WILLARD

[Mike]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JM7X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/new_line_cinema/willard/crispin_glover/willard.jpg

PLOT:

A social misfit, Willard (Crispin Glover) is constantly humiliated in front of his co-workers and squeezed out of the family business by his boss (R. Lee Ermey). His only friends are Cathryn (Laura Harring), a new temp in the office, and a couple of rats he raises at home, Ben and Socrates (and their increasing number of friends). But when one of the rats is killed at work, Willard unleashes his rage – and his army of rats – on his tormentors.

Based Upon:

This is a remake of the 1971 horror film, Willard, starring Bruce Davison (X-Men), which was itself based upon the novel, Ratman's Notebooks, by Stephen Gilbert. Willard was a surprise hit, followed in 1972 by a sequel, Ben, which featured the hit song "Ben", by budding pop star Michael Jackson. New Line is hoping this will be the first of a franchise, but there's no confirmation about whether the sequel would be a Ben remake (wonder if MJ'd be available?).

Genre: Suspense/Horror

Release Date: March 14th, 2003 (wide).

Starring: Crispin Glover, Jackie Burroughs, Kim McKamy, R. Lee Ermey, David Parker

Directed by: Glen Morgan

Produced by: James Wong, Glen Morgan

Written by: Glen Morgan

Distributor: New Line Cinema


I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually want to see this movie. I saw the trailer in front of Final Destination 2 and I was surprised that it actually looked like a fun popcorn flick. The Smashing Pumpkins song in the trailer was definitely a nice touch, it fit perfectly. The tone of this movie reminds me of another dark revenge movie called MAY, which is now playing in a very limited release. However, I'd MUCH rather see MAY. I'm actually surprised WILLARD is getting a wide release, which is fine with me, I'm just surprised. It just makes me mad that MAY can't get a wide release, yet this can. Oh well, either way, I want to see them both. WILLARD looks dark, fun, and funny. The part with the cat is sure to bother me though, but other than that it looks enjoyable. The plot is a little silly, at least the part about training rats to kill for you anyway. But the part about deciding to get revenge and kill your tormentors after your pet/friend is killed, is actually believable. If it was one of your only friends, and someone at work killed it, plus everyone at work is a bunch of a-holes, then it's sure to set you off. I think if I was in his shoes and that happened to me, I might actually end up doing the same thing. Well, I doubt I'd go on a killing spree, but I might want to kill the person that killed my friend/pet. Of course, I doubt I would do it, since I wouldn't hurt a fly, but I might wish bad on them, I'd want them to get what they deserve. Anyway, there's no doubt that WILLARD is going to bomb. I'm predicting an opening weekend of 4 Million tops, and it might finish with 9 Million. New Line may as well cancel their plans for a franchise, since it's very doubtful WILLARD will be able to make back the around 20 Million budget. This just isn't a movie that will bring in much of an audience. For one, it's too dark for a lot of people, and two, movies about killer rats usually go STV. The fact that a lot of people are afraid of rats is another reason some might stay away. Personally, rats don't bother me, some of them are actually kind of cute. Who knows though, maybe the fact that it's a remake of a B.O. hit and a cult classic will help it out, and might bring in an older audience that remembers the original, but I still doubt it. One thing is pretty certain though, someday this will probably be a cult classic.

Anyway, there's a slight possibility that I might see it in theaters, but I'll probably just end up renting it on video.

What does everyone else think? (Not like I don't already know that most people think it looks horrible ;))


http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/new_line_cinema/willard/crispin_glover/willard7.jpg

[ilovemovies]

It doesn't really look horrible but it don't look that great either. I will watch as it looks like it might turn out to be fun but I'll be watching The Hunted and Agent Cody Banks first.

[idealdiscountdude]

Willard looks laughably bad IMO. I'll see it out of curiosity on video though.

[Strider]

"Willard" doesn't that look bad, actually. I think it looks like a really wacky, weird, and fun little movie. I just might check this out in the theaters.

Strider

[Horror whore]

WILLARD looks atrocious. I wouldn't even see this movie if someone paid me. This is a movie I will never see.

[Fisting Ackbar]

I never expected Crispin Glover to have the lead in a film, so I'll see it.

[dh1989]

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0310357/willard_3554.jpg

"Willard" looks like one of the worst movies of all-time. Crispin Glover carrying an entire film is a joke, and the trailers are awful. The cat scene is so horrible, mean, and weird that I think this movie will in fact turn most people off. In fact, I am scared of those deathly excited for this flick. This movie looks 100% disgsuting. Once again, PUKE!

[notchreturns]

I say it's about time Crispin Glover has been given a lead role. He kicks an enormous amount of ass... haven't you schmoes seen River's Edge? He was amazing.

I'll check it out.

[Fergus]

The trailers (agreed) are pretty bad, though I've seen worse ten times over. BUT I WANNA SEE THIS! I might be the only one excited here in these parts, but Crispin Glover's delivery of some lines in the trailer such as "Nothing goes right," is cool. The campiness is so thick and the whole concept ludicrous as hell, but I will walk in to see this with low expectations, and nothing more than to be entertained.

I'm surprised at the hatred thrown on this flick already.

[blankpage]

This film is screaming TERRIBLE. It looks god fucking awful. I will NOT see this movie. I refuse to.

[Tom Samborski]

I actually thought the trailer wasn't as bad as others thought it was, it had an interesting dark humor element to it which I liked.

[Strider]

You know, I agree with some of the schmoes about Crispin Glover. I like the guy, and I also think it's time he gets his own leading role in a movie.

Strider

[Mike]

Before seeing the trailer I kept picturing Crispin Glover as Danny Glover. I've heard the name Crispin Glover before and after seeing the trailer to Willard, I know I have seen the guy in movies before, but I just didn't know that Crispin Glover was that actors name. So for awhile I was picturing Danny Glover in a movie with rats. Thankfully I was wrong about the actor, because I couldn't see Danny Glover in the part at all. However, Crispin Glover seems absolutely perfect for the role.

[notchreturns]

Being extremely bored, I decided to go review huntng and found these three very positive (yes... POSITIVE) reviews of Willard.

NUMBER ONE:

Who in the hell is Crispin Glover? I bet that is what some of you are wondering. From the trailer to "Willard", they build him us as this huge celebrity, but most of you are probably in the fog. Actually, Crispin Glover is a fairly big celebrity, but he just doesn't get the recognition he deserves. Most of you will most likely remember him as Michael J. Fox's dad George in "Back to the Future", the geeky, comic addicted teenager in love with Lea Thompson. "Willard" is a big departure from that character.

Crispin Glover stars as Willard, a shy, and somewhat unusual man, who is constantly pestered by his co-workers. He fits the profile of the stereotypical outcast and is ridiculed for doing so. Early on, his elderly mother tells him that if he had a stronger name, something other than Willard, that his boss might not give him such a hard time. His boss is played by the great character actor R. Lee Ermey. Willard's only friend is a rat named Ben, and when one of his 'other' friends is killed at work, Willard decides to enact bloody revenge against his wrong doers. How? Well, Willard can control the rats in the neighborhood and get them to do his bidding. Enter a slew of creepy and violent murders that are certainly not for those of us who do not fancy rodents.

As WIllard, Crispin Glover manages to blend some of his own personality traits with those popularized by Bruce Davison in the 1971 version of the film, and much inferior picture to this one. Glover is awkward sometimes, but sometimes evil and as cold blooded as any Hollywood villain. The cold and emotionless stare he is able to produce is one of the scariest aspects of the film, and it works extremely well. I don't know who suggested Glover for the role, but they hit the nail directly on the head with that casting call.

The one thing I did not like was the trailer for the film. It builds "Willard" up to be some dumb action packed horror film, when it is anything but. This is a creepy, dramatic, and sometimes gore-filled horror film that made me jump on several occasions. Anyone who dislikes rodents will walk out of the theatre or find themselves as uneasy as ever about their particular affliction. It was about time Hollywood made another creepy crawly picture, especially since "Eight Legged Freaks" turned out to be pretty decent.

Thanks to Crispin Glover and a very creepy storyline, "Willard" manages to delight in a very unusual manner. I enjoyed this film and I think most of you will too--even those of you who saw the trailer and made a pact that you would not see a film with a plot so absurd. It is only absurd if you allow it to be. This film opens on March 14 and I encourage masses of you to go. Make it the number one film of the week and give the horror genre another healthy shot of adrenaline. If we keep doing that, by the time "Freddy vs. Jason" emerges in August, it will make more money than "Star Wars". Well, maybe not that much, but you get the picture.

NUMBER TWO:


When it comes to Hollywood, it can be tough to separate fact from fiction. Take notoriously press-shy actor Crispin Glover...

Fiction: After hitting the big-time as George McFly, the kind-hearted social misfit from the 1985 classic "Back to the Future," Glover developed a reputation as a real butt-head and squandered his newfound success by making some really bad career choices. By the time the 80's were over, Glover was a virtual has-been, and it wasn't until his brief role as the Thin Man in 2000's "Charlie's Angels" that he made another impression.

