SummarySocially inept and saddled with a miserable job, Willard shares a powerful bond with the rats who dwell in his basement. When Willard's world is turned upside down by tragedy, those responsible must answer to his rapidly growing pack of ravenous, fearsome friends. (New Line Cinema)
Directed By:Glen Morgan
Written By:Glen Morgan, Gilbert Ralston, Stephen Gilbert
Willard
Metascore
Generally Favorable
61
User score
Generally Favorable
6.4
My Score
Drag or tap to give a rating
Hover and click to give a rating
Where to Watch
Not available in your country?
ExpressVPN
Get 3 Extra months free
$6.67/mth
Metascore
Generally Favorable
61
71% Positive
22 Reviews
22 Reviews
19% Mixed
6 Reviews
6 Reviews
10% Negative
3 Reviews
3 Reviews
100
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.
80
It only takes rat trainers and CGI artists to create swarms of vermin, but it takes a twisted kind of genius to treat them as equals.
User score
Generally Favorable
6.4
38% Positive
9 Ratings
9 Ratings
58% Mixed
14 Ratings
14 Ratings
4% Negative
1 Rating
1 Rating
Dec 11, 2016
8
Crispin Glover was born for this role, it is what it is. It has lots of fun, provides layer of social class commentary and has maybe the greatest performance by a movie animal in history -- Ben, the fat rat, the bad rat, the poor rat who just wants a friend rat. It's amazing how you go from feeling bad for Willard, to despising him, fearing him and then back again. Willard is picked on by his boss, and his mother, and he in turn picks on Ben (while favoring Socrates) who in turn leads a revolt against Willard who is leading a revolt against his boss. I find it hard to use the word complex when describing a killer rats movie, but that's just what this is. Willard is no hero--he's not just a sad sack the world hates and the
audience is asked to feel sorry for--he's flesh and blood and he perpetuates all the things he hates and you can simultaneously root for him and against him. It's incredible how poorly he receives the little bit of companionship he gets from the new girl in the office, as a result of his lingering fears of being rejected and picked on by females his whole life. There's only one gratuitous CGI rats scene, the rest is all too real. Socrates's death is one for the ages. I want more Glover in everything.
Jun 30, 2026
5
Willard is a strange film. Truly strange. One of those movies where you are never quite sure whether the director made exactly what he wanted or whether everyone simply lost their minds during production. It has atmosphere, personality and Crispin Glover in full force, but it is also so twisted, uncomfortable and over the top that it is hard to know whether it works as horror, black comedy, outsider drama or rat-filled **** story follows Willard Stiles, a lonely, repressed and socially awkward man who lives with a sick, domineering mother, endures humiliation at work and finds in the rats in his house the only form of companionship and power he has. From there, the film builds a kind of descent into madness where the rodents become friends, army, revenge and a reflection of everything the protagonist cannot control.Crispin Glover is, without a doubt, the best thing in the film. He is also one of the main reasons it feels so strange. His performance seems to come from another planet: unhinged looks, stiff gestures, a broken voice, a contracted body, a mixture of frightened child, damaged adult and developing psychopath. It is not a “normal” performance, and it does not need to be. Glover turns Willard into someone unpleasant, pathetic, disturbing and, at times, almost sad. The question is whether the film always knows what to do with that intensity.Because Willard has a clear problem: it wants to be many things at once, and not all of them fit. As a horror film, the rats are not as scary as they should be. They are uncomfortable, yes, and some images are disgusting, but they never create real fear. As a psychological drama, it has an interesting basis in humiliation, loneliness and resentment, but everything is so exaggerated that the emotion is half buried under the artifice. And as a cult oddity, that is where it works best, because the film has a personality that is hard to confuse with anything **** tone is the most disorienting thing. Some moments seem to aim for old-fashioned horror: a decaying house, a damp basement, something lurking in the dark. Others feel like a cruel fable about a man who has been stepped on for too long and finds power in the place where there was only misery. And others feel like a macabre joke nobody bothered to explain. That mixture can be fascinating if you enter the game, but it can also leave you outside, staring at the screen and wondering what on earth you are watching.Visually, however, it has a certain taste. The house, the office, the muted colors, the sense of emotional and physical dirt — all of it helps create a closed, unpleasant world. Glen Morgan does not make a flat film. There is aesthetic intention, atmosphere and a clear desire to turn the story into something more stylized than a simple rat festival. The problem is that the plot is quite weak and does not always support so much eccentricity.R. Lee Ermey works very well as the abusive, unpleasant boss, almost a caricature of cruel authority. Laura Harring appears as a possible kind presence in Willard’s life, although her character feels underused. In reality, everything revolves so much around Glover and the rats that anything else feels secondary.Willard does not seem to me like a fully good film, but it is not a vulgar one either. It is too strange to be forgettable. The director and Crispin Glover may have lost their minds, yes, but at least they did it with style. It has unsettling moments, ridiculous moments and moments that are genuinely fascinating because of how twisted they are. It is not very scary, not very moving and narratively not much, but as a strange object it has its appeal.A film to watch more out of curiosity than real pleasure. If you feel like seeing an oddity with rats, a decaying mansion and Crispin Glover doing Crispin Glover cubed, it may hold some interest. If you are looking for a genuinely effective horror film, it will probably fall short.
75
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.
70
Has plenty of dark horror style, but it lacks the weird charm of the 1971 original starring Bruce Davison...It's a nice homage.
63
There is real wit in Glover's performance. And wit, too, in R. Lee Ermey's performance as the boss, which draws heavily on Ermey's real-life experience as a drill sergeant.
50
The chills are functional at best and the attempts at pathos negligible.
20
Everything that was modest, soundly grounded and therefore horrifying about the 1971 rodentarama that starred Bruce Davison is now insistent, Grand-Guignol-intense and therefore shrug-offable when it isn't downright awful.
Feb 16, 2022
5
This is quite a dark tale about one of society's rejects forming a bond with a large number of rats that act as his friend and also his enemy. The film is interesting and very well made. The rats are a character in this movie just as the people are. The effects are totally convincing as is the acting. My only minor gripe would be that the content is not very inspiring. It is intriguing but I felt that something was missing. Overall it was totally enthralling dark fairytale with some mild humour and a little fear.
Production Company:
- New Line Cinema
- Hard Eight Pictures
Release Date:Mar 14, 2003
Duration:1 h 40 m
Rating:PG-13
Tagline:A new breed of friendship.
Awards
Fangoria Chainsaw Awards
• 2 Nominations
Canadian Society of Cinematographers Awards
• 1 Win & 1 Nomination
Satellite Awards
• 1 Nomination


































