Fairly close adaptation of the Irving story, except for giving Katrina a personality, and Brom a sense of wanderlust, so if you liked the cartoon version or the Tim Burton movie, this one may not be for you. The cast is a bunch of people I've never heard of, but they're not bad, and the guy playing Crane is actually quite good-you're not SUPPOSED to like the character, so his annoying ways are true to the tale. I do wish that the actor playing Brom Bones was a bit more of a hellion-this guy is a bit too much the young, handsome, and high school jock type. The pacing is a bit slow, the costumes rather much like a high school drama club production (ladies of that time would not have worn pinner aprons everywhere, especially not to church-people then would have reacted to that the same way people now would react to you attending church in your bedroom slippers), and everything is a bit too anachronistic in its cleanliness and shinyness, but it's not terrible. One for the whole family, even the littles. A cut above ordinary due to the actors playing Crane and Mynheer Van Tassel, so six stars.
20 Reviews
This "Legend" actually suffers from its faithfulness
SwingBatta12 April 2002
The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (1999): Not to be confused with the marvelous Tim Burton film that was released the same year, this version (produced for Canadian television) is, at best, a tepid adaptation of Washington Irving's classic story. Unlike the Burton and little-seen Jeff Goldblum versions, which both utilized different takes on the plot, this small-budget translation literally goes by the book, yet it suffers greatly from trying to stretch out the short source material to feature length. The results are incredibly slow pacing and lack of zest throughout, right up to the unspectacular representation of the Headless Horseman. Brent Carver and Rachelle Lefevre deliver as Ichabod Crane and Katrina Van Tassel, respectively, but babyfaced Paul Lemelin is miscast in the role of roughneck Brom Bones. The film's erroneous opinion of itself states that it "captures the mystery and romance that have eluded other screen efforts." Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. 5/10
Faithful but dull
Andy-2963 January 2001
This film is more faithful to the original Washington Irving story that the Tim Burton movie, but this doesn't make it necessarily more entertaining. In fact, this movie is pretty dull. The unknown actor portraying Ichabod Crane doesn't help a lot, either. (Other actors in the movie are more appealing). Still, if you have read the book, you might be interested to watch this version.
Pretty close to Washington Irving.
joelvis16 October 2000
I thought this was the best of the "Sleepy Hollow" films that I've seen (incl. the Johnny Depp and Jeff Goldblum versions) at staying true to the original story (however, I really liked Tim Burton's version as well). Though I agree that the legend doesn't especially make for a tight 2-hour feature, this film, which I discovered accidentally on an obscure channel, was very entertaining. Brent Carver was awesome as Ichabod Crane, but the guy who played Brom Bones was a bit too "cutesie." A good choice for adults and children alike.
Terrible Script and Acting
JonnyDR7517 August 2023
When you think of this story, you think about a certain spooky mood and expect to be frightened. This just bored the heck out of me. Tony winner Brent Carver gives a fantastic performance as Ichabod, but the rest of the principal cast seems to have come from a community theatre production of "The Crucible." It's like the director just hired their cousins and nieces and nephews and poor Brent was trapped having to act circles around these semi-literate amateurs. The actor playing Bram is so beyond bad and miscast, that it was literally painful to watch him try to act. It's like they picked some random high school kid off the football field and offered him an acting job. I would not recommend this movie.
A more realistic story than Tim Burton's
Leofwine_draca4 November 2016
THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW is a cheap Canadian TV movie version of the short story. It came out in the same year as Tim Burton's blockbuster SLEEPY HOLLOW, which of course had a much bigger budget and is therefore a slicker and better realised production. Saying that, I did like the way this film presents a more traditional, anchored, and realistic fairy tale, in which the cheesy ghostly stuff is kept to a bare minimum.
Needless to say that unknown actor Brent Carver gives a much better performance as Ichabod Crane than Johnny Depp did in the Burton film. Depp played it as all quirk, a desperate attention-seeking performance that turned my stomach. By comparison Carver is nervy and mild-mannered, much closer in realisation to the Ichabod of the book. I'm still holding out on seeing Jeff Goldblum in the role though (he made a film of the story in 1980) as I can imagine he'd supply the definitive portrayal.
Elsewhere, THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW suffers from the usual issues associated with the TV movie genre, namely lots of padding which only serves to drag the pacing down when it should be snappy. That's one of the perils of adapting a short story for a feature length movie. The romance stuff is quite horrible as is the acting of Rachelle LeFevre, later the star of TV's UNDER THE DOME. Burton's is the better version due to the budget and supporting cast alone, although I'm still waiting to see the definitive version of the story.
Needless to say that unknown actor Brent Carver gives a much better performance as Ichabod Crane than Johnny Depp did in the Burton film. Depp played it as all quirk, a desperate attention-seeking performance that turned my stomach. By comparison Carver is nervy and mild-mannered, much closer in realisation to the Ichabod of the book. I'm still holding out on seeing Jeff Goldblum in the role though (he made a film of the story in 1980) as I can imagine he'd supply the definitive portrayal.
Elsewhere, THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW suffers from the usual issues associated with the TV movie genre, namely lots of padding which only serves to drag the pacing down when it should be snappy. That's one of the perils of adapting a short story for a feature length movie. The romance stuff is quite horrible as is the acting of Rachelle LeFevre, later the star of TV's UNDER THE DOME. Burton's is the better version due to the budget and supporting cast alone, although I'm still waiting to see the definitive version of the story.
Don't bother with this junk; watch Tim Burton's version instead
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews25 January 2004
I saw this on TV, as I thought it was Tim Burton's version, which I've seen a year ago and was going to watch again sooner or later anyway; now I feel like watching it more than ever; this junk doesn't do the myth justice, it's way too slow and boring. I don't know how faithful it is to the original story, but Tim Burton's version of the story is a lot more entertaining, accurate or not. I think one of the main problems is, that the main character is not the least bit likable; he seems snobby, greedy and pretentious. Throughout the movie, he was the laughing stock of the town, and he's too stupid to notice it. I hated his character with a passion, and hoped he would be killed off by the headless horseman; I won't reveal here if I was that lucky or not. Overall, this is just your average, bad, made-for-TV movie version of a somewhat well-known story. I know I've praised Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow a lot in this review, but I just need to do so one more time; this movie is nowhere near as good, scary, atmospheric or entertaining as Tim Burton's version. Go watch that instead, and avoid this junk. 5/10
Not a bad movie.. Very true to the source.
DarkAwakening24 November 2007
Another poster here said that he'd rather watch Tim Burton's version, but that just goes to show that most movie-goers aren't interested in a true adaptation of a classic novel. This version, unlike Burton's version, is very true to the story. Meaning, instead of a strange plot involving witches, it revolves around Ichabod Crane and his awkward, generally unlikeable persona. It was pretty funny at certain times. Brent Carver stole the movie acting wise, while the guy who played Brom was pretty dull and lifeless throughout. The only real problem I had with the movie was the general lack of a empathetic character. Crane is, like I've said, awkward, but he's also pompous and his motivations are never clear. Brom is your typical no-brains jock stereotype. Katrina is even more confusing. Mostly watch this movie for the comedic value, because there's no real horror here. If you're into the butchering of a literary classic, though, please, by all means, rent Tim Burton's version.
Skip It
glgioia1 January 2010
Its incredible to me that the best rendition of this amazing story remains a cartoon made by Walt Disney in the 1940s, but its true. Here another clumsy attempt sputters confuses and alienates would be viewers with admirable effectiveness while successfully antagonizing those of us who have actually read the story. Irving's original work is short by any measure and making a feature length film is bound to be a challenge. One can either completely rewrite the story a la Tim Burton which is a discussion for another time, or pad the bust-line of the old girl with unintended detail. The latter is what is attempted here, and if I may say, pitifully so. Unimaginative and thoroughly modern new facets to character personalities such as religious zealotry in Crane or wanderlust in good old Bram Bones ruin the story's intent and betray a severe lack of talent by the filmmakers. By the time the tale's famous climax approached, I had completely lost interest. Its the kind of film where you expect to see a stagehand smoking in the background.
Interesting adaptation of Washington Irving's tale, but one with some significant casting, acting, and script problems
Beta_Gallinger8 February 2010
1999 was the year the loose adaptation of Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", entitled "Sleepy Hollow" and directed by Tim Burton, came to the silver screen, which resulted in a successful theatrical run. What many people who have seen that movie may not realize is that a made-for-TV version of the story was released the same year. I saw some of this film in October 1999 (I guess when it first aired), but I think I only saw the first little bit of it. After watching the Tim Burton version a couple months ago, I couldn't remember enough of the audio book I heard a number of times in my childhood, and decided to actually read Irving's famous short story in book form. After doing that, I watched this version, with mixed results.