Fact: Though he's best known for "Back to the Future," Glover actually gave a far better performance a year later in the little-seen "River's Edge." His asking price for the "Future" sequels may have been too high, but Glover always marched to the beat of his own drum with steady work and strong supporting performances in films like "The Doors," "The People vs. Larry Flint" and "Nurse Betty."

There's no denying that people still see Glover as the dad from "Back to the Future," but that's likely to change with the release of the psychological horror thriller "Willard," an update of the 1971 cult classic of the same name about a loner who bonds with a pack of rats. Actually, referring to this new version as an "update" doesn't do it justice, since it's a surprisingly stylish, sometimes funny and exceptionally well-made genre film that doesn't take itself too seriously.

Trapped by his demanding mother (Jackie Burroughs), Willard Styles (Crispin Glover) is a shy loner who lives a miserable existence as an office clerk at his dead father's company. His luck changes for the better (sort of) when he discovers that he can communicate with the rats in his basement, but he is soon caught in the middle of a power struggle between Socrates, the harmless white rat with whom he develops a special bond, and Ben, the huge, evil rat who defies his authority. Willard becomes so pre-occupied with his newfound powers that he is oblivious to the charms of a beautiful office temp (Laura Elena Harring), and the pressures upon him build to the point where he can't help but unleash his army of rats upon those around him.

By expanding upon the original's theme of alienation and layering it with more stylish direction, director Glen Morgan has effectively built the better mousetrap. The film is a cross between "The Birds," "Psycho" and "Hamlet" (yes, that "Hamlet!"), and the psychological, suspenseful and supernatural elements are much stronger than you'd expect. Then again, it makes perfect sense, since Morgan (with partner James Wong) previously worked on TV's classic "The X-Files" and 2000's well done horror flick "Final Destination."

That said, the film still has its flaws. In the beginning, Morgan manages to write Willard as a sympathetic character despite his circumstances as a freak of nature. The bond he shares with Socrates is surprisingly tender, and he shows a lot of heart even as he is forced to deal with Ben's evil motives (yes, folks, we are talking about rats here!). Then, at the halfway point, Morgan's stylish direction becomes more generic, and Willard loses the sympathy of the audience by becoming outright pathetic.

After perfecting the role of the nerdy social misfit in "Back to the Future," Crispin Glover takes it to the next level in "Willard" (although it must be stated that he sports the same hairstyle). Though he tends to go over the top at times, Glover manages to make Willard a surprisingly affectionate character. At least, that's on the inside. On the outside, he's still creepy as hell, and it's hard to see what the co-worker played by Laura Elena Harring (the brunette hottie from "Mulholland Drive") sees in him. At least R. Lee Ermey (the drill sergeant from "Full Metal Jacket") seems to be having a blast as Glover's evil boss who ultimately gets what he deserves.

With a film like this, it can be hard to separate fact from fiction, but the fact is this: "Willard" is not for everybody (cat lovers beware!), but it does have a lot more depth than you'd expect for a movie like this. It's a squirm-inducing thriller that will make you sink into your seat, and thanks to stylish direction, strong performances and admirable production values, there's a lot going on to make it one of the more...how do we say it, "interesting" cinematic experiences of the year. That is, if you give a rat's ass about this sort of thing.

[notchreturns]

Continued:

NUMBER 3 (...and extremely positive)

More than a remake, more than a modernized, post-millennium horror flick, "Willard" is a love letter to Crispin Glover. Literally. This film just loves him. It's the perfect role for him and her performs flawless within its boundaries yet it allows him almost free-reign to explore his nervous, quirky and, let's face it, downright weird persona. But this film, as directed by Glen Morgan and lensed by Robert MacLachlan, makes gorgeous and eclectic pictures from Glover's facade. The camera floats seemingly effortlessly above his face and looks down lovingly upon him. He is both beautiful and angular with a face that says almost everything we need to know about the titular character and Morgan makes full use of this. Glover IS Willard and Morgan lovingly explores every beautiful and bizarre contour of Glover's facade to easily expose his character.

Glover's acting is top-notch here as well. He says so much with a glance, a twitch of the eye, a smirk, a sigh. The film is almost silent for much of its entire run time when Glover is on screen and yet his character is one of the most fully realized we've seen in the horror genre in quite some time. It's a beautiful performance by Glover, one that will expose the decidedly oddball actor to scores of new young fans. And rightly so.



Crispin Glover signs autographs at the Alamo Drafthouse screening of "Willard" in Austin.
In support of Glover, on screen, is R. Lee Ermey. Long known as a character actor with a penchant for performing the role of drill sergeant or foaming-mouth asshole, Ermey doesn't break any new ground here. But juxtaposed against Glover's earnest fragility and quirky shyness, Ermey becomes doubly rabid. Jackie Burroughs, meanwhile, is used quite effectively as Willard's dependant and decrepit mother. In what could have turned into an annoying and unbelievable relationship, Glover and Burroughs create an odd diptych that works to evoke our sympathy and understanding.

Writer/director Morgan's work may have been mainly in television and behind the typewriter, but he establishes himself as a filmmaker of note here. His use of the camera, his color palette, and his care for detail make "Willard" more than your standard horror remake. He cares about the characters and the story here and it shows in every frame. One of my favorite things about the film is that the floors of the sets, when the numerous rats that appear in the film are present, are covered in rat shit. Willard's house really looks like a house where hundreds of thousands of rats live. It's not done to be gross or funny. It's done for the truth of the supposed reality. And no one ever says a word about it.

And while we're talking of the rats, note must be made of Glover's ability to create a chemistry with the rodents in the film. Glover's love interest is a white mouse named Socrates here and Morgan allows his protagonist to create a believable relationship with "it." It is no accident that Willard takes Socrates to bed with him every night. It's no accident that Ben, the rat which rivals for the attention of Willard (or is it Socrates?), also attempts to crawl into this "wedding" bed as well. Yes, there are concrete sexual overtones to the plot of a boy and his rats yet Morgan and Glover create them with delicate and nebulous moments that almost go unnoticed.

"Willard" is a wonderful film because it really cares about its characters and its plot and it take the correct chances. Casting Crispin Glover in the title role is ingenious but Morgan radiates from this perfect center and molds a solid film full of precise moments that further propel the story and underscore the arc of his protagonist. This isn't mindless megaplex fodder that simply recreates a 70's horror film by making it more bloody and more gross. Instead it modernizes the story perfectly while being both thoughtful and fun, as well as interesting and just campy enough to be clever.

Willard is a treat, rats and all.

[Mike]

Thanks for those reviews notch! After reading them, I must say that WILLARD actually sounds pretty promising. It's probably going to get overlooked by most, which will likely cause it to be one of the most underrated movies of the year. It sounds a little more serious than silly, and I'm sure some of the younger teen audience that goes to see it will probably be impatient and dislike it, never even seeing the deeper meaning it has. I actually might just have to check this bad boy out in theaters afterall. It's really too bad that they aren't doing a very good job marketing it. I thought the trailer was alright but the TV spots pretty much suck.

[Horror whore]

After those reviews I am definitley going to check WILLARD out! Oh wait a sec, no I'm not. ;)

[Mike]

Originally posted by Horror whore
After those reviews I am definitley going to check WILLARD out! Oh wait a sec, no I'm not. ;)

Haha, you're too funny... At first I almost believed you, even though I was incredibly shocked to hear you say that, but then came the "Oh wait a sec, no I'm not" part. Hell, maybe you should just sneak into it with some friends, at least you guys would probably have the theater to yourself ;), plus you wouldn't have to pay.

[Horror whore]

Originally posted by Mike
Hell, maybe you should just sneak into it with some friends, at least you guys would probably have the theater to yourself ;), plus you wouldn't have to pay.

I really don't think that will happen. Whenever we are at the theater and see the poster one of my friends always has to point and say how bad it looks. Even if I wanted to see it I wouldn't have time, the end of March has a lot of movies I wouldn't mind seeing...

[The Arrow]

I'm looking forwad to this one and I for one think it looks pretty good. I'm seeing it on Monday and can't wait! Bring on them rats!

[Mike]

Originally posted by The Arrow
I'm looking forwad to this one and I for one think it looks pretty good. I'm seeing it on Monday and can't wait! Bring on them rats!

Awesome! I look forward to seeing your review of it.

[bob]

Eh, I'll probably catch it on HBO or something. Word to the wise, it's been emasculated with a pg-13.....

[A.J. Hakari]

To give the PG-13 rating credit, the original WILLARD was PG; it didn't have much violence in it, but it was a decent, suspenseful film in its own right. My guess is that the new WILLARD is in the same dark, eerie vein, definitely using the "creature feature" story to its advantage while sticking mainly to using atmosphere.

If this one's coming to my nearby theatre next weekend, then I'm checking this puppy out opening night.

[XCoRyX]

im definetly checking it out,looks cheesy at many times and points,but crispin glover looks awesome in it,and the movie just looks like what i need: fun.

i wish it best of luck as far as $$ is concerned,i see it bombing to be honest.but i will be there opening weekend,maybe sunday,to support and see it.

also,does anyone know if the producer in this,james wong,is the same james wong,as in the actor james wong?

