Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Willard [2003]

This is topic Willard [2003] in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000528

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 03-15-2003, 02:56 PM:

Attendance: 2003/03/14 19:15, Regal Madison Square 12, Huntsville, AL, Auditorium 7, Scope (Super35 with Clairmont Lenses)

This movie looked interesting and weird when I saw the previews, and it was. The movie definitely held my interest throughout its length, and it was refreshing to see something so out of the ordinary.

Today, I found out that there was an earlier movie called Willard and a sequel called Ben, but having seen neither, I have no idea how closely the new Willard movie follows the original.

The opening of the movie made me think back to "Mousehunt" (a pretty good comedy, actually).

Two of the main characters in Willard are two of the rats, a small rat (or mouse?) which Willard dubbs Socrates, and a large rat named Ben. (Guess what the Michael Jackson song "Ben" from 1972 was about?)

The main character, Willard, is a single guy who lives at home with his really old mother, and seems to be an eccentric, loner, friendless underachiever, which is absolutely the perfect type of guy to make friends with rats living in the basement of his large old house.

It would have been nice if the movie had given more details about how Willard got this way, because it's definitely not a path that a guy falls into and remains into his 30s.

It would also be nice to know how the scenes with massive numbers of mice were done. Were real mice trained or was there a lot of CGI work done to accomplish them?

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-16-2003, 10:38 PM:

Looked to me like they used that "Massive" program (didn't notice on the credits). Some of the rats were a bit more fuzzy than they're supposed to be.

Attendance wasn't great. I wonder if you had to know or see the original to relate to the new one.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-16-2003, 10:59 PM:

I have seen the original film when it played in theatres in 1971. As far as I can recall, I did enjoy the movie and think the plot had to do with a young man training rats to carry out his mission of revenge. If I can find the time, I would like to see this new version.

-Claude

Posted by Paul Rich (Member # 243) on 03-16-2003, 11:00 PM:

I've never seen the original, and I loved this film. I found it to be beautifully bizarre and fascinating. The ads try to sell it as a horror film. It's not that at all. I think that's what will cause most people to not like it. They'll be expecting horror and receive a wonderful character study and love story. Crispin Glover is a genius.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-18-2003, 10:12 PM:

I have not seen the movie yet, but the trailer is one of the best of the year.

Crispin Glover was on Letterman the other nite and said most of the rats were real. I read somewhere else that the only time they used computerized rats were in the "mass amounts of rats" scenes like where they come pouring out of the elevator.

Posted by Dennis Udovich (Member # 1066) on 03-18-2003, 11:32 PM:

"Willard" is a BOMB! Terrible business. Moving it to my smallest house on Friday.

Posted by Andrew Duggan (Member # 1302) on 03-19-2003, 04:25 PM:

I haven't had a chance to see this yet, but I'd definitely agree, the trailer I've seen is extremely well done.

the best part is the way crispin Glover is presented in the trailer makes the whole movie look like it could be called "The Rodent Revenge of George McFly" [Smile]

Posted by Paul Rich (Member # 243) on 03-19-2003, 09:29 PM:

Yeah, it did horrible business. So what? Since when has box office performance been the guide to quality of product? Sometimes it is, sure. But a lot of the time, it's not.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 03-19-2003, 10:23 PM:

Yea but we are in the business to make money.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-22-2003, 01:03 AM:

Viewed on 3/16/03 9:45pm Cinemark Movies 14, Mishawaka, IN Theatre #12. SDDS

Presentation: Good. Scope picture was crisp and clear. The cinematography and set design was well done in this film, and it really showed. The sound mix was also no slouch. Even though theatre 12 is never the greatest in terms of sound, it was very enjoyable and clean.

Movie: Started out very interesting, with Crispin being a very creepy, Norman Bates type of guy. Being a fan of Psycho, I loved this aspect. However, the film got to the point where we just don't find the character of Willard interesting anymore, and we want to root against him. Sure, we are encouraged to feel sorry for him but he just totally loses it by the end of the film. I felt the power struggle between Socrates and Ben was just plain silly. I never saw the original film, but this one certaintly is not all that great. As I said above, GREAT set design and cinematography.

AJ Garman

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 03-30-2003, 12:24 PM:

AMC Hamilton, 3/29/2003, 5:10 PM matinee. Hall #8, attendance ~25.

I was too young (14) to see the original Willard in '71 so this was my first acquaintance with him. This had the making of a good "payback" picture. Why Willard lost it near the end I don't know. Why didn't he sic the rats on the cops?

Set design and photography were excellent as Aaron G said. For those who grew up in the 70's, dig where the rats chase the cat while you hear "Ben" by Michael Jackson. "Ben" was the first No. 1 solo hit for the King of Pop! (Artist was misidentified as The Jackson 5 in the end credits.)

Presentation: Attached trailer ran first -- too much black at the end so I got to hear a false start for the feature. Image OK -- dirt near reel changes, negative dirt in at least 1 reel, image aligned too high by booth at the start. Sound excellent in SDDS.

Posted by Darren Crimmins (Member # 1116) on 04-04-2003, 05:32 PM:

Michael Gonzalez said, "Yea but we are in the business to make money."

But movie reviews are based upon the quality of the movie, not how much money it makes. I wish customers would understand that before deciding to see a movie because it is popular and doing good box office business.

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 04-04-2003, 06:10 PM:

Dennis, are you at the Marcus?? I'm up at the Strand in Manitowoc. Every once in a while the boss makes booking choices I disagree with (such as recently A View from the Top instead of Dreamcatcher) and then I run down there to see them... BTW, if you are from there and still running Dreamcatcher, turn it up a bit!

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 04-11-2003, 12:56 PM:

I think they used CGI and animatronics and some really big Austrailian rat for Ben. If you want some fun, go to www.willardmovie.com and watch the music video Crispin Glover did to go along with his version of 'Ben', which they play during the movie credits.