3 reviews
While not one of my favourites, Ub Iwerks was responsible for a lot of interesting work. Especially when working with Walt Disney, his oldest friend and one of his best, and co-creating one of animation's most famous characters in Mickey Mouse. His career since opening his own studio had interest value but the quality was variable, often being successful in the animation and music but wanting in the story and variable in gags, lead characters and tone.
1933 to 1936 saw twenty five cartoons, mostly based on famous fairytales and familiar stories, as part of Iwerks's "ComiColor" series. The "ComiColor" series is very much worth watching and interesting, as is the case with many series some cartoons are better than others but there are no real animation nadirs. 1934's 'The Headless Horseman' is watchable enough it is a little disappointing, comparing this and Disney's version it is a no-brainer which is the better one of the two.
'The Headless Horseman', while faithfully adhering to the basic details of the story, is slight and is too saccharine, like at the beginning, and does take far too long to get going. This affects the pacing which generally needed more kick. There is just not enough content to the poem to fill the cartoon's length and the middle especially is where one feels the over-stretching.
Its characters should have been much more interesting, their personalities are bland excepting the titular character. The wit and imagination has been more frequent and stronger in other cartoons in the series before and since, apart from with The Headless Horseman there was not an awful lot to it. The character design for Ichabod is pretty poor, going overboard with the ugliness.
However, 'The Headless Horseman' in no way disgraces the story and has enough interest to stop it from being completely dull. There are a few amusing moments that aren't too corny and never repetitive (like the Clark Gable caricature), and there is a genuine likeability and charm. The Headless Horseman is suitably creepy, without being traumatising, and the part with him is where the cartoon is the most interesting.
Furthermore, the animation is great generally, apart from the character design for Ichabod. Meticulously detailed, fluid in drawing, vibrant in colour and often rich in imagination and visual wit. The music is cleverly and lushly orchestrated, is infectiously catchy and adds a lot to the cartoon, along with the titular character it is by far the best asset.
Overall, another example of a worth a look once but not repeat viewings cartoon. 5/10 Bethany Cox
1933 to 1936 saw twenty five cartoons, mostly based on famous fairytales and familiar stories, as part of Iwerks's "ComiColor" series. The "ComiColor" series is very much worth watching and interesting, as is the case with many series some cartoons are better than others but there are no real animation nadirs. 1934's 'The Headless Horseman' is watchable enough it is a little disappointing, comparing this and Disney's version it is a no-brainer which is the better one of the two.
'The Headless Horseman', while faithfully adhering to the basic details of the story, is slight and is too saccharine, like at the beginning, and does take far too long to get going. This affects the pacing which generally needed more kick. There is just not enough content to the poem to fill the cartoon's length and the middle especially is where one feels the over-stretching.
Its characters should have been much more interesting, their personalities are bland excepting the titular character. The wit and imagination has been more frequent and stronger in other cartoons in the series before and since, apart from with The Headless Horseman there was not an awful lot to it. The character design for Ichabod is pretty poor, going overboard with the ugliness.
However, 'The Headless Horseman' in no way disgraces the story and has enough interest to stop it from being completely dull. There are a few amusing moments that aren't too corny and never repetitive (like the Clark Gable caricature), and there is a genuine likeability and charm. The Headless Horseman is suitably creepy, without being traumatising, and the part with him is where the cartoon is the most interesting.
Furthermore, the animation is great generally, apart from the character design for Ichabod. Meticulously detailed, fluid in drawing, vibrant in colour and often rich in imagination and visual wit. The music is cleverly and lushly orchestrated, is infectiously catchy and adds a lot to the cartoon, along with the titular character it is by far the best asset.
Overall, another example of a worth a look once but not repeat viewings cartoon. 5/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Jun 9, 2018
- Permalink
Who gets the girl: Icabod Crane or Bom Bones? They both are after Katrina Von Tassel in this famous tale, brought to cartoon life in this UB Iwerks production. This story had been done once in animation, back in 1922. This one offers up the story in color.
As with a lot of these Celebrity Productions, made in "Cinecolor," the story takes precedence over the humor. At least, that's the way it appears today. Maybe people laughed a lot more 70 years ago at this kind of cartoon but I don't think it would happen today. Now, it's more of a curiosity piece and a quick, condensed (eight minutes, usually) version of a famous tale with new twists added sometimes.
Not having read the novel, I can't tell you what's bogus in this cartoon story, only that it offers very little. The only clever animated scene was the grandfather clock going to sleep. The ending was a bit of a surprise and I did smile at the very last scene. Overall, however, this not recommended.
As with a lot of these Celebrity Productions, made in "Cinecolor," the story takes precedence over the humor. At least, that's the way it appears today. Maybe people laughed a lot more 70 years ago at this kind of cartoon but I don't think it would happen today. Now, it's more of a curiosity piece and a quick, condensed (eight minutes, usually) version of a famous tale with new twists added sometimes.
Not having read the novel, I can't tell you what's bogus in this cartoon story, only that it offers very little. The only clever animated scene was the grandfather clock going to sleep. The ending was a bit of a surprise and I did smile at the very last scene. Overall, however, this not recommended.
- ccthemovieman-1
- May 19, 2008
- Permalink
For a short cartoon this one is not bad. It is the story of a very popular ghost story. Nothing great just something fun and entertaining to watch. Good animation for the most. Story line is not to bad. The book is a lot scarier. But this is a good way to past some time. I do not like a lot of cartoons. But this one is fun. If you just want to see a good family film so good artist did work on this one. It a pretty good family movie. Washington Irving was a great writer. See this movie it is a good time. This a good movie. Good movie good movie good movie. It is fun for the hole family. This is kind of spooky. Sleep Hollow (1999) is better. But still not to bad at all. I have seen more then once it is a good movie.
- jacobjohntaylor1
- Nov 24, 2015
- Permalink