[freakandgeek]

i would definately see this movie....i mean crispin glover rocks my socks....but i just can't watch movies with animal stuff. even if its rats. :(

[The Claw]

You know I'd really like to see this, to me this looks quite entertaining. I've always wanted to see the original movie too.

[ilovemovies]

I still have mixed reaction. On one hand the early reviews have been good but those commercials that have been playing on the tv are so incredibly stupid. I'll check it out anyway, but I'm still not sure.

[ANTBond007]

Originally posted by dh1989
http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0310357/willard_3554.jpg

"Willard" looks like one of the worst movies of all-time. Crispin Glover carrying an entire film is a joke, and the trailers are awful. The cat scene is so horrible, mean, and weird that I think this movie will in fact turn most people off. In fact, I am scared of those deathly excited for this flick. This movie looks 100% disgsuting. Once again, PUKE!

Can't taking anything worse than Santa Clause 2, dh? ;)

[SonicDeathMonkey]

Wow....I thought this movie was a joke at first.
Hollywood is going downhill faster than our country(USA). I mean, Willard, The Hunted, The Core....could it get any worse? A man commands rats. Wow. Old man fighting young man. Amazing. Armageddon on Earth. Original.

[Heavenley]

Definitely a rental.........I don't like watching rats, but the revenge part of the story sounds good.

[ColinM]

My reaction to the trailer was kind of like "Huh? ...... Weird. ..... Cool." I'm actually looking forward to seeing this movie, even though it looks like it could easily be terrible. It looks like it could be good fun, but I think it's Cripsin Glover that really makes me want to see it. I'm looking forward to seeing his performance.

[Mike]

Here's another review from Apollo Guide:

Workplace self-help guru Lance Secretan has argued that the competitive world of business need not be hostile, and that businesses would be more successful if they valued serenity and personal development and made the workplace a sanctuary for the soul. But I don’t think Frank Martin (R. Lee Ermey) – the antagonist of 2003’s Willard remake – is a Secretan disciple. In fact, Martin tells poor browbeaten employee Willard Stiles (Crispin Glover) that business is a rat race, and he’s not going to get eaten by the other rats. Above Martin’s desk hangs his two-word motto: Prudent Aggression.

Willard is the sort of worker who would fare better in a Secretan-style office. He’s not up to the rough and tumble of his boss, who takes great pleasure in verbally abusing and shaming Willard in front of co-workers. Knowing that he’s only employed at Martin Stiles Manufacturing because the business was once owned by his now-deceased father, Willard is a human punching bag, and he’s got no way to deal with his accumulating bundle of resentment toward Martin and others in the office who put him down.

This brings us to the film’s real stars – rats. The vermin live in the basement of the huge old house Willard shares with his aged and demanding mother (Jackie Burroughs). Initially intent upon ridding the house of these pests, Willard finally captures a little white rat and promptly falls in love with it. Socrates, as he names it, is soon Willard’s best and only friend. And before you can say “Yuck, rats” he’s got the beasts doing his dirty work – eating the tires of Martin’s Mercedes, and then more.

Willard is a horror movie that takes pleasure in what it is. From the campy old-style horror themes in the music score through the exaggerated performances of Glover, Burroughs and Ermey, this is traditional horror for lovers of that genre. Director/ screenwriter Glen Morgan (writer of Final Destination) appears to have had a lot of fun piecing together this film. And he’s got the cast right there with him. Glover is appropriately creepy (which seems to come naturally to him) yet vulnerable, while Ermey is unremittingly hateful, inspiring viewers to share Willard’s glee in exacting revenge.

Promoted as a Hitchcock-style horror flick, Willard doesn’t quite live up to that comparison. While you can see that Morgan set out to accomplish something Hitchcockian, he is too impatient, not allowing enough time for anticipation of nastiness to build, and beginning the revenge too soon. Martin, while initially an ominous bad guy, crumbles far too quickly and easily when Willard starts acting out, making the subsequent revenge acts much less satisfying than they might have been. In addition, the rats are far creepier when they’re real and onscreen in manageable numbers than when the CGI versions dominate the screen, numbering in the thousands. We also could have done without the contrived links to the original movie – the image of Bruce Davison, who played Willard in the original, now serving as his deceased father, and the inclusion of Michael Jackson’s forgettable ode to a rat, “Ben,” which comes on an easy listening television channel just as the rats start getting out of hand.

Even with all these weaknesses, the film still works, with plenty of over-the-top creepiness, a diabolical revenge plan that’s great fun to watch unfolding, and lots and lots and lots of rats spilling out of the floors and walls on cue. While it’s no more memorable than the 1971 original – why this movie got remade is beyond me – Willard is more than passable entertainment for true horror fans.

Rating: 72/100

-Brian Webster


The good reviews are actually making me want to see this one more. Hell, I just may end up checking it out in theaters afterall. Besides, as a horror fan, it's my duty to help horror flicks make $$$ at the Box Office so they will keep making them.

[Mike]

I checked the IMDB and according to them, the original 1971 Willard made 19.216 Million at the US Box Office. Which was actually good for back then, because the top grossing movie of the year, Billy Jack, made only 98 Million.

[spacemonkey]

Originally posted by The Arrow
I'm looking forwad to this one and I for one think it looks pretty good. I'm seeing it on Monday and can't wait! Bring on them rats!

Cant wait to read your review on it on friday Arrow! this flicks looking awesome so far. Cant wait to see it. :D

[The Delfonics]

Willard - (6/10)
Info: (2003) PG-13, Crispin Glover
Genre: Horror
Comments: After seeing all the previews for this film over the months I considered it to be one of the worst looking movies of the year. However the man VicVega scored some Tuesday night screening passes and hey... its free. After all was done this wasn't that bad of a flick. The story took some turns that I didn't completely like and if your a gore hound you may be dissapointed since the killing is minimal. Willard is a lonely man who lives with his mother and works for his father's (who is dead) business. However he shows up late and what not and his boss wants him fired. One day some rats start chewing on Willard's paper... then some more rats... and even more. He becomes orgasmic almost as he trains these rats to tear things and what to do. After he trains them it almost seems like a Fight Club. He addresses them as if they were human. The leader, named Socrates, is looked down upon by the biggest rat, named Big Ben. This is where the movie takes less of the "cool maybe he'll use the rats to kill a bunch of people" to "inner gang conflict between Big Ben and Willard" type path. It becomes kind of odd and successfully creepy at this point. There was also a problem with the story. The one girl whom Willard works with is almost not needed at all as she is underdeveloped and really adds nothing except for a cat killing. Crispin Glover was really good as the role of Willard and even though the story took a lesser turn, I was still pleased by the flicks ending and shining moments.

Dialogue - 6/10 (The foreshadowing gets a bit annoying)
Violence/Gore - 5/10 (Some blood sprays and Willards mom almost looks zombie-like ewww, be forewarned!)
T&A - 1/10 - (Willard's boss is looking at some porn)

[rushmore beauty]

I CANNOT wait to see this flick after reading the reviews on rottentomatoes! I love the trailer and from what I've read, it's isn't as action-packed as the trailer makes it out to be, so that's good news. Harry Knowles (aintitcool news) said the movie was perfect for the type of movie it was/was trying to be. I watched the music video for "Ben" that Crispin Glover directed and it just made me want to see the movie more! I will be there this weekend and I know it will be great. My review will quickly follow.

[The Delfonics]

Originally posted by rushmore beauty
I CANNOT wait to see this flick after reading the reviews on rottentomatoes! I love the trailer and from what I've read, it's isn't as action-packed as the trailer makes it out to be, so that's good news. Harry Knowles (aintitcool news) said the movie was perfect for the type of movie it was/was trying to be. I watched the music video for "Ben" that Crispin Glover directed and it just made me want to see the movie more! I will be there this weekend and I know it will be great. My review will quickly follow.

Dont get tooo excited because you may be dissapointed.

[Nate6]

Originally posted by Horror whore
WILLARD looks atrocious. I wouldn't even see this movie if someone paid me. This is a movie I will never see.

You took the words right out of my mouth...

[sharkstank]

A very positive review from filmthreat.com
Willard *****

Okay, I know I’m going out on a limb with the five star rating for a horror flick released in the low tide of spring movies. And if you think that rating above is a bit outrageous, here’s another bombshell: I think Crispin Glover should be nominated for an Oscar for his work in “Willard.”

Do I have your attention yet?

First, let’s deal with the film itself. “Willard” is not “The Hours.” It’s not “Gangs of New York.” It sure as heck ain’t “The Lord of the Rings,” and it isn’t even an off-center hit like “Adaptation.” “Willard” is just a horror movie, the kind you usually see sneaked under the October banner of releases. However, the real power in “Willard” is its simplicity.

“Willard” doesn’t try to be great art (although if you really think about it, there are plenty of themes borrowed from “Hamlet,” “The Birds” and “Frankenstein” to name a few). “Willard” just is.

Now, on to all this nonsense about Crispin Glover giving an Oscar-worthy performance. Doesn’t he just play the same old creepy guy we saw in “Charlie’s Angels”? Sure, and so what? What’s wrong with getting honored for playing a stock character? Jack Nicholson did it in “As Good As It Gets.” Julia Roberts did it in “Erin Brockovich.” Heck, even John Wayne won an Oscar for playing John Wayne in “True Grit.” Why the hell can’t Crispin Glover do it? It’s better than nominating Meryl Streep again for her latest who-gives-a-crap performance in films like “Adaptation.”

Glover seems to have been born to play Willard just as Sean Connery was born to play James Bond and James Earl Jones was born to do the voice of Darth Vader. Sadly, the 1971 original will never be the same after seeing Glover’s incarnation. He brings an intensity to the character of Willard that is a consistent burn throughout the film. His range and depth of emotion is staggering as he is reduced to tears over a dead rat and releases 30 years of pent-up emotion at a funeral home in a screaming fit that is unlike any you’ve ever seen. It is even more powerful to realize that much of the time, he isn’t even acting to a rat (as the crew most likely shot Glover’s coverage without paying the extra cash to wrangle the four-footed talent).

Willard Stiles is what Norman Bates would have been if he hadn’t spiked his mother’s tea with strychnine. He is a thirtysomething loser who has never had a friend in his life. He spends his time taking care of his invalid mother and working in a dead-end job at a company his father used to own. While trying to rid his basement of a rat infestation, Willard discovers that he has a strange kinship with them. Soon, he becomes their leader, like a pied piper of filth, ordering them to slash his boss’s tires and do other dastardly things.

In short, if you hate rats, you’ll love “Willard.” I personally don’t have musophobia (the fear of rats). To tell the truth, I think they’re rather cute. My personal fear is cockroaches, and I imagine that “Willard” will do to your average musophobes what the “They’re Creeping Up On You” installment of “Creepshow” did to me. And this is a good bet for New Line Cinema because according to Discovery Health, there are more people who fear rats than those who fear God, the IRS and public speaking.

There are some fun, familiar faces in the supporting cast of “Willard,” although their performances are just so-so. These include Laura Elena Harring (the brunette that out-sexed Naomi Watts in “Mulholland Drive”) and Kim McKamy (better known as adult superstar Ashlyn Gere, whom you may not recognize with her clothes on). R. Lee Ermey gives a canned performance as Mr. Martin, reincarnating Gunnery Sgt. Hartman from “Full Metal Jacket.”

There is a sense through the film that certain subplots regarding Willard’s father were left on the cutting room floor. Part of this suspicion comes from the curious casting of Bruce Davison as the image of Willard’s father. We see his portrait hung in the house, and you can’t help but thinking, “What’s Senator Kelly from ‘X-Men’ doing in this movie?” However, we never see him in a flashback (which is good, actually, because a flashback would have killed the pacing of the film – and is probably the reason that this subplot was removed). I imagine the “Willard” DVD will be full of extras, including these deleted scenes.

Of course, one of the highlights of the film is the main song “Ben,” sung by Crispin Glover himself. The video is a creepy riot, too, so check it out on the web at the official site: www.willardmovie.com.

[APzombie]

Originally posted by The Arrow
I'm looking forwad to this one and I for one think it looks pretty good. I'm seeing it on Monday and can't wait! Bring on them rats!

Spoken like a true prophet.

Looking forward to your review, bud.

[Scarface98.9]

No amount of positive reviews in the world can persuade me to see this piece of crap-looking movie. Hell, the presence of Crispin Glover is enough to make me avoid it

[ANTBond007]

Originally posted by Scarface98.9
No amount of positive reviews in the world can persuade me to see this piece of crap-looking movie. Hell, the presence of Crispin Glover is enough to make me avoid it

Blasphemy!

[DevilMonkey]

This movie looks like a great deal of fun can't wait to see it.

[XCoRyX]

the time is is finally here,willards coming out today,and im likely to see it today,i cant really hold the anticipation,sunday seems so far away and my life being boredom to a T,i think im just going to check it out today.Why wait?I'm also curious to see the crowds and such and how many people check it out and such.Crispin Glover looks more and more good in this one,hopefully people ignore the reviews.

[Mike]

Originally posted by XCoRyX
hopefully people ignore the reviews.

Actually Cory, hopefully people listen to the reviews ;). It's FRESH right now at Rotten Tomatoes, the only new movie opening this week in wide release that isn't ROTTEN. I think it sounds like a good character study, and I really wouldn't mind seeing it in theaters.


Here's a review from Entertainment Weekly, in which Owen Gleiberman calls it "better than the original."

Willard

Reviewed by Owen Gleiberman

Crispin Glover still looks as youthful and milky-skinned as Michael Jackson does in his dreams. A Dorian Gray of spaced oddity, Glover has always been such a naturally stylized human being that it's hard to think of many earthly roles he was born to play. An undertaker, perhaps, or a vampire, or maybe a Milquetoast silent-movie star. You can now add to that list the title character of Willard.

As Willard Stiles, a moistly quivering loser who makes friends with the rats in his basement because they're the only creatures around who don't threaten his self-esteem, Glover is doing what should be a camp goof on Norman Bates. He plays it straight and intense, though, building each scene to an elegant Gloverish crescendo of fear and loathing and operatic hysteria. It's no faint praise to say that he's every bit as creepily sympathetic as Bruce Davison was in the 1971 original.

The new version is actually better. It's still a fairly ham-handed revenge-of-the-nerd horror fable, but you don't go to a movie like ''Willard'' for subtlety. You go to be skeeved out by rats, rats, and more rats, and I'm tempted to say that ''Willard'' does a fairly rat-tastic job of it. The squirmy critters slither over floors, counter tops, and live bodies (including those of a few unfortunate house pets), scurrying and sliding with that skin-crawly symmetry that makes them seem so...purposeful. The writer-director, Glen Morgan, blends real, animatronic, and digital vermin without letting you see the seams. ''Willard'''s tour de force is Ben, now a foot-long super-rat who looks like an ugly, murderous rabbit. It's a sign of the film's shuddery cartoon appeal that Willard's ambiguous interaction with this giant rodent is more potent than anything in his relationship with his sadistic boss (R. Lee Ermey, working up a full-metal racket). It's about time Glover starred in a movie where he wasn't the only one gnawing the scenery.

EW Grade: B

[dh1989]

Who ever thought we'd have a "character study" dealing with a man and his killer rats, who he uses to tear people apart!? ;)

[Mike]

Originally posted by dh1989
Who ever thought we'd have a "character study" dealing with a man and his killer rats, who he uses to tear people apart!? ;)

You know, you're actually right. It "sounds" really ridiculous and laughable. From the trailer and TV spots, WILLARD looks like anything but a "smart" character study about a man and his rats. The whole idea just sounds funny. Kind of like how the plot of THE RING "sounds" funny and cheesy as well. Honestly, the plot for THE RING makes it sound laughable, like a movie that would go STV. A killer videotape!? LOL! But I guess it just goes to show you that you can't judge a movie by its plot!? ;)

Before the reviews, I wasn't expecting WILLARD to be much of a character study. I certainly didn't get a "character study" vibe from the trailer. However, I'm sure the reason they marketed it as more "FUN" and "FAST PACED" is to get more people to see it. If they had a trailer with not much happening and just focusing on the relationship between Glover and the rats, even less people would probably go see this.

This will probably be a movie that surprises quite a few people. There's no doubt that it will go on to be a cult classic.

[dh1989]

I may see it someday if it truly is a film about the odd relationship between a tormented man and rats. That would be fascinating. It just looks, so far at least, like a cheap STV "animal attack" thriller. My curiousity about "Willard" is REALLY rising.

[Mike]

Originally posted by dh1989
I may see it someday if it truly is a film about the odd relationship between a tormented man and rats. That would be fascinating. It just looks, so far at least, like a cheap STV "animal attack" thriller. My curiousity about "Willard" is REALLY rising.

I totally agree with you DH... The way they are advertising it makes it look like some killer rat movie that should have went STV. But most of the reviews I've read say it's not even really a horror movie at all, and that it's more of a character study. The reviews have certainly got me more interested in this one as well, and I think it could possibly be a very intriguing movie. Granted, the cat scene is sure to bug me, but I guess I'll just suffer through it. I'll just have to tell myself "it's fake." At least it's not like that HORRIBLE sounding Cannibal Holocaust flick, in which they actually killed animals. Now that I will NEVER watch and I think all of the copies should be burned and the makers of it should be severely punished. I know I may sound a little harsh, but I have absolutely NO tolerance for animal cruelty and I have NO sympathy for people who harm them. I think the people that do harm them deserve nothing less than the worst of punishment.

[dh1989]

The "cat scene" is very disturbing to me, as I'm an animal lover, but I would do what you said: just say to myself "It's fake. It's CGI."

One thing I've always liked about this film are the sets. They have this bleak, sad, and gothic quality to them. Evidence of this can be found it the photo below...

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0310357/Willard_CT-0545.jpg

Another thing that I thought was neat was the nod to the actor who played Willard in 1971. Look at the portrait....

