Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Sleepy Hollow (1999) in Movies
Apr 20, 2020 (Updated Apr 20, 2020)
Sleepy Hollow is one of those films that I will always love. I first saw it when I was 13, when DVDs were still pretty new, and I would watch it over and over again.
It's just about creepy enough to offer itself to horror fans, and has the right amount of Tim Burton campiness to still appeal to younger audiences (not too young mind, plenty of blood flying about).
Johnny Depp plays Ichabod Crane, a constable sent from New York to the small town of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of bizarre murders, at the tail end of the 1700s.
The townsfolk are gripped with fear, convinced that the murders are the work of the fabled Headless Horseman, but Ichabod is certain that there's a less supernatural involvement behind the scenes.
The 18th Century setting is perfect for Burton's gothic style. The whole film is draped in a misty asthethic, lending it a cold and dreary atmosphere.
This is further complimented by Danny Elfman's incredible church-organ-heavy score.
The Horseman himself looks ghostly and makes for some unforgettable shots as he chases down and decapitates his way through the cast.
Said cast is a heavy duty one as well. Johnny Depp is front and centre, pretty much just being typical Johnny Depp, but it works wonders with Ichabod's almost mad-scientist character.
The rest of the cast boasts the likes of Christina Ricci, Michael Gambon, Christopher Walken, Miranda Richardson, Ian McDiarmid, Michael Gough, Richard Griffiths, Christopher Lee, Jeffrey Jones... It's an impressive list.
Some of the acting is a bit overboard at times (looking at you Christopher Walken) but it kind of adds a bit of surrealism to the whole affair.
The effects are pretty solid as well. Burton's approach to using a large amount of practical effects is admirable, and what CGI is used is subtle enough to not show the films age.
Despite it cheesyness, Sleepy Hollow manages to be both a dark and fun horror adventure, that I always enjoy watching and remains a highlight in Tim Burton's resume.
It's just about creepy enough to offer itself to horror fans, and has the right amount of Tim Burton campiness to still appeal to younger audiences (not too young mind, plenty of blood flying about).
Johnny Depp plays Ichabod Crane, a constable sent from New York to the small town of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of bizarre murders, at the tail end of the 1700s.
The townsfolk are gripped with fear, convinced that the murders are the work of the fabled Headless Horseman, but Ichabod is certain that there's a less supernatural involvement behind the scenes.
The 18th Century setting is perfect for Burton's gothic style. The whole film is draped in a misty asthethic, lending it a cold and dreary atmosphere.
This is further complimented by Danny Elfman's incredible church-organ-heavy score.
The Horseman himself looks ghostly and makes for some unforgettable shots as he chases down and decapitates his way through the cast.
Said cast is a heavy duty one as well. Johnny Depp is front and centre, pretty much just being typical Johnny Depp, but it works wonders with Ichabod's almost mad-scientist character.
The rest of the cast boasts the likes of Christina Ricci, Michael Gambon, Christopher Walken, Miranda Richardson, Ian McDiarmid, Michael Gough, Richard Griffiths, Christopher Lee, Jeffrey Jones... It's an impressive list.
Some of the acting is a bit overboard at times (looking at you Christopher Walken) but it kind of adds a bit of surrealism to the whole affair.
The effects are pretty solid as well. Burton's approach to using a large amount of practical effects is admirable, and what CGI is used is subtle enough to not show the films age.
Despite it cheesyness, Sleepy Hollow manages to be both a dark and fun horror adventure, that I always enjoy watching and remains a highlight in Tim Burton's resume.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Churchill (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We will bore them on the beaches”.
“Churchill” tells the story of the great leader’s extreme opposition to “Operation Overlord”, the Eisenhower-led invasion of Normandy in 1944 that ultimately led – more by luck that judgement perhaps – to the fall of the Third Reich in the following year.
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…