This 2003 version of "Willard" is supposedly a remake of the 1971 film. However, it hints at being somewhat of a belated sequel, like with "Shaft" from a couple of years back (Samuel L. Jackson played the nephew of the original "Shaft," who was played by Richard Roundtree... Roundtree appeared in the later version as that same character). In the original "Willard," the title character is played by the actor Bruce Davison. In the supposed remake, we see pictures and paintings of Willard's dad, and the image is that of Bruce Davison. So the "Willard" in this movie is the son? Is this movie is a sequel? If not, are the images of Bruce Davison there to simply pay homage to the original film? Kinda confusing, if you ask me, but whatever.
I got into this movie as soon as the opening titles began. The title sequence was like something out of a Tim Burton movie, with a dark, quirky look, stop-motion animation, and music that sounded a lot like Danny Elfman (though it's actually by Shirley Walker). When the titles were done, and the movie begins, we see where "Willard" lives. As expected, the house is like something out of a Tim Burton movie, though toned down a bit. Early on, it was quite obvious to me that I was gonna like this movie. When a movie has a dark, atmospheric look, I'm immediately attracted to it. If the movie has all that, as well as a decent story, then it's a movie I end up liking a lot, like with "The Crow." If the movie has all that and a REALLY good story, then it becomes one of my favorite movies of all time, like with "Seven." Unfortunately, this movie isn't "Seven," nor is it "The Crow." The screenplay for "Willard" has serious flaws, to the point where it doesn't make a whole lotta sense, and that's a real shame, 'cause this is a movie that coulda been great.
One of the things that really saves this movie from being a piece of shit is Crispin Glover. He's best known as "George McFly" in "Back to the Future," but some of you may remember him as "The Thin Man" in "Charlie's Angels." Crispin Glover is a bizarre, quirky actor, and he's far from a household name. I commend New Line Cinema for having the balls to greenlight a movie like this, while having a relative no name actor carry the film. Whether or not it was a good business decision remains to be seen, but it was definitely a good creative decision. Crispin Glover is sensational in the film, pretty much dominating the film whenever he's in it. He's the perfect choice to play the character of "Willard," and he rules the movie. I don't know if this movie will make Crispin Glover a star, but it's an awesome performance nevertheless.
For those of you who are (or have become) Crispin Glover fans, I highly recommend a CD he has called "Big Problem Does Not Equal the Solution. The Solution = Let It Be." It's pretty strange, but it's very cool. It's unusual spoken word stuff, some songs, and other weirdness. Also in the CD, you'll find selected readings from his books, "Oak-Mot" and "Rat Catching." The guy's a freak, but at least he's interesting. If you're a fan of his movie work, check out his CD and his books.
Popular character actor R. Lee Ermey (among his many roles, he was the drill sergeant in "Full Metal Jacket" and the police captain in "Seven") is in the film, and he's fun to watch, as always. Laura Elena Harring (she was in "Mulholland Drive" as "Rita"/"Camilla Rhodes," the sexy brunette) plays the only human character in the film who's nice to "Willard," and I guess she's good. Weird accent, though. Finally, there's Jackie Burroughs. She plays the mother, and she's UGLY! I hope the ugliness has to do with lotsa makeup, 'cause otherwise, poor lady! I'm not familiar with Jackie Burroughs' previous work, but she's pretty scary here.
The rats are pretty cool. I imagine there was a lotta computer animation, but there are some real ones, too. The rats are believable, and in a weird way, kinda cute. By the way, this film uses the song "Ben," which was sung by Michael Jackson years ago. Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't used in the original "Willard." It was used a year later in the sequel, which was also titled "Ben." There's a second version of the song, and it's played during the ending credits. That version is sung by Crispin Glover.
The writer and director of the film is Glen Morgan and this is his directorial debut. He and his writing partner James Wong wrote quite a few episodes of the TV show, "The X Files" (there's a cat in the movie named "Scully"... I doubt that's a coincidence), and they also wrote the shitty Jet Li movie, "The One." Though he and James Wong wrote some really good episodes of "The X Files," I'm not so sure I like their writing when it comes to movies. The script has problems, mostly having to do with inconsistencies in the relationship "Willard" has to the rats. A lot of it just didn't make sense to me. However, Glen Morgan shows real promise as a director. I like what he did visually, and he keeps things moving.
Oh, I should mention that this movie was adapted from the 1971 screenplay by Gilbert Ralston, and that screenplay was based on the book "Ratman's Notebook," by Stephen Gilbert.
I woulda loved it if this film had a writer like Andrew Kevin Walker (who wrote "Seven"). The movie would still be a dark comedy/thriller, but he woulda made it a lot more sinister. To make it even better, rather than it SEEMING like a Tim Burton film, they shoulda gotten the man himself to direct it. Tim Burton specializes in movies about outcasts, and the story is right up his alley. This writer/director team last worked together to do "Sleepy Hollow," and that movie was pretty damn good, right? I don't mean any disrespect to Glen Morgan, though, I really like what he did as a director. A really impressive debut. But the script wasn't as good as it shoulda been. After "The One" and this film, I think he should stop writing and focus more on directing.
This movie doesn't totally suck, but it had real potential. The cool directing and Crispin Glover's performance save it, but generally, the story makes no sense, and it's ultimately a disappointment. I still think it's worth seeing, though, 'cause Crispin Glover kicks ass.
Scale of 1-10: 7