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0310357/willard_SS-554.jpg

A recent photo of the actor, Bruce Davidson...

http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/59/35/22m.jpg

[chinton]

Just saw Willard and absolutely loved it. Admittedly this is not a mvoie for anybody as its quirckiness will probably appeal to few but I just loved this movie. Reminded me of Tim burton meets a surreal Grimms Fair Tale.


But beofre you see please realize THIS IS NOT A HORROR FILM. There is one rat death but aside form that there is little action. Its actually more of a love triangle between Willard and two rats Socrates and Big Ben. I knwo this solunds kind of silly but the relationship between Willard and Socrates is so sweet.


Crispin Glover rules. Him and the art design really makes this movie. Glover was born to play Willard.

8/10

[XCoRyX]

im anxious to see this one tonight,but im likely to wait until sunday.

[BorderEevilIII]

(Warning! Contain SPOILERS & REFERNCES)

Willard the 2003 remake is a Dark & lightly fiendish movie. Crispin is at his best being evil that would scare that pants off of Norman Bates. I was so stoked that Bruce Davidson who plays Willard in the 1971 movie, his presence is seen in the movie.
The body count is only 1, would have been great if there were at least 4 more...But the thing w/ the Kitty,does push the envelope when Glover puts the cat in the house. And whew! What I saw isnt real.... But get this....Kitty gets forgotten! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..... And luckily someone says that it was CGI I was looking at....And the ending.....Do I SNIFF A sequel?!?!?! 9/10

[Mike]

Originally posted by dh1989
The "cat scene" is very disturbing to me, as I'm an animal lover, but I would do what you said: just say to myself "It's fake. It's CGI."

One thing I've always liked about this film are the sets. They have this bleak, sad, and gothic quality to them. Evidence of this can be found it the photo below...

I too really like the look. It's nice and moody.

I'm curious to see how the Cinema Score grades turn out. Since it's not a movie that will appeal to everyone and isn't exactly the horror movie most will go in expecting, the Cinema Score grades will probably be made up of mostly C's, maybe even a couple of B's.

[dh1989]

I was looking through my newest copy of Entertainment Weekly this evening and I saw they had "Willard" down as having a running time of a WHOPPING 140 minutes! Can it be true?! Seems quite long!

[ANTBond007]

Willard's more like 1 hr., 40 mins.

*SPOILERS*



As for the film itself, I liked it quite a bit. They strayed quite a bit from the original (Willard surviving; Willard killing Ben ), but I think it worked, and Crispin Glover was fantastic.

8/10

[chinton]

I dont know about you guys but i really related to the Glover character. I mean I dont go out and make pet rats to kill people but I identify with his problem with dealing w ith anger. Im in college now and my roomate like to make me feel awful everyday. Sometimes it take all my strength to hold my anger in. ive never have been able to express my anger. The scenes in which Glover is barely containing his anger is very relatable.


Also I notice people ar e complaining about the lack of dead bodies. i think if you realize its not a horro film initially then you will enjoy it more.

[Mike]

Crap, I'm such an idiot, I accidentily read the spoilers ANTBond posted. Oh well, whatever...

Anyway, I went to my sisters house tonight. About a week ago she went to PETSmart and bought a couple of pet rats. One is white and one is white with grey spots. This was the first time I had seen them, and I must say, they were freakin' adorable. I played with one of them and the other one was jealous because it wanted to be played with too. They are actually really smart creatures. You can train them just like you would a dog or cat. You can name them and they will actually learn their name and come by it. You can even litter box train them. Hell, they will even follow you around the house.

Just seeing my sisters two pet rats made me want to go see Willard much more. It also made me want to get a couple of pet rats ;).

[Mike]

I read Eberts review earlier today, and in it he mentioned that he had heard on the internet that the rat that played Ben in the movie wasn't actually a real rat, but it was some other kind of animal. But I'm watching Conan O'brien right now and Crispin Glover is one of the guests. Anyway, he said it was a real rat. It's some kind of african rat or something. So I guess Ebert was wrong about that one.

Speaking of Willard, I just saw an awesome TV spot for it. The TV spots before sucked, but this one didn't make it look cheesy or anything. They actually advertised it as more serious and scary. It's too bad they wouldn't have advertised it like that to begin with, it might have helped it out a "little" more at the Box Office.

[Puck Bond]

Willard looks like an entertaining creepy little movie that should be a lot of fun. The preview always cracks me up and the Smashing Pumpkins song is a nice touch. Crispin Glover looks suited for the role and it just looks like it will be a silly, creepy good time. I plan on seeing it next week.

[Mike]

The Cinema Score grades aren't that great at all. But I'm not too surprised, since the audience probably wasn't expecting what they got. They were probably looking for some killer rat horror flick and instead got a character study with hardly any violence. I'm sure most people just thought it was weird and rolled their eyes at everything. I'm sure I'd be able to easily get into it, but you need to know what you are seeing before you see it. It's funny how it seems mainstream audiences can never appreciate something that's a bit "different," if the movie is kind of "weird" then you can expect bad Cinema Score's and to hear people call it "stupid." Does anyone remember Solaris!? That got straight F's from audiences polled by Cinema Score. Even One Hour Photo and Punch-Drunk Love got bad ratings.

Oh well, I still plan on seeing it and these ratings don't really have any effect on that. It's a weird little movie and I know what I'm getting into, and I like the sound of it.

Here's the Cinema Score grades:


Male

Under 21 - F
21 To 34 - B-
35 and Up - F

Female

Under 21 - F
21 To 34 - D+
35 and Up - F

[BakeTheMooCow]

Mike, I mean this with absolutely no disrespect.

I find that your taste in movies is generally different to what critics like. A lot of teen movies and romantic comedies get ripped apart by critics and you give them a 7/10 or 8/10. So then why do you care so much what the reviews are saying? If I were in your place, I'd be ignoring what they're saying about a movie (positive or negative). Yet, you seem to pay close attention to Cinema Score grades, the Tomatometer, etc.. I just find that odd.

Regarding Willard, I'm going to watch it for sure. Watching Crispin Glover on Conan and Letterman (or should I say Ferrell), he seems like a very interesting guy and the clips they showed were really good.

[Horror whore]

Originally posted by Mike
Male

Under 21 - F
21 To 34 - B-
35 and Up - F

Female

Under 21 - F
21 To 34 - D+
35 and Up - F

Those grades make me very happy. ;):D

[Mike]

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
Mike, I mean this with absolutely no disrespect.

I find that your taste in movies is generally different to what critics like. A lot of teen movies and romantic comedies get ripped apart by critics and you give them a 7/10 or 8/10. So then why do you care so much what the reviews are saying? If I were in your place, I'd be ignoring what they're saying about a movie (positive or negative). Yet, you seem to pay close attention to Cinema Score grades, the Tomatometer, etc.. I just find that odd.

Regarding Willard, I'm going to watch it for sure. Watching Crispin Glover on Conan and Letterman (or should I say Ferrell), he seems like a very interesting guy and the clips they showed were really good.


I don't care that much what the reviews say, but I still love to read them. If critics love or like a movie I want to see, then great. If they hate it, then oh well, I'll still see it. I like reading reviews and checking out Cinema Scores, but they don't matter that much to me. If a movie that I want to see got horrible reviews, I'll still see it. Of course, if a movie I want to see gets great reviews, then it makes me even more excited to see it. Basically, I don't really care about the reviews, it won't stop me from seeing a movie I want to see, but I still love to read them anyway. However, if there's a movie that I'm in between on and not sure if I want to see or not, then reviews can help me decide better if I'd like it or not, or if it's the kind of movie I'd want to see. If the reviews suck and I wasn't sure if I wanted to see the movie or not, then most likely if I see it at all, I'll just rent it on video.

I hope I made sense. I'm sure I repeated things over and over again ;).

[BakeTheMooCow]

I may have been playing devil's advocate there. I see a movie regardless of reviews, but it always pleases me when a movie I want to see gets glowing reviews. So I see what you mean.

[ANTBond007]

Originally posted by Horror whore
Those grades make me very happy. ;):D

Why?

[chinton]

Its all very simple. Most audiences will hate this film as its being marketed as a straight horror film which its far form

[Mike]

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
I see a movie regardless of reviews, but it always pleases me when a movie I want to see gets glowing reviews.

Exactly Bake! That's how I feel too. If I want to see a movie then I'll see it regardless of reviews, because reviews are just someone else's opinion, and the only opinion I need to worry about is my own. Sometimes I'll love a movie that everyone else hated. The only way to really know is to see it for yourself. But it's still nice when a movie I want to see gets good reviews. Of course I'd see it anyway, but it's still nice to know other people are enjoying it as well.

