenes together are the best in the movie.

I though the use of profanity was overdone. My reaction is not out of prudishness (I can use the f-word and a heap of others when my car has a flat or won't start or I'm stuck in traffic, etc.) But it seems to me to lessen the authenticity of a character's intelligence. (Think about that the next time you overhear someone swearing continually in line at the grocery store.) It surprised me that Leopold didn't object to Kate's constant swearing (she was, after all, a lady) or that he didn't make a comment on it in general. I didn't feel he was reacting within the social attitudes of his own time. Even if it is a fantasy, he's not going to acclimate to our times all *that* quickly.

I read a lot of sci-fi and fantasy, so had no problem with the supposed 'incest' line. It's fantasy. And it's a paradox to begin with. During the time frame Stuart and Kate are in, Kate is NOT his several times removed great-grandmother. Think about *that* end of it. So, shared blood aside, I can't say I'm sure who it was who was getting their knickers in a twist over that.

That all said, it is a charming movie that could have been a blockbuster hit the likes of Sleepless but is not. I'm not sure where the fault lies in that. The Cookie the Clown haircut? Direction? The last minute/panic edit? Certainly in some of the writing. At this date none of that is going to change, so simply enjoy the movie for itself. There are far worse ways to spend two hours.

(6/10)
19 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Average
20 January 2003
*Two Weeks Notice* has some charming bits and pieces, but doesn't quite come together because it just doesn't have the heart. Grant is doing his bumbling-charming Cary Grant imitation that never quite makes it. However, at least this time he isn't stuttering his way through the part. Ms Bullock seemed like she was just going through the ropes. A number of the scenes reminded me of "While You Were Sleeping", a much funnier movie which does have a lot of heart. It's not a bad movie, but could have been so much better. Also, Ms. Bullock needs to fire her makeup artist. For a very lovely women she spent most of the movie with bad hair and a washed out look. 5/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Event Horizon (1997)
1/10
Bad-bad-bad
5 January 2003
The only thing scary about this movie is that it actually got the funding to make it. A terrible piece of drek that's a rip-off combo of *Alien* and *Hellraisers*. A terrible waste of the casts' considerable talent. If you aren't watching this on a DVD or VCR with the ability to fast forward through many minutes of gratuitous and graphic violence and inane dialogue, a terrible waste of your time.
21 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Wonderful and funny adaptation
7 December 2002
Sometimes I wonder what's happened to the sense of humor in the US. This movie does not deserve the drubbing it's getting. It's funny, fun, has a lot of heart, and given the 'updating' to the future, is a surprisingly accurate adaptation of Stevenson's classic work.

The combination/change of a few characters is well done, and Morph is one of the cutest sidekick characters in some time. The Disneyfying touches were amusing. Adding the romance and some dialogue nods to Star Trek enhanced the story.

See it. It's only 'fault' is that it's competing with HP and the Chamber of Horrors (also a super movie) and Santa Claus 2 (also worth seeing.) Give this middle child a chance.

8/10

PS: And for those of you who are complaining about scientific inaccuracies. Get over it!! This is animation and supposed to be fun.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Pointless, plotless, grotesque
1 December 2002
In five years the principle players in this movie will be wincing, no make that writhing in agony because this piece of drek is on their resume.

If you've seen the trailer, you've seen the movie. Spare yourself the agony of having to sit through it. If you were unfortunate enough to have to sit through it, then marvel at the number of charities that could have been helped by the money that was squandered on this waste of film.
1 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Ring (2002)
1/10
Adequate ghost story
22 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers ahead....









This was an adequate ghost story at best. I thought you had to be pretty much brain dead, once you saw the well, NOT to know that was 'The Ring".

There are far too many plot holes to make it truly creepy. "My wife wasn't supposed to have a child..." Richard Morgan sez. All right, the daughter is not adopted as stated earlier in the movie. Is she a Demon Seed? What is her motivation for perpetuating her evil? Is she evil for evil's sake? Enquiring minds want to know.

This isn't a ghost story that makes you think, it's a ghost story that annoys you. It could have been a lot more but wasn't. If you MUST see this, wait until it comes out on video and save the full price of admission. If you can't wait that long, see it at a matinee. You won't be so hacked off that you wasted your money.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Panic Room (2002)
4/10
Get on with it already!
10 November 2002
I'm not going to rehash plot issues because there are enough plot holes to lose an entire army in and previous comments seem to have covered everything. Forrest Whitaker's character was the only one who showed any humanity or depth. Even with that I had to wonder if he took his stupid pills before they pulled the job, since he was wearing his work uniform which had his last name embrodiered the left shoulder. I'm glad I only spent $4 to rent this and felt that was a waste. I did fast forward through about half the thing because I just couldn't stand it.

Don't bother with this one.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ghost Ship (2002)
4/10
Failed attempt at horror
29 October 2002
Based on the trailer I had really been looking forward to a wonderful creep-fest of a movie. What it turned out to be was an intelligence insulting, illogical gore extravaganza with body parts and blood all over the place.

What a waste of a talented case. If you really *must* see this movie, wait til it comes out on video. Trust me, it will be there soon enough.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Krull (1983)
4/10
Embarrassingly bad - waste of a good cast
28 December 1999
The soundtrack confused me when I first started to watch this. It was so cheesy I thought it was a bad dubbing job. S/F are terrible, even given the fact the movie was made in the early 80s, plot is anorexic, dialogue is even worse. I can only figure that the fellow who played the fumbling magician devotely hopes that he can take this off his resume. Liam Neeson and Rob Coltrane likewise. Someone actually invested money to film this?
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good, but could have been better
19 December 1999
The scenery was gorgeous and Colm Meaney was a hoot as Seamus Muldoon. I did greatly enjoy the Romeo and Juliet story between Princess Jessica, and Mickey. The fairy half of the story was probably the best. The graphics were fair to poor considering this was a Hallmark production and I was very disappointed with them. Too much sterotyping with the oafish brothers, and Jack's 'mission' could have been more original. The humor was fairly consistent throughout and that was a big plus.

All in all it was a decent piece, but could have been far better. C+ rather than an A+.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Mummy (1999)
Campy comedy
20 October 1999
People seem to either love or hate this movie. It is a decent summer flick, and saying that, you ought to know to leave your brains at the door and just enjoy it. No, it's not Indiana Jones, but I don't think it pretended to be. No, it isn't as creepy as Karloff's Mummy. Karloff's Mummy was, surprisingly, a sympathetic character. No, it's not historically accurate, but it doesn't pretend to be a history lesson. It is a comic book come to the screen. But I think it gives a broad nod and wink to those great (cheesey and otherwise) adventure/action flicks of the 30s and 40s.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Far and Away (1992)
Excellent movie
8 September 1999
The reasons this movie didn't do well at the box office is:

1: Nobody is blowing anything up or turning people into piles of hamburger or pieces of Swiss cheese.

2: Except for an acceptable amount of cleavage (given the times) there is no T&A.

3: There is no sex.

4: This IS an *old fashioned*, charming love story to relax and enjoy.

We could use more movies like this. Less sex, less gore, more story. Not a very uplifting comment on the taste of the movie goers at large.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed