Willard (1971) - Willard (1971) - User Reviews - IMDb
Willard (1971) Poster

(1971)

User Reviews

Review this title
71 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
I wouldn't call it "Psycho", but it's still quite memorable
lee_eisenberg22 May 2005
My mom remembers seeing "Willard" when it first came out, and so she encouraged me to see it. It tells the story of Willard Stiles (Bruce Davison), an outcast who still lives with his mother Henrietta (Elsa Lanchester). But Willard discovers that their house has some other inhabitants: rats. He quickly befriends the critters, and then turns them into a sort of army who will obey all his commands. To add to this situation, Willard and his mother believed that his father died naturally, but it begins to look like Willard's boss Al Martin (Ernest Borgnine) may have been involved.

The old, dark house, and the young man living with his mother might bring to mind "Psycho", but "Willard" seems to me to be more of a story of an outcast taking revenge on the world that rejected him.
23 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
RATMAN'S NOTEBOOKS
poe42630 March 2002
Made the mistake of reading the book before seeing the movie; the movie, as a consequence, couldn't possibly live up to my expectations. Nor did it. But that's not a put-down. While there were some things that irked me (the mother rat's humble "thanks" at one point, the rubber rats all too much in evidence at the birthday party, etc.), Bruce Davidson and Ernest Borgnine deliver solid performances that help keep one focused on the twisted relationships that are the core of this film. (Elsa Lanchester as Willard's mewling mother also deserves mention.) I don't know how this one would hold up today, but, back in 1971, it was a must-see.
19 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The ratman cometh
jamesrupert201424 October 2017
The progenitor of the 'when-good-animals-go-bad' trend in '70s schlock films, "Willard" brings us the story of a boy and his rat, or eventually his rats, given the fecundity of rodents. The movie has the look of '70s TV and in places could be an extended episode of "The Night Stalker" or "Night Gallery" (especially the close-ups of busybody neighbour Charlotte (Jody Gilbert)). Bruce Davidson is quite good in the titular role, playing Willard as a normal looking nebbish, which makes his ascent to ratte-führer even more incongruous. His mother is played by the great Elsa Lanchester (one of the few actresses who could out-ham husband Charles Laughton) and Ernest Borgnine rounds out the main cast as Willard's lascivious dirt-bag of a boss. The story, script and direction are pretty simple, although there are some good jump-cuts to show people can be rats too (the best is the cut from the humans stuffing their faces at a particularly unappetizing buffet to the rats stuffing their snouts in Willard's basement). The rat wranglers earned their pay, as some scenes include hundreds of the rodents and Davidson seems completely at ease with the animals, which contributes to the film's verisimilitude. More fun than scary (unless you are musophobic) and not particularly gruesome, the movie appeals more to boomer nostalgia than to cinematic connoisseurship. Followed by a sequel "Ben", which contains the prettiest ode to a rat ever put on film.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rodents Galore!
BaronBl00d7 March 2000
A mousy, introverted young man befriends and teaches rats basic commands. Soon his home and life are preoccupied with this rodent infestation, coming particularly close to two rats, Ben and Socrates. Willard is played with great skill by Bruce Davison, communicating to the audience his despondency with family life as well as with his job. He has a love-hate relationship with his dotty, doting mother, played with the usual charm only Elsa Lanchester can exude. His relationship with his mother's friends is distant, and with his employer Martin, disastrous. Martin is played with relish by Ernest Borgnine, making the audience feel little sympathy for his fate. Naturally, Willard trains the rats to do "bad" things and this leads to a battle of wills between Willard and the main rat Ben(the lead character in the film's sequel BEN). Overall, the film is rather slowly paced, but well-acted and rewarding in the end.
21 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Do unto others before they do unto you.
Hey_Sweden14 May 2017
Bruce Davison memorably portrays the title character in this entertaining animal-themed thriller that was a big hit back in its day. Willard Stiles is a wimpy, awkward doormat of a man, regularly chewed out by his demanding boss Martin (Ernest Borgnine) and harangued by his clingy, equally demanding mother Henrietta (Elsa Lanchester). He has zero friends in the world, until he decides to take pity on the scores of rats infesting his property. He even gives the two most dominant characters names: "Socrates" is a gentle white rat, "Ben" a more aggressive brown rat. Willard soon becomes able to get the rats to do his bidding, which comes in handy in such matters as revenge.