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by Mike
Here's the Cinema Score grades:


Male

Under 21 - F
21 To 34 - B-
35 and Up - F

Female

Under 21 - F
21 To 34 - D+
35 and Up - F

Hmm, well now that definitely means I will see this movie, as my taste tends to differ from the masses...
It's too bad the silly, stupid trailers and TV spots have ruined what is perhaps an interesting and quirky dark comedy/creepfest. I know "I" didn't even want to see the movie at first because of the spots, but now I'm intrigued, to say the least.
I may see it tonight, who knows. :)

[BorderEevilIII]

Well the grade B- pretty is a grade I would have given the movie. When I went Friday, majority of the people in the theatre were guys and very few women. And younger versus older (guys) was pretty much split.

[chinton]

Mike is they a dveritsed as scary that would not have helped. This not a tense or scary film at least I dont think. Its a very surrreal dark and weird character study with some blood. This is bieng approached in all the wrong ways

[the movie guy]

Here's how I'd describe it...

The sets are moodily dark and ominous.

The movie has a few tense and/or creepy scenes (his mother's one ugly lady).

It made me laugh. (The script KNOWS when it's being chucklesome/so-odd-it's-funny... It ain't unintentional.)

And it kept me grinning through it's entire runtime.


To destroy any wrong ideas people have about this film...

It's NOT a horror movie with jumpy "boo" scares, it's just unsettling at times.

It's VERY well-made and Hitchcock-y. (The cinematography and sets were AWESOME.)

It's a slow-driving film with little action/gore (or even dialogue). (I was, however, never bored.)

Oh, and don't listen to Horror Whore. ;)


9/10 or A-

It's actually sure to be one of my 20 favorite films of 2003. :eek:

[XCoRyX]

good review dude...i also,was blown away with this,not because its the best film out there,but its one of the better in theaters now....and its definetly,my favorite remake out there as now that i can think of....it was so,way much better then my expectations and i ever could of imagined.Crispin Glover lit the screen up,and made himself a new fan in me,the atmosphere was great,the music was very well (the song "ben" is stuck in my head like a brain is....)overall,a Great day at the movies for me....and i know this sounds weird and odd to some and likely many,but willard stiles is the most relateable character out there,and i felt every sad and depressing feeling he had....7.5/10

[dh1989]

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0310357/Willard_CN-083-27A.jpg

"Willard" is a huge suprise for me. I was expecting an awful film, to say the least, but after it recieved some solid reviews, or perhaps it was morbid curiousity, I decided to brave seeing it. And, guess what, it was not awful. In fact, it was superb!

The heart of this offbeat little flick is Mr. Crispin Glover. He turns in a quirky, but entirely memorable performance. A little bit charming, but with slight insane overtones. Glover wonderfully masters facial expressions, which is fortunate, because his character is not overloaded with lines. You could almost tell Willard's reaction to an event before he spoke of it or took action on it. You could see it in his eyes, and the way he moved his facial muscles. This may sound odd to you, but after seeing this movie, you'll understand completely. I promise.

Laura Harring did well, but her character was one of my minor nitpicks with the film. She does not add a whole helluva lot to the overall scheme of things and she does some things that really "bug" me, but as I said before, Harring turns in a nice performance with what she's got to work with.

R. Lee Ermey was delightfully pricky as Willard's uncaring, and even sadistic, boss. It brought back memories of his equally superb performance as Gunnery Sgt. Hartman in Stanley Kubrick's war drama "Full Metal Jacket". Ermey gets an A+ because he convinced me that his character was a complete prick who deserved to be killed.

Jackie Burroughs was ugly, and made me feel uncomfortable. Just her character's purpose, sho she did exceptionally well.

Glen Morgan, who made his directorial debut with this film after scripting the great thriller "Final Destination" and the crappy science fiction actioner "The One", really helps this film achieve its level of greatness. He strongly reminded me of Tim Burton ("Batman"). He never really lets the audience feel comfortable. He is constantly making you wonder what'll happen next in this gothic and quirky world. He also throws in many "jump scenes", or as some movie buffs may call them "boo scares", for good measure.

Robert McLachlan, the cinematographer, also turns in a wonderfully quirky film via photography. He shoots every scene just right. Willard from up high, to make the audience feel like we're slightly looking down on the man who's afraid to stand up for himself like the rest of the world does. McLachlan uses low angles for Willard's boss to make him be a symbol someone to fear to Willard, someone powerful. He also throws in many quirkly slanted shots and filter shots to keep us on our toes, and and keep us marveling at how beautifully filmed this flick is.

Shirley Walker is another major part of the flick's soul. Her musical score is pitch perfect for this flick. Offbeat, creepy, and sad. Her music is a character in this movie for sure.

The rats are wonderful from the real to the CGI. They are always convincing and made you feel warmth to them to being creeped out by them at the exact right moments.

The script is perfect, except for a few parts. The "triangle" going on between Big Ben, the adorable Socratese, and Willard is never corny, and almost feels natural in this place that we are in. The dialouge is well-written and never feels like a lowly B flick. The one part I disliked the way the new temp who befriends Willard, but she's so minor I didn't care. I also could've done without the cat scenes, but it did not bother me as much as I was expecting it to.

The opening animated credit sequence was very quirky, but fun. I knew I was going to love this movie after seeing that.

Overall, I really dug this film. I feel dirty for saying that, but it's the truth. This is an offbeat, creepy, and engaging gem that sadly will not be discovered by the average moviegoer, but hopefully will find its audience on DVD, and perhaps become a cult hit!

9/10

P.S. The only real big detractor was having to see the sadistic and vomit-worthy trailer for "House of 1000 Corpses". One man screams "LIKE WHAT YA SEE!?" in it. Nope, seeing that piece of crap accuse for a horror movie, did not make me like what I saw. :(

[Lazy Boy]

Glad to see you liked it as well dh. :)

I saw this film a while ago, and yes, my predictions were clearly met. The silly trailer, and ads, are what's sinking this film, and are not marketing the movie in a correct manner, IMO.

This is a fun, yet surprisingly involving flick, with a memorable performance by Crispin Glover that I will be sure to remember come this year's end. Director Glen Morgan and the cinematographer do wonders in capturing every unique tic and quirky facial expression on Glover's face, via camera angles and various close-ups. Glover is...well, let's say he's been a most interesting actor since the 80s, and it's certainly not strange to see that he actuallly does carry this oddball persona into his offscreen life. I dig him.

I LOVED the look of this film, aided by a great set design and spooky funhouse atmosphere that Tim Burton used to specialize in, yet has recently foregone it.

I can't get the "Ben" song out of my head! Achingly beautiful, but the scene it is used over is macabre and, well, disturbing (hint: meow meow meow meow) But that didn't bother me. I have a taste for the sick and twisted. ;)

Certainly not a deep film, but damn the torpedoes, if I didn't connect to it in some way!

Rating: *** stars out of ****

[rushmore beauty]

Like I knew I would, I loved this flick and I'm positive that it's the type of movie that will only get better the second time around. It's late, s o I'll add a real review tomorrow, but I give in a solid 9/10.

[XCoRyX]

this may just be a neglected gem as far the box office is concerned,i heard it only grossed $3.8 million.

[chinton]

The movie will crash and burn sadly only becuase the a ds are all worng. This will be a cult film that eventually find the right auidence on video.

I loved this film so much


Im glad other people related to Willard as much as I did.

[Shockwave]

I wont post a full review because everyone else has stated what i wanted to say but heres my score...

Wilard-8/10. Really liked this one and a definitive purchase on dvd when it comes out. Very rewatchable and fun!People who trash this movie without seeing it are missing out on a really good movie and i really do feel sorry for them.:(

[blankpage]

For some reason I really want to check out this film. I know I said I will never see this movie, but I think I will give it a look.

[Mike]

Originally posted by dh1989
http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0310357/Willard_CN-083-27A.jpg

"Willard" is a huge suprise for me. I was expecting an awful film, to say the least, but after it recieved some solid reviews, or perhaps it was morbid curiousity, I decided to brave seeing it. And, guess what, it was not awful. In fact, it was superb!

The heart of this offbeat little flick is Mr. Crispin Glover. He turns in a quirky, but entirely memorable performance. A little bit charming, but with slight insane overtones. Glover wonderfully masters facial expressions, which is fortunate, because his character is not overloaded with lines. You could almost tell Willard's reaction to an event before he spoke of it or took action on it. You could see it in his eyes, and the way he moved his facial muscles. This may sound odd to you, but after seeing this movie, you'll understand completely. I promise.

Laura Harring did well, but she her character was one of my minor nitpicks with the film. She does not add a whole helluva lot to the overall scheme of things and she does some things that really "bug" me, but as I said before, Harring turns in a nice performance with what she's got to work with.

R. Lee Ermey was delightfully pricky as Willard's uncaring, and even sadistic, boss. It brought back memories of his equally superb performance as Gunnery Sgt. Hartman in Stanley Kubrick's war drama "Full Metal Jacket". Ermey gets an A+ because he convinced me that his character was a complete prick who deserved to be killed.

Jackie Burroughs was ugly, and made me feel uncomfortable. Just her character's purpose, sho she did exceptionally well.

Glen Morgan, who made his directorial debut with this film after scripting the great thriller "Final Destination" and the crappy science fiction actioner "The One", really helps this film achieve its level of greatness. He strongly reminded me of Tim Burton ("Batman"). He never really lets the audience feel comfortable. He is constantly making you wonder what'll happen next in this gothic and quirky world. He also throws in many "jump scenes", or as some movie buffs may call them "boo scares", for good measure.

