Christopher-Lee Movie Reviews

I first saw this movie when it came out on cable TV and thought it was terrific then. This movie is a MUST for anyone thinking about going into healthcare or those teaching students in healthcare. The majority of the movie is portrayed from a patient's perspective, down to filming the ceilings while a patient is lying on a guerney in the crowded emergency room. It is a fast paced, enjoyable film though at times there is strong language used. As a registered nurse with many years experience working in emergency rooms, I highly recommend this video.

Considered both as fantasy adventure and as an adaptation of a beloved literary classic, Peter Jackson's film of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" sets new standards for cinematic excellence. Everything about this film feels exactly right, from the casting to the screenplay to the special effects. The last are amazing, putting to shame anything George Lucas has come up with, and yet they always serve to advance the story; unlike Lucas, there's never any hint that Jackson is merely playing with his toys. Jackson shows great respect for Tolkien's text, but not slavish devotion. Certain characters--such as the lovable Tom Bombadil and Frodo's poisonous Aunt Lobelia--are missing, and Tolkien would be chagrined to find that the little poems and songs he loved to write are nowhere quoted. But if Jackson gives short shrift to Tolkien's whimsy, he more than makes up for that by giving us Tolkien's intensity, pathos and moral vision absolutely undiluted. Above all, Jackson never forgets that Tolkien's chief emphasis was always on the characters he created. Jackson casts wonderful actors to play those characters and--again unlike Lucas--he actually allows them to give performances. How wonderful to find the great Sir Ian McKellen, a uniquely commanding and charismatic actor, as Gandalf, or the charming and touching Elijah Wood as Frodo. You can go straight down the list--Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, Sean Astin as Sam, Ian Holm as Bilbo, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel--and find nothing but perfection. This is one of the very few big-budget blockbusters that unqualifiedly deserves its success, and all we can do now is look forward with excitement to the release of "The Two Towers" in 2002 and "The Return of the King" in 2003. Like the books they came from, these three fillms will be cherished by future generations.

"It wasn't just like the book. Peter Jackson wasn't close enough to the mark. Where's Tom Bombadil? THE BOOKS WERE BETTER!" BLA! BLA! BLA! BLA! BLA! I've had enough of the "fan boys" complaining about the fact that the films are not "like the books". That's because these are what people living in the present like to call "films, or movies". Give peter Jackson credit where it's due. Nobody makes truly epic films like this anymore. The man's discovered a lost art. As much as I like George Lucas, he can create a universe from nothing and transfer it to film. Peter Jackson used the real world and made sure that a great deal of time, effort, and care went into presenting this ADAPTATION. If it were just like the books, people would have fallen asleep or walked out after the first 100 page narrative. GROW UP! ENJOY LIFE! WATCH MORE TV! DRINK SOME ALE AND SMOKE A HOBBIT PIPE WHILE YOU'RE AT IT!

Sincerely,

Bilbo Baggins

I'll make this short by assuming you have seen the theatrical release and are a fan.
Pros:
Bottom line is the extended edition (consisting of disk 1 & 2) is well worth the purchase alone. After seeing it, you get a lot more out of the movie (character development, storyline, etc.) These extended scenes were obviously cut out due to the movie running too long. They have done a good job adding them back in with the exception of only a couple of transitional glitches.

The VERY in-depth appendices (disk 3, & 4) provide you with everything from writing the screenplay to design and special effects by Weta.

Cons:
The packaging is done well, with a book style looking DVD case, holding all four discs. However, getting the discs out of the case is another story. If you have rented a fair amount of DVD's then you know what I'm talking about. You feel as though you're going to break the discs when trying to get them out; I guess not all cases are created equal.

Verdict:
Go for it.

This movie is nothing short of amazing and brilliant.The story,acting and visual imagery is just breathtaking.They made a wonderful book come to life with this movie.The lord of the rings should have won more awards than it got.I would recommend this movie to any fan of fantasy adventure movies.