It's not hard to see why "Willard" would have connected with audiences back in 1971. The relationship between the boy and his rodents is admittedly touching, and the head rats Socrates and Ben are very well trained (as well as rats can be trained). Now, granted, you don't always sympathize with Willard. Sometimes he comes off as a real jerk. But you feel bad for him often enough to enjoy his revenge. For example, getting the rats to ruin a backyard dinner party held by Martin. You also hope that his budding relationship with a lovely temp employee (the appealing Sondra Locke) will better his situation, or at least brighten him up a bit. For this viewer, it didn't matter so much that the film "lacked style"; it was still a reasonably entertaining story (based on the book "The Ratman's Notebooks" by Stephen Gilbert) told in capable enough fashion by screenwriter Gilbert Ralston and director Daniel Mann. The music score by Alex North is simply wonderful.

Borgnine provides excellent support, obviously having fun with playing a mean, conniving boss who seems to take a perverse pleasure in humiliating Willard in front of others. Lanchester is just right during the amount of screen time that she gets. Michael Dante, Jody Gilbert, John Myhers, J. Pat O'Malley, and others comprise a fine supporting cast.

The clear lesson to be learned from this one is simply this: if you have very few friends in this world, do NOT turn your back on them, no matter how small they may be.

Followed by a sequel, "Ben", just one year later, and a second adaptation of the book in 2003 (with Crispin Glover as Willard, R. Lee Ermey as Martin, and Jackie Burroughs as Henrietta).

Seven out of 10.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
a boy's best friend is his rats.
Nightman855 August 2005
A truly memorable 1971 thriller that has became a bit of an underground classic.

Handsom, shy Willard Stiles doesn't have an ideal life. He lives with his domineering widowed mother, is bullied by his boss, and doesn't have any friends. That is, until he befriends the rats in his garden and learns that he can make them do his bidding!

Highlighted by a touching and sympathetic performance from Davison, Willard is a different kind of "nature-strikes-back" film. It's a rare occasion where the human characters, rather than the animals, drive the film to its intense climax. There's plenty of twists and turns to be had, as well as a few moments of skin-crawl, especially for those who aren't fond of rodents! The movie also has a bit of a darkly humorous side to it. It's a bit of a rare movie to find these days, but seek it out and hope for a much-needed DVD release of this B movie classic.

Followed by a rather dark remake in 2003

*** 1/2 out of ****
22 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I liked it,....so sue me!
planktonrules8 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
When I was about 7, my father dropped me and my brother off at the theater to see Willard. He didn't come in with us because the movie had the well-deserved reputation for being disgusting. He told us that he was dropping us off to teach us a lesson--NEVER ask to see disgusting movies AGAIN!! Unfortunately, my brother and I loved it--and not just the gore (which is very mild by today's standards) but because the story and acting were good.

Bruce Davison carried the role of Willard quite well, though particularly exciting to watch was Ernest Borgnine as the nasty jerk of a boss. Seeing him become rat food 2/3 of the way through the movie felt VERY satisfying.

In addition, I appreciate how the writers helped us to have some empathy for Willard and he was NOT portrayed as some psycho--he really felt torn by his nasty exploits.

So, I would recommend this film to guys. Period. Women just don't seem to have much appreciation for armies of flesh eating rats. Go figure.

SUPER IMPORTANT NOTE: There was a sequel (of sorts) for this movie. BEN stars the lead rat on further adventures. However, instead of devouring people, he meets a talentless child and becomes his "special friend". I'm getting ill just thinking about it. AVOID THE SEQUEL AT ALL COSTS! Don't say I didn't warn you!

This is VERY reminiscent of problem with the original Village of the Damned. It was a great movie in which evil children terrorized a small town, but in the sequel (?) Children of the Damned, the kids just want to be loved and understood. Oooooooo, the PAIN is INTENSE just thinking about that movie!
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
great concept
SnoopyStyle22 October 2017
Willard Stiles (Bruce Davison) is an introvert. His mother is bedridden. Her friends throw him a surprise birthday party and berate him for losing his father's business to Al Martin (Ernest Borgnine) who hired Joan (Sondra Locke) to take over his work. He has no friends but finds friendship with the rats in the backyard. Soon, his friends are multitudes willing to do his bidding.

