An attempt to be true to the Washington Irving classic, but poorly done.
A huge filming/editing mistake is made just a little more than 2 minutes into the film. One of the tavern's regular patrons takes a drink from his pewter tankard. The problem is that the tankard has no bottom so you see his mouth right through it's missing bottom. This goof does not happen in the background. The scene is a close up of the actors face at the time of the obvious goof.
This lack of attention to details is consistent throughout the film. In fact the same goof is repeated in the background at about 25 minutes in, and again by Ichabod about 1hr 5min in.
In an attempt to dress the scene as rustic, the interior of the hovel is made dirty, and cluttered, but the walls are spotless, or the actors clean and spotless. The inverse is also true filthy people in a spotless environment. No consistency, except for how consistent these errors pop up.
The over acting is as common as the poor acting. Not that all of the acting is poor, just that some of the prominent characters are poorly acted, while some of the decent acting is done by those with small parts.
Some historical inaccuracies are present.
Possibly the most true to the original Washington Irving tale I have seen, but poorly done.
A huge filming/editing mistake is made just a little more than 2 minutes into the film. One of the tavern's regular patrons takes a drink from his pewter tankard. The problem is that the tankard has no bottom so you see his mouth right through it's missing bottom. This goof does not happen in the background. The scene is a close up of the actors face at the time of the obvious goof.
This lack of attention to details is consistent throughout the film. In fact the same goof is repeated in the background at about 25 minutes in, and again by Ichabod about 1hr 5min in.
In an attempt to dress the scene as rustic, the interior of the hovel is made dirty, and cluttered, but the walls are spotless, or the actors clean and spotless. The inverse is also true filthy people in a spotless environment. No consistency, except for how consistent these errors pop up.
The over acting is as common as the poor acting. Not that all of the acting is poor, just that some of the prominent characters are poorly acted, while some of the decent acting is done by those with small parts.
Some historical inaccuracies are present.
Possibly the most true to the original Washington Irving tale I have seen, but poorly done.