This is simply one of the finest, most entertaining films since the glory days of "Star Wars." The last film to give me this kind of buzz was "The Matrix" in 1999. After seeing "The Fellowship of the Ring" I came out of the theater so enthralled and giddy that I went home, called up three of my closest friends, and went out the very same night and saw it a second time. I now own it on DVD and I look forward to so many things, from the special effects to the glorious score, each time I pop it in my player. This movie is a visual feast filled with excellent acting and filmmaking expertise. It won 4 Oscars, but eventually lost out to "A Beautiful Mind" for Best Picture. This should have won all 13 Academy Awards. This is a genuine masterpiece.

As a teenager, I discovered The Lord of the Rings. At that time, my friends and I wondered if anyone could ever make a movie that would render the beauty, drama, magic of Tolkien's masterpiece. We believed it would be very difficult to transmit all the subtlety of the book, and we thought (it was 20 years ago) that the technology could not make it look real. When we heard about the project, we received the news with some skepticism. Wouldn't a film destroy the magic that was in a reader's mind ? It does not.
Peter Jackson had achieved what we thought impossible. The movies are remarquable, faithfull to the book and its spirit.
This edition includes additional scenes that will rejoice fans and recent discoverers. Mr Jackson, "chapeau" to you and your team !

Considered both as fantasy adventure and as an adaptation of a beloved literary classic, Peter Jackson's film of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" sets new standards for cinematic excellence. Everything about this film feels exactly right, from the casting to the screenplay to the special effects. The last are amazing, putting to shame anything George Lucas has come up with, and yet they always serve to advance the story; unlike Lucas, there's never any hint that Jackson is merely playing with his toys. Jackson shows great respect for Tolkien's text, but not slavish devotion. Certain characters--such as the lovable Tom Bombadil and Frodo's poisonous Aunt Lobelia--are missing, and Tolkien would be chagrined to find that the little poems and songs he loved to write are nowhere quoted. But if Jackson gives short shrift to Tolkien's whimsy, he more than makes up for that by giving us Tolkien's intensity, pathos and moral vision absolutely undiluted. Above all, Jackson never forgets that Tolkien's chief emphasis was always on the characters he created. Jackson casts wonderful actors to play those characters and--again unlike Lucas--he actually allows them to give performances. How wonderful to find the great Sir Ian McKellen, a uniquely commanding and charismatic actor, as Gandalf, or the charming and touching Elijah Wood as Frodo. You can go straight down the list--Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, Sean Astin as Sam, Ian Holm as Bilbo, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel--and find nothing but perfection. This is one of the very few big-budget blockbusters that unqualifiedly deserves its success, and all we can do now is look forward with excitement to the release of "The Two Towers" in 2002 and "The Return of the King" in 2003. Like the books they came from, these three fillms will be cherished by future generations.

"It wasn't just like the book. Peter Jackson wasn't close enough to the mark. Where's Tom Bombadil? THE BOOKS WERE BETTER!" BLA! BLA! BLA! BLA! BLA! I've had enough of the "fan boys" complaining about the fact that the films are not "like the books". That's because these are what people living in the present like to call "films, or movies". Give peter Jackson credit where it's due. Nobody makes truly epic films like this anymore. The man's discovered a lost art. As much as I like George Lucas, he can create a universe from nothing and transfer it to film. Peter Jackson used the real world and made sure that a great deal of time, effort, and care went into presenting this ADAPTATION. If it were just like the books, people would have fallen asleep or walked out after the first 100 page narrative. GROW UP! ENJOY LIFE! WATCH MORE TV! DRINK SOME ALE AND SMOKE A HOBBIT PIPE WHILE YOU'RE AT IT!

