Critics’ reviews

Sleepy Hollow (1999)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 72: 7 positive, 3 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Sleepy Hollow

72
Positive
7
Mixed
3
Negative
0

Most critics find Sleepy Hollow an entertaining gothic horror film, with praise clustering around Tim Burton’s eerie atmosphere and visual craftsmanship. Mist, shadow and flashes of blood red receive more consistent attention than the mystery itself. The reviews admire the production design and effects, while Johnny Depp’s Ichabod Crane draws praise as an appealing lead. Several critics also welcome the dark comedy and grotesque performances, finding pleasure in Burton’s imaginative approach to horror.

Enthusiasm varies, but the balance is favourable, with mixed assessments rather than outright dismissals. Reservations centre on repetitive killings, an increasingly complicated plot and a climax that strains for effect. The Guardian finds that the detective story does not quite fit the supernatural and fairy-tale elements; Total Film sees the early eeriness giving way to pantomime. Gore is another qualification: the Los Angeles Times suggests that enjoyment depends partly on tolerance for it.

Empire
1 January 2000 · Bob McCabe
84*

The review finds Sleepy Hollow a richly imagined, beautiful slice of fear, despite some wearisome fainting and an overly melodramatic climax. It especially praises Burton’s shadowy, mist-filled visual world and the film’s striking use of blood red.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Alan Jones
80

Jones calls the film a beautifully crafted gothic whodunnit. He praises its cast, especially Johnny Depp, and Burton’s use of classic Hammer horror style.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
19 November 1999 · ★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
75

Ebert finds the film an entertaining, visually rich take on the legend. He especially praises Burton’s eerie atmosphere and striking visual design.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
19 November 1999 · Kenneth Turan
70*

Turan finds the film an exquisitely mounted, creepy and darkly comic showcase for Tim Burton, though its appeal depends on viewers’ tolerance for gore. He especially praises its ravishing autumnal atmosphere and visual design.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
19 November 1999 · Janet Maslin
70*

Maslin regards the film as an entertaining, macabre spectacle. She singles out its striking visual design for praise.

Read the full review →
Variety
14 November 1999 · Todd McCarthy
70*

McCarthy finds the film stylish and entertaining, though its repetitive killings and narrow focus limit its resonance. He especially praises the visual craftsmanship, including the production design, cinematography, costumes, and effects.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
9 January 2000 · Philip French
65*

French finds the film an engaging, handsome and scary entertainment, though its detective story does not quite gel with its fairy-tale and supernatural elements. He praises its excellent special effects and finds Johnny Depp’s Ichabod Crane an attractive hero.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· TCh
64*

The page labels this a review, but its verdict is unavailable in the supplied content. No particular strength or weakness can be identified from the metadata.

Read the full review →
Total Film
7 January 2000 · ★★★ · Total Film
60

The review calls the film entertaining but uneven, with a plot that grows convoluted and slips into pantomime. It praises the eerie early atmosphere and the Headless Horseman as a fiendish, terrifying triumph.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
19 January 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
90*

The critic gives the film an enthusiastic endorsement, celebrating Burton’s imaginative, dreamlike approach to horror. He particularly praises its haunting atmosphere, visual effects, and richly grotesque performances.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate