IMDb > The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (1999) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
 The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 16 reviews in total 

9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
This "Legend" actually suffers from its faithfulness, 12 April 2002
5/10
Author: Glacier571-3 from San Francisco

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

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Washington Irving's version., 22 November 1999
Author: SanDiego

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Not a bad movie.. Very true to the source., 24 November 2007
7/10
Author: Chris from Camarillo, California

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Faithful but dull, 3 January 2001
5/10
Author: Andres Salama from Buenos Aires, Argentina

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Captures Irving's context better than any other version, 3 November 2002
10/10
Author: Buccaneer from Oregon

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Interesting adaptation of Washington Irving's tale, but one with some significant casting, acting, and script problems, 8 February 2010
6/10
Author: Electrified_Voltage from Guelph, Ontario, Canada

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
A nice little story that comes to life..., 2 July 2009
9/10
Author: Angelus2 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I sat down with nothing to do and found this film starting..I was already familiar with the story and too be honest as a child it deeply fascinated me...So I sat and watched this low budget tale of the Headless Horseman as he descends on the people of Sleepy Hollow.

This is more closer to the actual story...As Ichabode Crane was not a very good looking man and was not a detective...

I was pleasantly surprised as the acting was brilliant and brought an air of 'Shakespseare' to it...The build up to the legend of the fallen soldier who rode through the forest at night was beautifully done...But the character of Crane was more interesting...A cowardly man who likes to brag....

I loved the ending, it left the audience wanting more...Definitely worth an evening of your time..

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Pretty close to Washington Irving., 16 October 2000
Author: joelvis from Baton Rouge

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Very Faithful To The Original Version, 19 February 2012
9/10
Author: Carolyn Barratt (salonsandspas@yahoo.ca) from Canada

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
There is still room for faithful adaptations, 18 October 2008
8/10
Author: jcook56050 from United States

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.

Was the above review useful to you?
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history