Sincerely,

Bilbo Baggins

I'll make this short by assuming you have seen the theatrical release and are a fan.
Pros:
Bottom line is the extended edition (consisting of disk 1 & 2) is well worth the purchase alone. After seeing it, you get a lot more out of the movie (character development, storyline, etc.) These extended scenes were obviously cut out due to the movie running too long. They have done a good job adding them back in with the exception of only a couple of transitional glitches.

The VERY in-depth appendices (disk 3, & 4) provide you with everything from writing the screenplay to design and special effects by Weta.

Cons:
The packaging is done well, with a book style looking DVD case, holding all four discs. However, getting the discs out of the case is another story. If you have rented a fair amount of DVD's then you know what I'm talking about. You feel as though you're going to break the discs when trying to get them out; I guess not all cases are created equal.

Verdict:
Go for it.

Considered both as fantasy adventure and as an adaptation of a beloved literary classic, Peter Jackson's film of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" sets new standards for cinematic excellence. Everything about this film feels exactly right, from the casting to the screenplay to the special effects. The last are amazing, putting to shame anything George Lucas has come up with, and yet they always serve to advance the story; unlike Lucas, there's never any hint that Jackson is merely playing with his toys. Jackson shows great respect for Tolkien's text, but not slavish devotion. Certain characters--such as the lovable Tom Bombadil and Frodo's poisonous Aunt Lobelia--are missing, and Tolkien would be chagrined to find that the little poems and songs he loved to write are nowhere quoted. But if Jackson gives short shrift to Tolkien's whimsy, he more than makes up for that by giving us Tolkien's intensity, pathos and moral vision absolutely undiluted. Above all, Jackson never forgets that Tolkien's chief emphasis was always on the characters he created. Jackson casts wonderful actors to play those characters and--again unlike Lucas--he actually allows them to give performances. How wonderful to find the great Sir Ian McKellen, a uniquely commanding and charismatic actor, as Gandalf, or the charming and touching Elijah Wood as Frodo. You can go straight down the list--Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, Sean Astin as Sam, Ian Holm as Bilbo, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel--and find nothing but perfection. This is one of the very few big-budget blockbusters that unqualifiedly deserves its success, and all we can do now is look forward with excitement to the release of "The Two Towers" in 2002 and "The Return of the King" in 2003. Like the books they came from, these three fillms will be cherished by future generations.

"It wasn't just like the book. Peter Jackson wasn't close enough to the mark. Where's Tom Bombadil? THE BOOKS WERE BETTER!" BLA! BLA! BLA! BLA! BLA! I've had enough of the "fan boys" complaining about the fact that the films are not "like the books". That's because these are what people living in the present like to call "films, or movies". Give peter Jackson credit where it's due. Nobody makes truly epic films like this anymore. The man's discovered a lost art. As much as I like George Lucas, he can create a universe from nothing and transfer it to film. Peter Jackson used the real world and made sure that a great deal of time, effort, and care went into presenting this ADAPTATION. If it were just like the books, people would have fallen asleep or walked out after the first 100 page narrative. GROW UP! ENJOY LIFE! WATCH MORE TV! DRINK SOME ALE AND SMOKE A HOBBIT PIPE WHILE YOU'RE AT IT!

Sincerely,

Bilbo Baggins

I'll make this short by assuming you have seen the theatrical release and are a fan.
Pros:
Bottom line is the extended edition (consisting of disk 1 & 2) is well worth the purchase alone. After seeing it, you get a lot more out of the movie (character development, storyline, etc.) These extended scenes were obviously cut out due to the movie running too long. They have done a good job adding them back in with the exception of only a couple of transitional glitches.

The VERY in-depth appendices (disk 3, & 4) provide you with everything from writing the screenplay to design and special effects by Weta.

Cons:
The packaging is done well, with a book style looking DVD case, holding all four discs. However, getting the discs out of the case is another story. If you have rented a fair amount of DVD's then you know what I'm talking about. You feel as though you're going to break the discs when trying to get them out; I guess not all cases are created equal.

Verdict:
Go for it.

