Excellent film except for 2 elements. Spoiler if you think.

Rating: Null/10 (30 November 1999)

The cinematography was good. The acting, by all persons, Depp, Walkin, Ricci, and Lee, was great. Costumes were good. And the background was close enough to the real story that you felt you were not watching a rewrite. However there were anachronisms galore and I felt that the movie we were set up for was not the movie we got at the end.

First are the anachronisms. The way the women dressed was a little bit off. Ichabod looked more 19th century than 18th. So did the courtroom. The forensic Pathology that Ichabod practiced may have been a slight bit early, but that is debateable.
Now the set up. We are given a character that is ahead of his time. He uses reason, and science to figure out crimes. Crane is presented as a Sherlock Holmes type. The first quarter of the movie is presented in a sort of "Hound of the Baskervilles" style. This is where I was expecting it to lead. Halfway through this idea falls apart and we find ourselves in a witchcraft based fantasy. That was a turn that in my opinion hurts the movie more than it helps. It would have made more sense to give Ichabod a background more like that of Van Helsing in Stoker's Dracula. Or made him the cop that blames things on the paranormal a la Fox Moulder. Then the investigative aspect of him would still be intact and the viewer would not feel that his time was wasted in needless character development. Then again, that would make the character all the more futile. And when reason confronts folklore and the arcane, then futility is the result. This would make the movie more unreasonable and thus spookier. For things without reason baffle the modern human mind.
All in all it is a good film. However the characterisation methods are a bit untried but still work well to acheive the directors goal. If you can stomach a historical to fantasy switch and an age of reason to magical plot, then you will enjoy this flick.