In the late 18th century, after the American Revolutionary War, Ichabod Crane is a man from Connecticut who comes to a quiet little town called Sleepy Hollow and soon becomes this town's new schoolmaster. He fears there is evil around him when he is outside at night, a lot different from during the day. He falls in love with Katrina Van Tassel, the daughter and only offspring of a wealthy farmer. However, in order to win Katrina's heart, he will have to compete with an oafish young man named Brom Bones. The schoolmaster also hears stories from inhabitants of Sleepy Hollow while staying in this town, including one about the Headless Horseman, the ghost of a Hessian from the American Revolutionary War who was killed in battle when his head was removed, and is now believed to appear at night and endanger those travelling out in the dark!
The starring role of Ichabod Crane is assumed here by an actor named Brent Carver. I haven't seen him in too many roles, but understand that he has done a number of Broadway performances during his acting career. This is not surprising looking at his performance here, with his overacting. This may work on Broadway, but not in a film like this. It's sometimes ridiculous how high his voice gets, and he just seems too excited. If Carver's portrayal of the character is supposed to be funny, it's not. There are other unsatisfactory performances in this adaptation, including Rachelle Lefevre as Katrina Van Tassel and especially Paul Lemelin as Brom Bones. This version of Bones is certainly not how I imagined the character while reading Irving's story. I did NOT imagine a stereotypical arrogant teenager, which is what Lemelin's version seems like! Not only does this made-for-TV film have severe acting and casting flaws, it also has some script problems, with some ridiculous scenes showing Ichabod's imagination, and the script can't quite carry the film consistently throughout.
I haven't seen every film adaptation of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", but since this and the Tim Burton version were released the same year, and I have now seen them both, it's obviously hard not to compare them. Without a doubt, this television adaptation is a much more faithful one than the successful theatrical 1999 version, and some viewers praise it for that. However, I know many hardcore fans of the original story by Washington Irving who have seen this version would disagree, but I think Burton's film is far superior, and comparing the two really shows that following the source material isn't everything. Despite this TV version's major flaws, it somehow kept me watching, without wanting to turn it off before the end. This was probably because I at least found mild suspense, plus this version has some nice cinematography and I guess I found the story fairly intriguing for the most part. Still, they could have done better with this made-for-TV movie in more than one way.
In the late 18th century, after the American Revolutionary War, Ichabod Crane is a man from Connecticut who comes to a quiet little town called Sleepy Hollow and soon becomes this town's new schoolmaster. He fears there is evil around him when he is outside at night, a lot different from during the day. He falls in love with Katrina Van Tassel, the daughter and only offspring of a wealthy farmer. However, in order to win Katrina's heart, he will have to compete with an oafish young man named Brom Bones. The schoolmaster also hears stories from inhabitants of Sleepy Hollow while staying in this town, including one about the Headless Horseman, the ghost of a Hessian from the American Revolutionary War who was killed in battle when his head was removed, and is now believed to appear at night and endanger those travelling out in the dark!
The starring role of Ichabod Crane is assumed here by an actor named Brent Carver. I haven't seen him in too many roles, but understand that he has done a number of Broadway performances during his acting career. This is not surprising looking at his performance here, with his overacting. This may work on Broadway, but not in a film like this. It's sometimes ridiculous how high his voice gets, and he just seems too excited. If Carver's portrayal of the character is supposed to be funny, it's not. There are other unsatisfactory performances in this adaptation, including Rachelle Lefevre as Katrina Van Tassel and especially Paul Lemelin as Brom Bones. This version of Bones is certainly not how I imagined the character while reading Irving's story. I did NOT imagine a stereotypical arrogant teenager, which is what Lemelin's version seems like! Not only does this made-for-TV film have severe acting and casting flaws, it also has some script problems, with some ridiculous scenes showing Ichabod's imagination, and the script can't quite carry the film consistently throughout.
I haven't seen every film adaptation of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", but since this and the Tim Burton version were released the same year, and I have now seen them both, it's obviously hard not to compare them. Without a doubt, this television adaptation is a much more faithful one than the successful theatrical 1999 version, and some viewers praise it for that. However, I know many hardcore fans of the original story by Washington Irving who have seen this version would disagree, but I think Burton's film is far superior, and comparing the two really shows that following the source material isn't everything. Despite this TV version's major flaws, it somehow kept me watching, without wanting to turn it off before the end. This was probably because I at least found mild suspense, plus this version has some nice cinematography and I guess I found the story fairly intriguing for the most part. Still, they could have done better with this made-for-TV movie in more than one way.