More digitally processed landscape shots from New Zealand. More trudging across the tundra. More story lines that resemble nothing in the books. One scale model castle. One scale model castle storming battle. The cavalry arrives in the knick of time. Color fades in and out. Aspect ratio is screwy (and this is the widescreen edition). The highlight of this snore fest are the Ents (talking, walking trees). Not worth 3 hours of my time and barely worth the $4.50 I paid to rent from block buster. You want to see a good 3 hour movie, rent the Longest Day. That was an epic movie.

I have no problem hearing a great argument for or against the quality of this DVD on this forum, so long as it is intelligent. Some of the best pieces of literature are made through winning (or losing, in some cases) debates over the quality and craftsmanship of a piece of fiction, and truly these movies should and will continue to be debated for years to come. Yet fewer of the 'against' arguments made here in this forum (and on many internet forums, for that matter) have any real substance to them, and make extremely broad statements, like 'the movie was boring' or 'it wasn't like the book'. If you are going to make such sweeping generalizations about something, you had better be willing to back them up with some really good evidence, otherwise, you only make yourself look bad. Do you really think that people will listen to what you have to say? Clearly from the audience's point of view (those who actually sift through these reviews to find out information, like myself), they do not like your lack of supporting detail. No review that is simply written to either praise or attack the movie without any helpful reasons why the reviewer gave it such a score ever gets more than two or three people saying that it was helpful. Most reviews of this nature end up with a much higher number of people saying that they do not find your reviews helpful at all.

The question this brings up then is this: Why bother writing a review, if by sheer statistics your detail-less, unsupported argument will be helpful to no one? I, like many people who bothered to scroll through the 1200+ reviews listed here, want to find out information about the DVD, and make an informed, intelligent decision about the quality of the movie based on the feedback listed in these forums and my own observations. If you are a reviewer with nothing more to say than either 'this movie sucked' or even 'WOW! supercool movie!', then shout it out loud, call up a friend, stand on a chair and tell whoever you can - but please, please, PLEASE - don't review it unless you actually have something intelligent to say. And, as a side note, use correct grammar and spelling. I speak for many people when I say that if you can barely write out a complete sentence, let alone spell any of the words in it, I just skip your review.

This brings me to my main point - that this movie is such an excellent tool for allowing the illiterate people in the world the opportunity to experience storytelling at its finest. If you are someone who found reading the 1300+ pages of the books a huge challenge, the movies are truly a gift to you, and do not require your reading of the books in order for you to enjoy the movies whatsoever. I guess the irony of all of this is that an illiterate person will see the length of this review and probably skip it to find a shorter, less 'wordy' review, but please, if you find writing or reading difficult, consider the fact that the movies are to a certain degree a visual way of allowing you the opportunity to enjoy one of the nineteenth century's greatest works of fiction. Do not be so quick to call it 'boring' or 'slow' simply because you could not understand it. Give it some time. This movie, like the books, is one of the pioneers of truly high quality fantasy filmmaking. The books were not an 'instant classic' - they were an acquired taste. Clearly, the movies have become extremely popular within weeks of hitting the screens back in 2001, but this is likely because of the years and years of build up and popularity.

Fantasy genre moviemaking has made huge leaps and bounds through these movies, and will likely continue. As our society puts less focus on reading and writing, and more on visual entertainment, the fact is that you are likely to be in the majority as a person with little to no verbal or written skills. Chances are that more films will come out within this genre that will cater to the millions of entertainment deprived, uneducated people who cannot find entertainment within their own imaginations anymore. If you are already one of these people, and like being a minority, then start reading. These movies may be the last attempt at recreating good fiction. In 40 years, who knows? You may be experiencing someone's virtual reality adaptation of Peter Jackson's 'The Lord of the Rings', and people will be saying things like 'Wow - supercool story! Did you know that it was based on a movie?'. Then you can just sit back and smile while you and the last remaining readers on the planet read to one another from real books, since visual entertainment no longer gives you the same 'fix' as your own imagination does.

