Sleepy Hollow
The one thing that all the great Tim Burton films have had over the years is that so-called intangible IT factor, the thing that connects the audience to the odd and bizarre characters emotionally and thus makes the films a substantial viewing experience, and if you have a Burton film without that, what you wind up with is a great-looking but still empty piece where the audience is neither moved nor involved. Thus is the case with his 1999 adaptation of Washington Irvingās legendary short story, certainly one of (if not the) best technically made movies on his resume, with (Oscar-winning) production design, beautiful, evocative cinematography, sumptuous period costumes, a haunting Danny Elfman score, and a supporting cast of old pro character actors, but is still saddled with a muddy script that drags much of the effort down to average level. Johnny Depp stars as Ichabod Crane, now redone as a police detective instead of a salacious schoolteacher, who is allegedly among the first of his kind to employ scientific forensic techniques to solve various crimes. Sent to the town of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of murders by beheading, he encounters superstitious town elders and learns of the legend of the Headless Horseman (Christopher Walken), the ghost of a Hessian mercenary in the American Revolution who was caught and killed by beheading and now returns to take the heads of those in this town. This points out the first mistake of the screenplay: whereas in Irvingās story it was said that the Horseman killed at random to strike fear in the peopleās hearts, here they actually make the mistake of giving him a MOTIVE for his killings, in that he specifically ātargetsā certain people on behalf of one of the supporting characters who controls him in order to consolidate their power in the town, wherein the idea of the Horseman being an evil supernatural being with no rhyme or reason was infinitely more frightening. Moreso, as Deppās Crane comes to grips with the supernatural nature of his intended prey and instead starts to unearth the truth behind the motive, one wonders why the Mystery Villain (who apparently can summon the Horseman by simply lifting his skull, doing a little chant, and proclaiming the next victim) doesnāt just send the Horseman (who is impervious to swords and bullets) to kill Crane himself to keep him from getting to the truth, with several scenes of the Horseman attacking people in full view of Crane, taking their heads yet leaving him alone so he can figure out why they were killed. In addition, the dialogue tries to be āold timeā English but mostly comes off as inane and stilted, including a real kneeslapper between Depp and female lead Christina Ricci (āYou must have a little witch in you.ā āWhy do you say that?ā āBecause you have bewitched me.ā Wha?). As for the rest of the cast, Ricci does possess the ethereal beauty necessary as Katrina Van Tassel, despite a glaring lack of chemistry between her and Depp; Michael Gambon, Jeffrey Jones, Richard Griffiths, Ian McDiarmid, and (best of all) Michael Gough bring the heavy-handed theatrics to their roles as the town elders, and Casper Van Dien as Deppās rival for Ricciās interests does the usual insecure male schtick next to Herr Depp but handles himself well in his one fight scene. Burton should be praised for making the movie in the 60s British Hammer Horror style (complete with that eraās legends in Gough and a cameoing Christopher Lee), and for even doing a homage to the famous Disney cartoon adaptation of the story (complete with flying pumpkin), and certainly having the balls to use gruesome R-rated FX and even depict the Horseman killing a young boy, but the scriptās convoluted resolution along with other elements like bringing in out of left field the character of a witch who lives in the woods that gives Depp most of the answers he needs along with the fact that by the end of the movie Depp has solved the case but just about everyone in the quiet, small town is dead anyway(!) makes for an experience that does NOT go along with his greatest works, but can appeal to certain audiences that can appreciate technical aspects of cinema and style over substanceā¦
7/10