|
| |
|
Willard 2003 |
Review by Jonathan Cornwell |
Directed by Glen Morgan PG-13, 100 min. (terror/violence, some sexual content, language) |
|
Starring: Crispin Glover, R. Lee Ermy, Laura Elena Harring
Producers: Glen Morgan, James Wong
Screenplay: Glen Morgan
Cinematography: Robert McLachlan
Distributor: New Line Cinema
Released: 3/14/03 (Wide) |
Rating:
 (out of    ) |
Willard is a remake of a 1971 horror film that was popular at the time even though it was clearly B-movie material.
That film, starring Bruce Davidson, who is referred to several times in this current version, has a more authentic feel
to it because its horror elements are less manufactured. In this film, Davidson is replaced with the strange intricacies
of Crispin Glover, while the conduit for horror, a large infestation of destructive rats, remains in place. The problem with
the film, although effectively dark and at times creepy, is in its lack of truly frightening moments, which of course is
paramount for a horror film. Willard would work much better as a disturbing character study.
Willard Stiles (Crispin Glover), dressed appropriately as a gothic carcicature, lives at home with his ailing mother and
works at his late father's business, where his boss, Frank Martin (R. Lee Ermy), longs to fire him for his perpetual
tardiness and general lack of consistency in his work. Because Frank made a promise to Willard's father that he would
always have a job with the company, he must find other ways to rid himself of Willard's presence. Willard has no friends,
no girlfriend, a lonely existence. He finds comfort in his newfound relationship with his pet rat, which he calls Socrates,
and soon finds himself the leader of a group of hungry rats up to no good. It's not long before Willard begins to take revenge
on those who have made his life miserable.
There are other characters, such as Willard's sympathetic fellow employee, Cathryn (Laura Elena Harring of Mulholland Dr.),
that help to round out the storyline, but this is clearly Glover's showcase film. His role is perfectly suited for his zany look
and somewhat tilted persona. Glover's performance is easily the best reason to see Willard, with his deliciously over-the-top
monologues and his bizarre interaction with others, but this could also be accomplished without a plot or movie camera as
a stage play or stand-up routine. The film, directed by Glen Morgan, doesn't seem sure what it wants to accomplish - is
it supposed to scare us or make us laugh? And that's the problem.
Morgan does an effective job of building an eerie atmosphere by framing almost every scene around darkly-lit corridors and
a haunted house-like presentation, yet it never comes across as disconcerting or frightening. Although the film fills the
screen with hundreds of rats, many of them real, it's also a distraction when special effects are employed to create the
mountain of rodents that seek and destroy Willard's enemies. There's really only one rat that disturbs us, named "Ben,"
who is intent on becoming Willard's top rat - it's jealous of Socrates, and formulates strategies to eliminate the competition.
I'm not sure this giant rat is actually a rat, or if it is even real, but the idea of this large nemesis stalking your every move
strikes a nerve. Unfortunately, the film moves into a campy realm that destroys everything it has previously built and
sends the film out on a bitter note despite an intriguing first act. Not even Glover's antics can save the film from itself.
© 2003 Jonathan Cornwell
|
|
 |
    | Masterpiece - Film perfection |
    | Excellent - A Must See |
   | Good - Highly Recommended |
   | Fair - Worth seeing |
  | Average - Viewable, but not recommended |
  | Below average - View at own risk |
 | Poor - Avoid at all costs |
 | Very poor - An embarassment to the film industry |
| Zero | Awful - One of the worst films ever made |
© 2000 - present ReelCriticReviews
All movie pictures are registered trademarks and/or copyrights of their respective holders
Their use on this site is for informational purposes only and does not imply ownership
|