Seems like heresy to actually love watching the movies but be semi-bored by the books, but that is my take. For all of you out there that are critical of the movies because they take license with the books content, then too bad. The books are very detailed and will never translate perfectly to the big screen, so let it go. These movies are the next best thing.

I'll keep this brief: FIRST - this film is a wonderful ADAPTATION (for all you whining purist freaks out there) of a great literary creation. The changes are compelling and add to the story. If you don't like a decision Peter Jackson made merely because it is different then what Tolkien wrote (regardless of whether it makes sense, or adds tension, or character development etc.) then you are a fool. The LOTR is a story, a piece of art, a hobby, or even a passion; but NOT A RELIGION. Wake up.

SECOND - to the reviewer (oceanaut1) who mentioned that Jackson made a mistake because Frodo showed the Ring to the Nazgul - you are wrong and an idiot. The Nazgul are basically blind - they could only pinpoint the ring if Frodo wore it; which is why Sam stopped him. At least do your research before complaining.

The Special Extended DVD Edition of "The Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers" proves to be even better than the original! The film, now 43 minutes longer, feels less rushed in the editing than the theatrical version. The new scenes make the film flow more smoothly. This finally shows that this film is a step up from "The Fellowship of the Ring." And with a ton of extras, this promises to be one of the greatest DVD releases for years to come!
Movie Grade: A+
DVD Grade: A+

Arguably better than the first installment of the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, The Two Towers is a more than seamless continuation of the first film. Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) continue their quest to destroy the ring, and are now guided by the deceitful Gollum. Meanwhile, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) join the fight to defend the city of Rohan as Saruman (Christopher Lee) and his dark lord Sauron proceed with their plan of the eradication of mankind. More violent, fast paced, and with a more epic feel; The Two Towers is, as of this typing, the best action/fantasy adaptation yet; and while it may not take place exactly as Tolkien himself had written it, he himself would nod his head in approval of the fantastic job done by director Peter Jackson. Most of the cast from Fellowship of the Ring has returned: including Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett, Billy Boyd, Dominic Monaghan, Hugo Weaving, and Andy Serkis providing his movements and voice as Gollum, who is a fantastic pinnacle of how far computer animation has come today. The battle scenes are more than epic; including the climatic slickly put together battle of Helm's Deep. All this however is only a taste of what is to come with the third and final film in the trilogy: the eagerly anticipated The Return of the King. This Extended Edition DVD is undoubtadly the best version of the film, featuring hordes more of extras and extra footage including never before seen scenes of Boromir (Sean Bean) and a more in depth characterization of his brother Faramir.

More digitally processed landscape shots from New Zealand. More trudging across the tundra. More story lines that resemble nothing in the books. One scale model castle. One scale model castle storming battle. The cavalry arrives in the knick of time. Color fades in and out. Aspect ratio is screwy (and this is the widescreen edition). The highlight of this snore fest are the Ents (talking, walking trees). Not worth 3 hours of my time and barely worth the $4.50 I paid to rent from block buster. You want to see a good 3 hour movie, rent the Longest Day. That was an epic movie.

I have no problem hearing a great argument for or against the quality of this DVD on this forum, so long as it is intelligent. Some of the best pieces of literature are made through winning (or losing, in some cases) debates over the quality and craftsmanship of a piece of fiction, and truly these movies should and will continue to be debated for years to come. Yet fewer of the 'against' arguments made here in this forum (and on many internet forums, for that matter) have any real substance to them, and make extremely broad statements, like 'the movie was boring' or 'it wasn't like the book'. If you are going to make such sweeping generalizations about something, you had better be willing to back them up with some really good evidence, otherwise, you only make yourself look bad. Do you really think that people will listen to what you have to say? Clearly from the audience's point of view (those who actually sift through these reviews to find out information, like myself), they do not like your lack of supporting detail. No review that is simply written to either praise or attack the movie without any helpful reasons why the reviewer gave it such a score ever gets more than two or three people saying that it was helpful. Most reviews of this nature end up with a much higher number of people saying that they do not find your reviews helpful at all.

