Pretty well done. Pretty tight directing, good exchanges between the characters. preposterous, sure. But silly fun and Romance.
Can you fly this plane?
Surely you can't be serious.
I am serious,and don't call me Shirley
I just saw this movie for the first time. It wasn't that bad. Of course, the time travel plot holes are still present. Hugh Jackman was a good choice for the main male part, however, Meg Ryan did not seem quite right for the main female role. I thought Nicole Kidman might have been better.
shareI feel that maybe they wanted her for a noticeable distinction between her and Hugh.
Can you fly this plane?
Surely you can't be serious.
I am serious,and don't call me Shirley
I read a movie critic's review of the film. He did like Hugh Jackman's role in the movie, but thought that Meg's character was a bit too "unlikeable" as a person and found it hard to see how Hugh would be attracted to her. I sort of agree with that. Maybe it was the script that is to blame for that?
According to the review, the director's cut version included an explanation of the connection between Leopold and Stuart. If you followed that explanation and the time travel scenario, then there would be hereditary issues between Kate, Leopold, and Stuart. If you recall at the beginning of the movie, Stuart was Kate's ex-boyfriend for the past 4 years.
Yes, Meg's character, Kate, was a little brusk, career oriented, me first. But I think that was part of the appeal. Pepper & Honey. The Director ultimately has control on how he wants the actors to bring out their characters. Hm, hereditary between Leopold and Stuart?
Can you fly this plane?
Surely you can't be serious.
I am serious,and don't call me Shirley
** SPOILER ALERT**
I got a copy of the DVD with the theatrical and Director's cut and deleted scenes. After looking over them all, I guess my criticism of Meg's character is decreased. The director's cut version plus some of the deleted scenes should not been left out (it was due to not allowing the movie to run over 2 hours). What the theatrical version did was to "sanitize" the plot so that the tie between Stuart and Leopold were all taken out. I disagree with this editing. The rationale for Stuart poking around Leopold all of the time in 1876 was removed (going back in time to find your ancestors would be a very plausible thing to do). I am sure that the film editor had issues about the possible hereditary connections between Stuart, Leopold, and Kate by leaving these scenes in the movie. The last deleted scene in the taxi when Kate realizes the implication of being Stuart's great great grandmother was a "turning on a light bulb" moment. The plot continuity makes more sense by including them. The theatrical version also removed the first scenes with Kate at her workplace and discussing a movie (the director makes a cameo appearance in this scene) right after Stuart and Leopold fall off the bridge. This scene helped to introduce the Kate character for the viewers instead of the elevator scene in the theatrical version (we don't know who she is and why she is in the elevator). Several of the deleted scenes also helped to reinforce the plot continuity and unfortunately were left out (such as the bath scenes and after Stuart's fall down the elevator shaft).
The controversy that would be brought up by including the hereditary tie plot line would be understandable. However, its inclusion reinforces the secondary aspect of this movie (next to having Kate and Leopold meeting) and that is, Stuart's existence would depend on his actions in bringing back his great great grandfather to meet his great great grandmother. If the three of them of them did not travel through time, then the entire time line for all three would be rewritten between 1876 to 2001. Leopold would marry another woman. Kate would go on with her career in marketing. Stuart would not exist (or become another person). Stuart becomes the crucial catalyst in joining the couple. The theatrical version downplayed this. Two other popular movies that used this similar time travel plot device - The Terminator and Back to the Future. In the Terminator, Kyle Reese went into the past to give birth to his son with a woman from the past, Sarah Connor. In Back to the Future, Marty McFly had to make sure that his parents fell in love or he would not exist anymore. These movies were allowed to retain their story line without these hereditary issues being removed in the theatrical versions. This movie should have been allowed to do so as well.
Good info. Several key plot holes not included in the TV version I saw.
Can you fly this plane?
Surely you can't be serious.
I am serious,and don't call me Shirley
**SPOILER ALERT**
The theatrical (and TV) version was too sensitive about the hereditary implications involved with the major characters. If they had such a big issue with it, they should have revised the relationship between Kate and Stuart from the beginning and not have them as former boyfriend and girlfriend and added back the deleted scenes. The director had to "surrender" to the film editor and reviewers even though he disagreed with the edits. One of the deleted scenes involve Stuart right after his fall down the shaft. He is shown lying on the ground and sees another person on the ground there too. In the theatrical version, you did not know if he had died or not. Another deleted scene is when Leopold is told about the elevator mishap in the apartment and is shown the shaft where Stuart fell down. That scene reinforced the invention connection to Leopold. At the beginning of the director's cut version of the movie, a deleted scene near the beginning involving Kate who shows up at the dancing ball as Leopold runs after Stuart and they bump into her. This was probably removed so that it would not take away from the suspense involving the photo at the end of the movie.
My personal plot hole and movie edit comments.
The scene when Leopold goes back to his time could have been extended. Stuart could have explained to him why he needed to return back to his time. Not doing so means the elevator invention would never be realized. And with the hereditary connections further explained, he would tell him that if he remained at this future time, Stuart's existence would be in jeopardy. Leopold would accept his explanation and ask that he say goodbye to Kate for him.
Since time travel involves jumping off the bridge, why are the time travelers not soaking wet when they shift to the other time period?
Taking the deleted scene from the beginning of the movie when Stuart and Leopold bump into Kate at the dancing ball, when the scene is replayed at the end of the movie, Stuart would come back down the stairs right after Kate enters the building and before Leopold makes his bridal announcement, he would take a few more photos which then includes Kate in them. He, of course, does not realize that she is there and exits the building before the engagement announcement is made.
If you really think about it, all three of them relived the 1876 scene twice under different circumstances. Stuart was chased and then not chased. Leopold ran after Stuart and then did not. Kate jumped back to the past twice (first was bumped and then not bumped). So the argument that the ending scene should have been EXACTLY the same as the beginning scene "no longer holds water". My explanation is this regarding the photo on the replay of the opening scene at the end. Stuart taking a photo of Kate on the second replay is not necessary because it is a different 1876 timeline for all three of them after Leopold returns back to his time. In the director's cut version, Kate was technically left back in 1876 as Leopold chased Stuart to 2001 New York. Since Leopold did not chase Stuart on the second replay, the photo of Kate becomes unnecessary since Leopold does not go to the future a second time and interacts with Stuart and Kate differently than from the first pass. In effect, all three of them appear in 1876 twice for the same scene with different outcomes and it is not a "replay" for any of them. So which 1876 scene is the actual one that transpired in that span of time for the trio? Both of them because as Stuart said, it is a "pretzel".
I would say Nicole would have brought more style & sophistication, throw in a similar accent.
Can you fly this plane?
Surely you can't be serious.
I am serious,and don't call me Shirley
Considering that Meg's next movie was a big break from the romantic comedy roles like this one, I wasn't too surprised by the acting change. I am sure she tired of these type of movies by this time.
shareAfter considering the Kate character more closely, Nicole doesn't look like a right fit for it. I agree about having the couple be from the "opposite side of the tracks" and Meg being chosen for that role is better. Oddly, Meg replaced Nicole in the next movie that she made.
share