The Legend of Sleepy Hollow

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

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.

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.

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.

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.