The question this brings up then is this: Why bother writing a review, if by sheer statistics your detail-less, unsupported argument will be helpful to no one? I, like many people who bothered to scroll through the 1200+ reviews listed here, want to find out information about the DVD, and make an informed, intelligent decision about the quality of the movie based on the feedback listed in these forums and my own observations. If you are a reviewer with nothing more to say than either 'this movie sucked' or even 'WOW! supercool movie!', then shout it out loud, call up a friend, stand on a chair and tell whoever you can - but please, please, PLEASE - don't review it unless you actually have something intelligent to say. And, as a side note, use correct grammar and spelling. I speak for many people when I say that if you can barely write out a complete sentence, let alone spell any of the words in it, I just skip your review.

This brings me to my main point - that this movie is such an excellent tool for allowing the illiterate people in the world the opportunity to experience storytelling at its finest. If you are someone who found reading the 1300+ pages of the books a huge challenge, the movies are truly a gift to you, and do not require your reading of the books in order for you to enjoy the movies whatsoever. I guess the irony of all of this is that an illiterate person will see the length of this review and probably skip it to find a shorter, less 'wordy' review, but please, if you find writing or reading difficult, consider the fact that the movies are to a certain degree a visual way of allowing you the opportunity to enjoy one of the nineteenth century's greatest works of fiction. Do not be so quick to call it 'boring' or 'slow' simply because you could not understand it. Give it some time. This movie, like the books, is one of the pioneers of truly high quality fantasy filmmaking. The books were not an 'instant classic' - they were an acquired taste. Clearly, the movies have become extremely popular within weeks of hitting the screens back in 2001, but this is likely because of the years and years of build up and popularity.

Fantasy genre moviemaking has made huge leaps and bounds through these movies, and will likely continue. As our society puts less focus on reading and writing, and more on visual entertainment, the fact is that you are likely to be in the majority as a person with little to no verbal or written skills. Chances are that more films will come out within this genre that will cater to the millions of entertainment deprived, uneducated people who cannot find entertainment within their own imaginations anymore. If you are already one of these people, and like being a minority, then start reading. These movies may be the last attempt at recreating good fiction. In 40 years, who knows? You may be experiencing someone's virtual reality adaptation of Peter Jackson's 'The Lord of the Rings', and people will be saying things like 'Wow - supercool story! Did you know that it was based on a movie?'. Then you can just sit back and smile while you and the last remaining readers on the planet read to one another from real books, since visual entertainment no longer gives you the same 'fix' as your own imagination does.

Seems like heresy to actually love watching the movies but be semi-bored by the books, but that is my take. For all of you out there that are critical of the movies because they take license with the books content, then too bad. The books are very detailed and will never translate perfectly to the big screen, so let it go. These movies are the next best thing.

Director Tim Burton excels at developing moody, dark atmospheres for his films, and it is the milieu of Sleepy Hollow, with its severe architecture and dark, creepy forests that stands out. However, there is more to this film than that: Johnny Depp and Christina Ricci turn in fine performances, as do an expert cast of seasoned character actors. Washington Irving's classic story has been reimagined successfully by Burton and his screenwriters, Kevin Yagher and Andrew Kevin Walker. In this version, Ichabod Crane is an iconoclastic New York police inspector who is an early believer in the value of forensic science. Exasperated by his insistance on adhering to scientific method, his superiors send him to Sleepy Hollow to solve a series of decapitation murders. Crane is a reluctant hero with a weak stomach--he is afraid of spiders and his first encounter with the Headless Horseman causes him to lock himself in his room for three days! All of this makes for a supremely entertaining mix of thrills and humor.