Robert McLachlan, the cinematographer, also turns in a wonderfully quirky film via photography. He shoots every scene just right. Willard from up high, to make the audience feel like we're slightly looking down on the man who's afraid to stand up for himself like the rest of the world does. McLachlan uses low angles for Willard's boss to make him be a symbol someone to fear to Willard, someone powerful. He also throws in many quirkly slanted shots and filter shots to keep us on our toes, and and keep us marveling at how beautifully filmed this flick is.

Shirley Walker is another major part of the flick's soul. Her musical score is pitch perfect for this flick. Offbeat, creepy, and sad. Her music is a character in this movie for sure.

The rats are wonderful from the real to the CGI. They are always convincing and made you feel warmth to them to being creeped out by them at the exact right moments.

The script is perfect, except for a few parts. The "triangle" going on between Big Ben, the adorable Socratese, and Willard is never corny, and almost feels natural in this place that we are in. The dialouge is well-written and never feels like a lowly B flick. The one part I disliked the way the new temp who befriends Willard, but she's so minor I didn't care. I also could've done without the cat scenes, but it did not bother me as much as I was expecting it to.

The opening animated credit sequence was very quirky, but fun. I knew I was going to love this movie after seeing that.

Overall, I really dug this film. I feel dirty for saying that, but it's the truth. This is an offbeat, creepy, and engaging gem that sadly will not be discovered by the average moviegoer, but hopefully will find its audience on DVD, and perhaps become a cult hit!

9/10

P.S. The only real big detractor was having to see the sadistic and vomit-worthy trailer for "House of 1000 Corpses". One man screams "LIKE WHAT YA SEE!?" in it. Nope, seeing that piece of crap accuse for a horror movie, did not make me like what I saw. :(


DH, I can't tell you how happy it makes me that you actually went and saw this film and loved it. Reading your review makes me want to rush out right now and see it before it leaves theaters.

I wanted to see this one to begin with, but my interest has definitely grown. I think WILLARD is going to be an excellent film. I have a feeling it will be very engrossing.


Ebert and Roeper kind of pissed me off when I watched their show this last weekend. They kept complaining that it wasn't scary. Ebert said he liked the performances, the set, the quirkiness, etc. and his only real complaint was that it wasn't scary. WTF!? If you only have one real complaint then how come it got a thumbs down!? And since when is a **1/2 of **** rating a thumbs down anyway!? If anything you'd think it would be a marginal thumbs up! Ebert said that what's so scary about rats is that they're unpredictable, but the rats in Willard were so ready to behave on cue that it just wasn't scary. He said rats in a resteraunt are scary, but the rats in Willard are not. And Roeper pretty much agreed with everything he said and also complained that the rats weren't scary. He said it's supposed to be a horror film, yet it doesn't scare. Man did these guys piss me off. They just couldn't seem to get over the fact that it wasn't scary. If they would have had a better reason or had more things they disliked about it, then it wouldn't have bothered me so much. I can respect an opinion, but if your only main complaint about the movie is that it isn't scary, then I don't think that's good enough. Did they actually expect it to be scary anyway!? Because I know I never got the idea that it would be scary.

Ok, I just had to get that out of my system. It just bugged me when I watched their show this last weekend.


Anyway, here's a quote from a positive review of WILLARD that I really like:

"Even from just its unusual opening credits and accompanying Elfmanesque music, it's pretty clear Willard is the film Tim Burton should have made after Ed Wood."
-- Jon Popick, PLANET SICK-BOY


I'm certainly glad it's FRESH at www.rottentomatoes.com ;). I know reviews don't matter that much, but it always makes me happy when movies I want to see get good reviews.

[blankpage]

Originally posted by Mike



Ebert and Roeper kind of pissed me off when I watched their show this last weekend. They kept complaining that it wasn't scary. Ebert said he liked the performances, the set, the quirkiness, etc. and his only real complaint was that it wasn't scary. WTF!? If you only have one real complaint then how come it got a thumbs down!? And since when is a **1/2 of **** rating a thumbs down anyway!? If anything you'd think it would be a marginal thumbs up! Ebert said that what's so scary about rats is that they're unpredictable, but the rats in Willard were so ready to behave on cue that it just wasn't scary. He said rats in a resteraunt are scary, but the rats in Willard are not. And Roeper pretty much agreed with everything he said and also complained that the rats weren't scary. He said it's supposed to be a horror film, yet it doesn't scare. Man did these guys piss me off. They just couldn't seem to get over the fact that it wasn't scary. If they would have had a better reason or had more things they disliked about it, then it wouldn't have bothered me so much. I can respect an opinion, but if your only main complaint about the movie is that it isn't scary, then I don't think that's good enough. Did they actually expect it to be scary anyway!? Because I know I never got the idea that it would be scary.





Can't agree with you more. If I am correct, a **1/2(out of 4) would equal a 7/10. Now tell me how that can be a thumbs down. Hell a **(out of 4) is a 6/10 and basically still a thumbs up. That is one thing I never understood about Ebert and Roeper. But they can do it however they want.

As well. I think I movie doesn't have to be "boo" scary to be a horror film. Take, "The Ring" for example. I found it wasn't "boo" or jump out of your seat scary. But the atmosphere and the mood were freaky, and some parts of the film were disturbing. To me, that is a horror film. From what I hear, Willard has a freaky kind of atmosphere, and the idea of rats attacking people is somewhat of horror. I don't understand why he says it isn't scary, sure it may not be "boo" scary, but all you need is a freaky atmosphere and dark setting for it to be horror.

I also don't think he really backed up his point. In a way he did about the rats, but surely that one point cannot be the reasoning for the whole film to not be scary.

[A.J. Hakari]

Damn...most people just won't get that this isn't a horror flick per se, but a suspenseful character study...with rats, of course. Crispin Glover's performance is just brilliant (he is Willard Stiles), Glen Morgan's direction is nice and atmospheric, the screenplay well-written and just right...Aside from Harring's not-as-developed-as-I-would've-liked character (hey, the same thing happened with Sondra Locke in the 1971 original), this is a great, great film. Morgan pays more attention to characters and relationships than he does of throwing rats in front of the camera. But he does set up some great, chilling sequences (loved the deliciously mean rat vs. cat chase). And you have to love R. Lee Ermey as the bastard of a boss.

WILLARD is the best movie I've seen so far this year.

*** 1/2 out of ****

[Mike]

Originally posted by blankpage
Can't agree with you more. If I am correct, a **1/2(out of 4) would equal a 7/10. Now tell me how that can be a thumbs down. Hell a **(out of 4) is a 6/10 and basically still a thumbs up. That is one thing I never understood about Ebert and Roeper. But they can do it however they want.

As well. I think I movie doesn't have to be "boo" scary to be a horror film. Take, "The Ring" for example. I found it wasn't "boo" or jump out of your seat scary. But the atmosphere and the mood were freaky, and some parts of the film were disturbing. To me, that is a horror film. From what I hear, Willard has a freaky kind of atmosphere, and the idea of rats attacking people is somewhat of horror. I don't understand why he says it isn't scary, sure it may not be "boo" scary, but all you need is a freaky atmosphere and dark setting for it to be horror.

I also don't think he really backed up his point. In a way he did about the rats, but surely that one point cannot be the reasoning for the whole film to not be scary.


I agree with you 100%... Besides, I don't see why every horror movie has to have "boo" scares anyway. Not every horror film has to be scary to be good. There's quite a few horror films that are good, but not scary. There's different kinds of "scary," and I think Willard will be more atmospheric than anything. Which will make it creepy and a little unsettling, but not something that will give you nightmares or anything, unless, of course, you're afraid of rats ;).

And you are correct. **1/2 of **** should be equal to a 7/10 which would be equal to a B- or a B. But Ebert gave it a C+. I think his rating system is a little messed up. I'm sure WILLARD is no TOMB RAIDER though, which he gave *** of **** to :rolleyes:.

[blankpage]

It's funny how I went to thinking this movie looks terrible, to really wanting to see it. Sometimes I am just strange.

But I will without a doubt try and see this film this weekend. Should be good.

Oh, and btw, the ***(out of 4) or 8/10 for Tomb Raider that Ebert gave is a little weird. I think it should be more like : 1/2 * (out of 4) or 3/10.

[XCoRyX]

im still in wow mode from how good this film was...

[The Prowler]

I have to second CoryX's comments. I am wowed on how good this movie was. I think this movie was made for the old school horror fan. Not too much reliance on pop references, strong performances from all the actors, and a sympathetic lead actor. I found this movie to be very depressing and moving. I was enthralled throughtout the whole movie with Glover's performance. I felt really bad for his mother who had nothing and was just rotting away. I could relate to the whole boss being a dick and getting shit on at work cause that happens all the time including my job. Emry was superb as Mr Martin and I felt like he was gonna go into his Full Metal Jacket tirade any moment which he did a few times. The cinematography was some of the best I have seen in awhile. I was floored by the creepiness and messy nature of Willard's house. I couldn't help but feel sorry for him. All were a good sign of a man letting go and feeling hopeless. Crispin Glover was awesome and made for this role. Go see this movie. If felt like the early 80's and 70's all over again. They need to make more movies like this.