A classic, but poorly executed.
djburnham5 September 2023
An attempt to be true to the Washington Irving classic, but poorly done.
A huge filming/editing mistake is made just a little more than 2 minutes into the film. One of the tavern's regular patrons takes a drink from his pewter tankard. The problem is that the tankard has no bottom so you see his mouth right through it's missing bottom. This goof does not happen in the background. The scene is a close up of the actors face at the time of the obvious goof.
This lack of attention to details is consistent throughout the film. In fact the same goof is repeated in the background at about 25 minutes in, and again by Ichabod about 1hr 5min in.
In an attempt to dress the scene as rustic, the interior of the hovel is made dirty, and cluttered, but the walls are spotless, or the actors clean and spotless. The inverse is also true filthy people in a spotless environment. No consistency, except for how consistent these errors pop up.
The over acting is as common as the poor acting. Not that all of the acting is poor, just that some of the prominent characters are poorly acted, while some of the decent acting is done by those with small parts.
Some historical inaccuracies are present.
Possibly the most true to the original Washington Irving tale I have seen, but poorly done.
A huge filming/editing mistake is made just a little more than 2 minutes into the film. One of the tavern's regular patrons takes a drink from his pewter tankard. The problem is that the tankard has no bottom so you see his mouth right through it's missing bottom. This goof does not happen in the background. The scene is a close up of the actors face at the time of the obvious goof.
This lack of attention to details is consistent throughout the film. In fact the same goof is repeated in the background at about 25 minutes in, and again by Ichabod about 1hr 5min in.
In an attempt to dress the scene as rustic, the interior of the hovel is made dirty, and cluttered, but the walls are spotless, or the actors clean and spotless. The inverse is also true filthy people in a spotless environment. No consistency, except for how consistent these errors pop up.
The over acting is as common as the poor acting. Not that all of the acting is poor, just that some of the prominent characters are poorly acted, while some of the decent acting is done by those with small parts.
Some historical inaccuracies are present.
Possibly the most true to the original Washington Irving tale I have seen, but poorly done.
Kind of slow
jacobjohntaylor128 November 2015
This movie is very slow. Do not bother with it. See the one that came out a month later with Johnny Deep. This one it just to slow. The acting is OK. The story line is not very good. Read the book. This based on a short story. There tried to make long. By having a lot of slow scenes. The cartoon from 1949 is a great film. This one is not that great. Don't bother with it. It came out when there was theatre movie based on the same book. This was a made for TV movie. It is very slow. I do not like to that mush. The 1980 version is better. So is the 1972 cartoon. This one you can skip. The one with Johnny deep is probably the best one.
Washington Irving's version.
SanDiego22 November 1999
Not as good as the Disney animated version, but much superior to both the Jeff Goldblum and Johnny Depp versions. What makes any live action adaptation of Washington Irving's classic is the choice of Ichabod Crane (The Disney version is judged based on it's narrator, Bing Crosby, who's self-mocking "hip" style, carries the story). Certainly Brent Carver dominates this role from the start when we see him perched upon a hill looking like a scarecrow, it is a startling shot by the director. In the early TV film version, Jeff Goldblum certainly looked the part, but he was too dull. In Tim Burton's spoofy version Johnny Depp (a favorite of mine, especially in Tim Burton films) is just poorly cast (as was Wednesday Adams as Katrina, give me a break puleeeze!). This version is the closest to capturing the flavor of the classic short story. If you want to see Disney's Sleepy Hollow or Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow then the choice is obvious, however, if you want to see Washington Irving's Sleepy Hollow check out this obscure cable channel version.
Captures Irving's context better than any other version
Buccaneer3 November 2002
Most renditions of Irving's short story focus of Ichabod's romantic rivalry with Brom for the attention of Katrina. This version captures the historical context of the Hudson River Valley following the Revolutionary War. Several characters distinguish Ichabod as a 'Yankee'. During that time, New Englanders were migrating into the Hudson Valley, displacing the old Dutch communities. The other thing I liked about this script is that it didn't subject Ichabod to the cliche that has developed through earlier versions. Instead of jumping out his skin every time something goes bump in the night, Ichabod works very hard in this script to mask his fears, at least when in the presence of others. This is how I imagine Ichabod when I read Irving's original, not as the wobbly-kneed, teeth-chattering, shaky handed Don Knotts-like cliche running off gobbling like a turkey at the sight of his own shadow.
