Even overlooking several major flaws, this movie still isn't very good. I'm willing to suspend disbelief to a certain extent, so I can forgive all the time-travel questions this movie raises. Furthermore I'm used to movies portraying people as falling in love in less than a week and assuming that that is a solid basis for a lifelong marriage - so I can't really fault this film for that too. My biggest problem was the way Meg Ryan's character was portrayed and how quickly she was able to throw away her entire life for some distant past that I don't think she quite appreciated what her new life would entail. Why did people (both Leopold and her boss) accuse her of being "manly" and "unfeminine"? Because she was assertive, good at her job, career-oriented? I found this highly offensive! Furthermore, even accepting that she had fallen in love with someone (in a week!) and that she was not that interested in keeping her own life (w/ a promotion, the love of her brother, her friends, etc.) -- how on earth could she decide (in less than 23 minutes) to travel back to live in 1876? (without even hearing from Leopold on his thoughts on the matter!) If she's thought to be "unfeminine" and "manly" in this day and age, can you imagine what it would've been like back then? Has she considered whether being with Leopold is worth giving up her rights? The right to vote, to wear pants, to work, etc. Were women at the time allowed to go outside unchaperoned, own property of any kind, even get divorces? Did they still wear girdles and other sorts of insane fashions she will be expected to adopt? I admit my knowledge of the past was sketchy, but I'd be worried about things like indoor plumbing, the state of medicine/hospitals at the time, etc.
The false romanticization of the past is nauseating. We're supposed to think it's better because men were more "gentlemanly" back then. It's not impossible to find polite, well-behaved men in this day and age - who also agree with feminist principles!
I could have handled the ending if he had come back to live with her in the present instead of her having to go back and give up her life for him. It seems as if he would've adjusted better to today's society than she to his. (It already sounded as if he was unhappy with his life back then, and other than his connection to Otis, had no personal ties).
The false romanticization of the past is nauseating. We're supposed to think it's better because men were more "gentlemanly" back then. It's not impossible to find polite, well-behaved men in this day and age - who also agree with feminist principles!
I could have handled the ending if he had come back to live with her in the present instead of her having to go back and give up her life for him. It seems as if he would've adjusted better to today's society than she to his. (It already sounded as if he was unhappy with his life back then, and other than his connection to Otis, had no personal ties).