Oddball low budget horror film was a surprise hit in the early 70s and spawned a sequel that included a hit Michael Jackson song. This quite original film has social misfit, Bruce Davison, befriending a pack of rats in his backyard and is eventually able to have the rats to do his bidding in order to exact his revenge upon those who've wronged him, including a lascivious boss, Earnest Borgnine, and an overbearing mother, Elsa Lanchester (the original Bride of Frankenstein). Davison brings a likability to his sad sack character, Wllard. A young Sondra Locke plays his pretty co-worker love interest. Directed by Daniel Mann, who made some respectable hokum, like "Butterfield 8," "The Rose Tattoo," and "Our Man Flint" brings some respectability to this rather disreputable of movie concept. "Willard" is undeniably ridiculous and quite campy, but it does so in a highly entertaining manner. Still, the Glen Morgan/James Wong remake/re-imagining staring Crispin Glover is a far superior.

I find my self in agreement in 1971 with one of my favorite actors, Ernest Borgnine. He stated in his autobiography that he chose to take his money up front rather than a percentage of the profits. This was an unknown genre and he, as I and a lot of people felt before the movie was released, thought it would not go anywhere. He probably wished he has chosen the profits but it is clear in his interviews that he was a very happy man. In this movie, Hannie Caulder, and a number of others he showed how bad a villain could be.Willard helped launch the careers of Bruce Davison and Sondra Locke. She played a really nice person in this one who was REALLY the only friend Willard had. He realized that too late.It is easy to relate to Willard since he had been bullied all of his life and was probably a misfit to start with. It is a sad condition in our culture that when someone does not fit in that those around him/her instead of reaching out will smell blood in the water and pile on and often get delight in making that person's life even worse. Why is it so important to "fit in" anyway since our decisions not to run with the crowd should be respected. Often they are told to "toughen up" but that does not always work and often, like Willard, when they "toughen up" they go to a tragic extreme. Today's solution of "safe spaces" when someone feels isolated and has their feelings hurt will only postpone facing the issue. They will find out that there are no "safe spaces" in the work place and the real world. Thank God today there is a lot more professional help available that in Willard's day (1971) Ben was caught in the middle and did not accept that Willard could not save Socrates. Also, he got mad when Willard left him and his friends in Martin's office and felt abused and abandoned. Willard taught him to use the power he had and eventually he turned on Willard.This is the first time I have seen this (41 years) it is is truly a well made and well acted movie that launched two careers, added another dimension to a well established actor who had already won an Oscar, and launched a new genre. Good job everyone and a history making movie.

Nervous young lad, living in a dilapidated Los Angeles manor with his nagging mother, befriends the rat population in his backyard, which comes in handy when he needs help committing a robbery or scaring off his enemies. Daniel Mann, the director of "The Rose Tattoo" and "I'll Cry Tomorrow," couldn't have been very happy about directing this venture, yet the low-budget picture grossed over $19 million at the box-office (a huge haul in 1971). It's an unpretentious exercise, and Mann does attempt to bring out the character drama within Gilbert Ralston's screenplay--and nearly succeeds. Bruce Davison works hard at creating an original, eccentric anti-hero, and the tone of the film is surprisingly jaunty, not excessively ugly or downbeat. Mann sets a brisk pace but, despite all efforts, this is still a picture designed mainly to give a squeamish audience a few visual jabs, and there isn't much to contemplate at the finale. ** from ****

Hard to say which is better--the original or the remake. Both films have their merits, although Crispin Glover may have brought more humor to the role of Willard than Bruce Davison. The look of the original actually belies the 1971 release date, looking more like it was made circa 1969, judging by the fashions/hairstyles. This is understandable, since it can sometimes take a few years for a film to be released after its completion. But the film itself? It really is hard to say which is better; the original or the remake. The original has the retro appeal, but the remake is much more visually interesting than the original. Best to watch both and then decide.