There is still room for faithful adaptations
jcook5605018 October 2008
I'll warn you that, in some cases, when motion pictures tread into the territory of faithful adaptations, the modern day audience will find the result slow, but in this case, not altogether ponderous. In order to enjoy this film fully, I would recommend that you go back to the original novel, and read it's wonderfully descriptive characters and carefully crafted New England world of spooky surroundings. Washington Irving's masterful work has been carefully reproduced here, but in doing so, the producers have painted a very rich and colorful world that lacks that ever so intangible spark that gives a motion picture good pacing and story appeal. I'll give it an eight simply because they made such an energetic effort to remain true to Irving's vision. Despite its strictly bookish feel, this film is worth an evening with the kids curled around Mom, Dad, the TV, and an explanation of why this version doesn't bleed all over the couch.
Very Faithful To The Original Version
Clusium19 February 2012
When this movie came out, there were 2 other versions of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow released as well. One was --like this version -- a made-for-TV movie, which had Luke Perry, supply the voice of Brom Bones(it was a computer animated version), & the other one was the Tim Burton one, which totally did its own thing, with the story.
The one we have here, shows Ichabod's true colours: he is only interested in marrying Katrina Von Tassel in a bid to inherit her father's estate, whereas Brom Bones truly loves Katrina. Of all the film versions, this one is the most sympathetic to the character of Brom Bones.
It appears in this movie, that all the women appear to be enamoured with, and admire Ichabod Crane, while the men view him as an overblown fake. They can see past his claims to be very brave, & know that deep down, he is a coward underneath who will jump at the slightest thing.
Thoroughly enjoyed it.
The one we have here, shows Ichabod's true colours: he is only interested in marrying Katrina Von Tassel in a bid to inherit her father's estate, whereas Brom Bones truly loves Katrina. Of all the film versions, this one is the most sympathetic to the character of Brom Bones.
It appears in this movie, that all the women appear to be enamoured with, and admire Ichabod Crane, while the men view him as an overblown fake. They can see past his claims to be very brave, & know that deep down, he is a coward underneath who will jump at the slightest thing.
Thoroughly enjoyed it.
Katrina should have been the main character
xbatgirl-300291 November 2021
There seem to be two opinion camps when it comes to this movie. Either you haven't read the original story and love Tim Burton's hot mess, or you love how close this is to the original but acknowledge it's pretty slow. I obviously am in the second group. This is actually a tie for my favorite version, along with the Jeff Goldblum one, mainly because I think Goldblum is the absolutely best Ichabod. But with that version, you get super kitschy, hyper seventies.
I would love to see the original script for this version. This writer worked on the 1985 Anne of Green Gables and this production is very close to that vibe, albeit with a much smaller budget. I love the more accurately historical atmosphere they are going for. Also the scenery, the costumes, and casting are excellent. I love the idea of opening the movie with the group in the tavern passing on the story to Washington Irving. That part is straight out of the Shire in the LOTR movies. My quibble is that I just get the feeling Katrina was supposed to be more of the lead and Brom was to be more of a romantic hero. But either the director or the suits said "No no no! Ichabod has to be the main character. And also this can't be remotely scary to children." Changes were made. And it really hurt the movie.
True to the original, this Ichabod is a pompous fool, a satire, and you're supposed to be happy he gets what's coming. Brent Carver is playing that guy exactly and he's really good at it. Unfortunately most of the satire and comedy has been dulled, and you're left with this unsympathetic guy as your main focus. To top it off, the director or editing has unfortunately left us with zero suspense and creep factor to energize the audience.
I do love the how Rachelle Lefevre as Katrina actually seems like a girl in her late teens and Brom not much older. In many other versions, they're way too old. I love that we get real character actors in all the other rolls as opposed to slick Hollywood/Hallmark Channel types. I feel that this movie wants so much for Katrina to be more of a main character. We need more of how she's ready for marriage and frustrated that Brom won't settle down and stop carousing. She's momentarily interested in Ichabod but quickly figures him out, but then use him to make Brom jealous. She's the sympathetic, likable character the story is missing as an anchor. I'm not talking making this into a chick flick. Just very few tweaks. Also maybe slightly more time emphasizing how the locals are infecting superstitious, neurotic Ichabod's head with tales of the Horseman, and then Brom noticing and using it as his advantage for playing his pranks. You also could develop Brom just a bit more since you do really do instantly like him when he meets Ichabod. He's capable at his job and sizes Ichabod up instantly. He's just immature. Then his jealousy drives him to finally grow up and get married. The movie really sets you up to be satisfied when Katrina gets her happily ever after.
