October 29, 2024

Willard (2003).

Review #2299: Willard (2003).

Cast: 
Crispin Glover (Willard Stiles), R. Lee Ermey (Frank Martin), Laura Elena Harring (Cathryn), Jackie Burroughs (Henrietta Stiles), Kimberly Patton (Barbara Leach), and William S. Taylor (Joseph Garter) Directed by Glen Morgan.

Review: 
Remember Willard? You know, the movie about rats. In 1971, Bruce Davison had starred in the film loosely based on the 1968 novel Ratman's Notebooks by Stephen Gilbert, with Daniel Mann serving as director. It had quite the quartet (Sondra Locke, Elsa Lanchester, and Ernest Borgnine) to make for a movie that I wish I remembered better than the one time I saw it about seven years ago (I didn't even bother watching the "follow-up" 1972 film Ben, which has a title song that is played here). But I eventually figured I would reach this film, mostly because I assumed Crispin Glover would be a worthwhile lead presence in terms of oddball nature that I could lock away for a future time. Anyway, the film (which isn't exactly a remake since it elects to go with an ending distinct from both the original film and the book) was directed by first-time feature director Glen Morgan, who some might know best from his writing on select episodes of The X-Files. The movie wasn't a big success with audiences, but Morgan did direct again...with a remake of Black Christmas (2006).

It probably is a reflection of my hazy memory of the original, but this second rendition of Willard manages to justify its existence with a solid lead performance to go along with worthwhile timing in unsettling moments and even a bit of humor for a neat average movie. It won't rank up there as one of the great re-adaptations, because one can only go so far with a psychological portrait of a man hollowed out enough to enjoy rats with such a familiar structure (incidentally, this film features Davison...as a portrait on the wall). Granted, knowing the structure is kind of amusing for me when you get introduced to Ermey as a man of the rat race (pun intended) that gets to chew out our hollowed lead. Glover just seems to nail this role from the get-go in a way that is unnerving in the fact in the little things that come out that remind us of ourselves (of course, most of us have not cobbled rat-related books like Glover, who reworked the 1896 book Studies in the Art of Rat Catching for a collage book). This is a character that has been thoroughly hollowed out by authority around him that we can't help but feel sorry for, even if just a tiny bit when it comes to trying to make a place with something that he doesn't hate in his lonely state. His energy is infectious and fascinating to see play off the other members of the ensemble. Ermey is devilishly excellent in a role he seemingly could play in his sleep in rough demeanor, albeit one that makes me chuckle (in one scene, he is shown looking up dirty pictures). He makes the perfect foil in pushing, pushing, and more pushing when it comes to grinding people down until, well, you already can guess. Harring proves fine in those moments matched up with Glover in awkwardness while Burroughs gets to grind away in brief hamming of scenery (no one can beat Lanchester, but still). The rats here are mildly spooky, but I think you know that others will have their own reaction to creature features where it can't be whisked away so easily. The open-ended nature of its ending is quizzical enough to close the film on a worthwhile note, rewarding those who liked the journey set by Glover in creepy energetic nature and prefer a remake that just goes for solid creeps and mostly hits it. Sure, creature features don't always win in the scare department, but with an unnerving portrait of a man hollowed to all but rats in the world played to exquisite execution by Glover, you might have the right movie to watch one strange night.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

No comments:

Post a Comment