10/10

[filmhobbit]

I can't believe there isn't more praise for this movie. I gave it 4 stars in my review.

It isn't totally perfect, but Crispin is a JOY to watch. I think too many people went in expecting a horror movie when this is NOTHING of the sort.

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by blankpage
Can't agree with you more. If I am correct, a **1/2(out of 4) would equal a 7/10. Now tell me how that can be a thumbs down. Hell a **(out of 4) is a 6/10 and basically still a thumbs up. That is one thing I never understood about Ebert and Roeper.


Eh, actually, the hoity toity exacto-meter out of 10 scale CAN NOT be compared to the four star scale. They just don't mix, you can't try and compare. two and a haf can actually go either way, up or down. And just because anything is over 5/10, does not give it thumbs up. And the other thing.....what do you mean 2 out of 4 is 6/10? If you force it and do the math, its 5/10.

Sometimes i think we try and focus more on the ratings of a film more than we should.

Sorry if i sound a little nuts here, but the misinterpreting of the four star scale has always irritated me. I dont mean to sound like a jerk.

[Shockwave]

Thats why i truly hate the four star system, if u give anything less then 3 stars it sucks and gets a thumbs down. I prefer the 1-10 system, or at least 1-5. Much more flexibility and the reviews match the score much better.

[Mike]

I think the **** scale is frickin' stupid. Personally, I don't see why anyone would want to use it. But anyway, if you do use it, then each star would equal out to be 2.5 points, so a **1/2 of **** rating would be a 6.25/10.

[RicochetShaw]

Eh,i dont want to get into an argument about scales, or math for that matter. but i must point out that by your judgment, Mike, that each star represents 2.5 points on the */10 scale, 2 and a half stars is not a 7.5. Its a 6.25.

2.5(what each star represents on the 10 scale) times 2.5(ebert's rating) = 6.25

Or if you prefer fractions to decimals...

2 out of 4 stars is half, so its 5/10 (5 is half of 10). plus the half star( which by your meas is half of 2 1/2 (which equals 1 and 1/4 )) equals 6 1/4.

;)

[Mike]

Originally posted by RicochetShaw
Eh,i dont want to get into an argument about scales, or math for that matter. but i must point out that by your judgment, Mike, that each star represents 2.5 points on the */10 scale, 2 and a half stars is not a 7.5. Its a 6.25.

2.5(what each star represents on the 10 scale) times 2.5(ebert's rating) = 6.25

Or if you prefer fractions to decimals...

2 out of 4 stars is half, so its 5/10 (5 is half of 10). plus the half star( which by your meas is half of 2 1/2 (which equals 1 and 1/4 )) equals 6 1/4.

;)


Oops, you're exactly right! I meant to put 6.25/10, I have no idea why I put 7.5/10. I was typing that when I was revising my weekend Box Office predictions, so somehow I got mixed up and accidentily put 7.5/10, which wouldn't make sense at all. I'm such an idiot ;)...

[Strider]

Willard (2003)

Rated PG-13 for Terror/Violence, Some Sexual Content, and Language

Director: Glen Morgan

Starring Crispin Glover, R. Lee Ermey, and Laura Elena Harring.

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0310357/Willard_CN-020-15.jpg

"Willard Stiles (Crispin Glover) finds out he has the ability to speak to rats. He begins to form a close relationship with them all, and starts telling them to do evil things for him. Willard decides to use his new-found friends to get back at whoever has mistreated him."

"Willard" is a remake of the 1971 original by the same name. This film marks the directorial debut of Glen Morgan, a former "X-Files" writer, and the man who wrote the script for 2000's "Final Destination".

I enter the theater showing "Willard" not knowing what to expect, I've never seen the original, so I basically watched the remake with an untainted mind. All I knew, is that it was a moive about some guy having the ability to control and speak to rats.

Did I enjoy this movie? Well, yes and no. "Willard" has a very intriguing first half, but once the film reaches it's second and final act, it takes a very hard fall. The final act just tries too hard, goes way over-the-top, and turns into a really sick movie.

However, this isn't the biggest flaw of the film. There are two big problems that haunt "Willard". First, the movie tries too hard to be scary and dark, it thinks it can accomplish both of these elements by having lots of ugly scenes.... well, it doesn't, it still fails.

It bothers me when I see these so-called "horror" flicks relying on violence to frighten the viewer. When it comes to horror flicks, instead of violence, I like disturbing images, mind games, and a higher level of intelligence. "Willard" doesn't try to be any of these things, but I wasn't expecting it to, how can it? This is a movie about a man who talks to rats, for heaven's sake!!!

Secondly, "Willard" tries to pass itself as a horror film, but it isn't one! This movie isn't scary at all, and it's unbelievable it could think of itself as one! Really, who's afraid of rats? I know I'm not. The only creature in a film that has scared me is, of course, the great white shark known as "Jaws".

Despite it's flaws, there's something that saves the film from being a total disgrace of a film, and his name is Crispin Glover. Glover, who's best known for his performance as George McFly in "Back to the Future", has his very first leading role in "Willard". Even though Glover's title character shifts from likable to unlikable by the film's end, he plays the character brilliantly. Nothing can beat Glover's George McFly, but his Willard sure is a close second.

"Willard" is a mediocre film that tries to be something it's not, a horror flick. But then, what type of film is this? I guess it's a dark comedy that has aspirations of being campy and a total B-movie. However, in my eyes, "Willard" is none of those three things. There's not much to be seen in this film, expect for one creepy performance by Crispin Glover, and lots of rats that are about as scary as a little mouse named "Stuart Little".

Running Time: 1 hour 35 minutes

Grade: 5/10 or ** 1/2 out of ***** stars

Strider

[The Prowler]

This movie was alot like One Hour Photo in nature. A character study that shows the decline of its lead actor surrounded by a lonely and cruel world. I found both films to be awesome. I knew going in it wasn't a horror film. I can't understand why people go into this thinking that it is a gonna be a horror/nature gone amuck film. I have read countless reviews stating that this is not a horror. One movie that is misleading in my oppinion was Tears of the Sun. Now they billed that as a action/war film and it was a complete bore. I couldn't find many things wrong with Willard. I thought the ending was just fine and the climax to it was a hoot. This is my favorite movie so far this year......... Hands down!

[Dirkimus]

all i really liked in this flim was the lighting and some of the camera shots. the flim its self was long, repetative and to me, simply boring. i laughed at the part with the cat....im not to fond of cats, they hate me and i hate them. My g/f hit me for it. But eh, shit happens, coincedently that is what i thought about the production of this film and the waste of my time.

[Puck Bond]

Willard is a fun, black comedy about a lonely guy who finds comfort in the 1,000's of rats that have infested his family home, and features an effectively creepy performance by star Crispin Glover. I have never seen the 1971 original so going into this movie I really didn't know what to expect. But judging from the funny previews I basically knew what I was getting. Crispin Glover is very funny and creepy as title character Willard Stiles, a dark, neglected and mistreated human being who works for his family's old manufacturing company and takes care of his sick and ailing mother...a horrible looking woman. She even hates his own name Willard...so she calls him Clark. At work Willard is ceremoniously berated and bullyed by his boss Frank Martin played by R. Lee Ermey(famed drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket) who is the best in the business at yelling and insulting in a tyrannical manner. With no hopes, no friends, no care or love in his world Willard turns to some fury rodents who hide in the basement of his house. At first he attempts to exterminate the rats at the command of his mother, but soon finds out these are smart little buggas. Willard takes a liking to them and especally a white rat he names Socrates, who competes for Willard's affections with a huge rat nicknamed "Big Ben". Willard finds that the rats seem to do anything he wants particularly chewing and tearing things up. He cares for them, feeds them and trains them...and eventually builds himself an army of them. Forced to leave his job and soon his house Willard is at his last straw with Mr. Martin. An unfortunate incident involving one of Willard's friends ultimately propels him to seek out revenge. The story is simple and straight forward but it is handled with a tongue in cheek tone...it knows it's silly and not to be taken seriously and they have a lot of fun with it. Just a look from "Big Ben" watching Willard and his torment, while perched upon a dresser seems funny. The special effects are great and are seemless and the closeness that you see the rats do their thing is quite amazing. The movie also has Laura Elena Harring as one of Wilard's co-workers who eventually becomes drawn to Willard and worries about him, because she sees how mistreated he is and realizes this man is a dark and disturbed individual. The ending is over the top and fun...and there seems to be room for a sequel in the future. Overall, Willard is a fun, creepy atmospheric little movie about a neglected and poorly treated guy who finds friends in the form of furry rodents who he uses to exact revenge on the people that have done him wrong. It features an effective performnce by Crispin Glover who is both funny and creepy. The special effects and the rats themselves are very good and entertaining. A fun little movie all together.