The bones are all there for a great version of this legend. But again, it just seems like someone insisted the focus had to be all on comic villain Ichabod and diminish everything else, including the idea this is supposed to be a little scary with a dramatic ending. I live in hope someday, someone will make the definitive version. Until then, I still love watching this every Halloween.
I would love to see the original script for this version. This writer worked on the 1985 Anne of Green Gables and this production is very close to that vibe, albeit with a much smaller budget. I love the more accurately historical atmosphere they are going for. Also the scenery, the costumes, and casting are excellent. I love the idea of opening the movie with the group in the tavern passing on the story to Washington Irving. That part is straight out of the Shire in the LOTR movies. My quibble is that I just get the feeling Katrina was supposed to be more of the lead and Brom was to be more of a romantic hero. But either the director or the suits said "No no no! Ichabod has to be the main character. And also this can't be remotely scary to children." Changes were made. And it really hurt the movie.
True to the original, this Ichabod is a pompous fool, a satire, and you're supposed to be happy he gets what's coming. Brent Carver is playing that guy exactly and he's really good at it. Unfortunately most of the satire and comedy has been dulled, and you're left with this unsympathetic guy as your main focus. To top it off, the director or editing has unfortunately left us with zero suspense and creep factor to energize the audience.
I do love the how Rachelle Lefevre as Katrina actually seems like a girl in her late teens and Brom not much older. In many other versions, they're way too old. I love that we get real character actors in all the other rolls as opposed to slick Hollywood/Hallmark Channel types. I feel that this movie wants so much for Katrina to be more of a main character. We need more of how she's ready for marriage and frustrated that Brom won't settle down and stop carousing. She's momentarily interested in Ichabod but quickly figures him out, but then use him to make Brom jealous. She's the sympathetic, likable character the story is missing as an anchor. I'm not talking making this into a chick flick. Just very few tweaks. Also maybe slightly more time emphasizing how the locals are infecting superstitious, neurotic Ichabod's head with tales of the Horseman, and then Brom noticing and using it as his advantage for playing his pranks. You also could develop Brom just a bit more since you do really do instantly like him when he meets Ichabod. He's capable at his job and sizes Ichabod up instantly. He's just immature. Then his jealousy drives him to finally grow up and get married. The movie really sets you up to be satisfied when Katrina gets her happily ever after.
The bones are all there for a great version of this legend. But again, it just seems like someone insisted the focus had to be all on comic villain Ichabod and diminish everything else, including the idea this is supposed to be a little scary with a dramatic ending. I live in hope someday, someone will make the definitive version. Until then, I still love watching this every Halloween.
OK Washington Irving adaptation
Mark_D-224 October 1999
Washington Irving's classic tale of Ichabod Crane and the Headless Horseman is apparently one that doesn't lend itself to feature length film translation. This version of "The Legend Of Sleepy Hollow" comes closer than anyone else has before (certainly closer than the Jeff Goldblum version of 1980). Brent Carver is ideal as the ill-fated school headmaster, and his run-in with the classic ghost is quite well-filmed. The padding needed in the script to get it to run to feature length just slows the movie down. Basically, an okay TV-movie adaptation that suffices on an unexpectedly rainy Sunday afternoon.
Sleepy Hollow is a sleeper
StreepFan12631 October 2002
This version wasn't any too good. There was just nothing special about it. And what I couldn't stnad was that Ichobad was not likeable. Although Brent Carver did a good job with the acting, the character was not that of a loveable teacher, but of a snobby educated man, who looks down on people who aren't. The problem I think that a lot of people run into when they are making this film is that they are trying to expand a short story into a full length movie. I still prefer the Disney version the best. Tim Burton's version comes second.
Sloooow
motor8925 January 2003
This isn't a bad version of "The Legend Of Sleepy Hollow." -- it does, however, suffer from being stretched into a 90min movie.
Large parts of the production drag until you are grinding your teeth waiting for something to happen... with no real pay off at the end. Had they made this as a 45 minute short, it may well have worked. Decent enough acting, and probably worth a watch if nothing else is on.
Large parts of the production drag until you are grinding your teeth waiting for something to happen... with no real pay off at the end. Had they made this as a 45 minute short, it may well have worked. Decent enough acting, and probably worth a watch if nothing else is on.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