Sleepy Hollow is Tim Burton's stunning adaption of Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow." In the turn of the 19th century, New York investigator Ichabod Crane (Depp) is assigned to investigate a series of gruesome murders in the mysterious town of Sleep Hollow. The townspeople believe that the murders were the work of a ghastly being known as the Headless Horseman. Crane who disbelieves in ghosts and witches, sets out to prove that the story is a hoax, but learns the terrible truth behind these unusual deaths. The movie is a visually stunning and powerful suspense mystery with a supernatural twist. Tim Burton delivers another crowd-pleasing spectacle. The cast is terrific. Johnny Depp delivers a great and often comical performance as Ichabod Crane. Christina Ricca is enchanting as the beautiful Katrina.

Sleepy Hollow DVD is quite good. Paramount has finally delivered a better quality disc. The picture quality is sharp and clear. The sound is great. Unlike previous Paramount DVDs, this one has more and better special features like commentaries and behind-the-scenes footage. Overall, Sleepy Hollow earns a "B+".

I absolutely love this movie. I had not had the luck to see it in the theatre, but after renting it I had to buy my own copy. Tim Burton does a fantastic job of creating a dark mood. Even the photography has muted colors, which adds to the atmosphere of the movie. Johnny Depp's character, Ichabod Crane is a quirky and amusing. The best is Christopher Walken as the Headless Horseman. I could not think of anyone better to play this part. Overall, this is a horror movie that actually has horror, not just blood and gore, not to mention a believable plot, which most horrors fall short on.

Director Tim Burton excels at developing moody, dark atmospheres for his films, and it is the milieu of Sleepy Hollow, with its severe architecture and dark, creepy forests that stands out. However, there is more to this film than that: Johnny Depp and Christina Ricci turn in fine performances, as do an expert cast of seasoned character actors. Washington Irving's classic story has been reimagined successfully by Burton and his screenwriters, Kevin Yagher and Andrew Kevin Walker. In this version, Ichabod Crane is an iconoclastic New York police inspector who is an early believer in the value of forensic science. Exasperated by his insistance on adhering to scientific method, his superiors send him to Sleepy Hollow to solve a series of decapitation murders. Crane is a reluctant hero with a weak stomach--he is afraid of spiders and his first encounter with the Headless Horseman causes him to lock himself in his room for three days! All of this makes for a supremely entertaining mix of thrills and humor.

Sleepy Hollow is Tim Burton's stunning adaption of Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow." In the turn of the 19th century, New York investigator Ichabod Crane (Depp) is assigned to investigate a series of gruesome murders in the mysterious town of Sleep Hollow. The townspeople believe that the murders were the work of a ghastly being known as the Headless Horseman. Crane who disbelieves in ghosts and witches, sets out to prove that the story is a hoax, but learns the terrible truth behind these unusual deaths. The movie is a visually stunning and powerful suspense mystery with a supernatural twist. Tim Burton delivers another crowd-pleasing spectacle. The cast is terrific. Johnny Depp delivers a great and often comical performance as Ichabod Crane. Christina Ricca is enchanting as the beautiful Katrina.

Sleepy Hollow DVD is quite good. Paramount has finally delivered a better quality disc. The picture quality is sharp and clear. The sound is great. Unlike previous Paramount DVDs, this one has more and better special features like commentaries and behind-the-scenes footage. Overall, Sleepy Hollow earns a "B+".

I absolutely love this movie. I had not had the luck to see it in the theatre, but after renting it I had to buy my own copy. Tim Burton does a fantastic job of creating a dark mood. Even the photography has muted colors, which adds to the atmosphere of the movie. Johnny Depp's character, Ichabod Crane is a quirky and amusing. The best is Christopher Walken as the Headless Horseman. I could not think of anyone better to play this part. Overall, this is a horror movie that actually has horror, not just blood and gore, not to mention a believable plot, which most horrors fall short on.