The idea is there but this is shot in a flat, uninspired manner. The actors are either first rate or on their way. Borgnine is gloriously evil. Davison is a little green around the edges. This should be a lot more compelling. There should be more tension. It's got some creepiness but I would like more.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Do come in, Mr. Stiles."
Backlash00728 March 2003
Warning: Spoilers
~Spoiler~

Before viewing the remake, I decided to take a look at the lost original. Willard is an unusual piece of horror from the early 70's. It portrays an interesting character study of Willard Stiles, a Momma's boy who seemingly can't even think for himself. As far as that goes, I think it's a brilliant film. Bruce Davison is fascinating in this role. His character actually grows during the course of the movie and he portrays Willard very well. Ernest Borgnine is at his usual best as well. He plays the villain, and he's good, I just find him too damn likable. Then again, I have never been more p*ssed in my life at someone killing a rat. My only problem with Willard is that it hasn't aged real well. It's unmistakably a film from the 70's and I think that takes away from it a little bit. The thing that surprised me the most was the low body count. This film is more about a young man coming out of his shell than it is about killer rats. That doesn't make it a bad movie, there's just not too much horror in it. I happened to really enjoy it and I'm looking forward to the remake as well. The ending may have been anti-climatic, but it was fitting. You don't turn your back on your friends, even if they are killer rats. Younger audiences will crave more bloodshed but the core story is still very solid and worth watching. Willard could certainly use a DVD transfer.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Creepy, weird
thomandybish18 April 2001
A little flick that blends elements of psycho-drama and animals-run-amuck, along with a hint of old-dark-house. Willard is a socially-maladjusted young man who lives in a gloomy, Victorian house with his co-dependant mother. Their relationship constitutes the weird part of the movie, nudge, nudge. Willard is tolerantly allowed employment at his late father's business, presided over by passive-agressive Ernest Borgnine. With no social life and no friends, Willard resorts to training rats with above-average intelligence. Of course, things take a dark turn when Willard's mother dies and Borgnine's bully tendencies come to the fore, prompting the put-upon Willard to use his rodent buddies to even the score. Also on hand is Sondra Locke as caring co-worker who tries to enter into Willard's world and may be his means of salvation. You find yourself rooting for her to win out. Spawned a more (in)famous sequel, BEN, remembered primarily for it's theme song, which provided Michael Jackson with one of his first solo hits. Very appropriate, in hindsight.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Beware the Rats!
dperky15 February 2020
Bruce Davison plays Willard, a repressed 29 year old with no social life outside of his mother (Elsa Lanchester) and her loudmouthed friends who constantly nitpick everything about him and tell him why he's never amounted to anything. Even worse, his boss (Ernest Borgnine at his nastiest) stole the company from Willard's deceased father and seems intent on running it into the ground and never giving Willard a chance to take over. Everything changes when he befriends a few rats he finds in his home and he realizes that he has the power to force them to do his bidding. It looks like everyone who ever doubted or wished ill will of Willard is about to get what's coming to them.

More psychological character study than outright horror film, Willard is blessed with a strong script with great characters and wonderful performances all around. If you're here for big shocks, jump scares, or buckets of blood, I'd suggest looking elsewhere, because this movie barely even earns its PG rating. What keeps it interesting are the characters and their human drama. If that sounds like something you might be interested in, then I highly recommend this movie.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A kind of...Psycho meets Frankenstein....with rats!
lambiepie-218 February 2003
I saw this film when I was eight years old. My older brothers wanted to see this film so bad and my parents said, "take your little sister". With protest, they took their little sister and this is a neat horror film I remember.

I haven't seen it in decades but when I heard they were "re-making it" I thought I'd write about this one first. My brothers had a bet that when I got older, I'D be the one re-making this film, I couldn't stop talking through it about how I'd change this..and..or...that.

I liked this film. I remembered a very young Bruce Davidson playing Willard who had no real friends, very introverted, just a few rats, and a crappy job. Ernest Borgnine was his fat sloppy boss and a crappy fat sloppy boss he was with a tramp-floosy of a secretary that got everything whereas poor Willard got pushed around and ridiculed.

But when Borgnine wanted Willard's house, Willard struck back with his rats. Rats he trained and were smart as a whip. Especially the rat "Ben". My favorite line for the rest of my life? "Tear him up!!!"

It was a great story and it reminded me of a "Psycho" meets "Frankenstein", the monster created being the TWO rats. A good story, lotsa, lotsa rats (before CGI). I can remember Bruce Davisdon speaking about it on a show once in the 70's since the film became surpisingly popular for that time, he said they were REAL rats and the "rat wranglers" had to smear peanut butter wherever they wanted the rats to chew!

A ground breaker for its time, a must see before you see the new one if for nothing, nostalgia's sake of the 70's.

Good entertainment. Rent it today.
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Guy's Best Friends Are His Rats
Rainey-Dawn21 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I remember seeing Willard as a kid - enjoyed the film then. Watching it all these years later I still find it a good film.

It seems that Willard is a 27 year old man without many real friends. He stayed with his sick mother & his father passed away leaving the business to a colleague and Willard works for the man - this man wants Willard out of the office. After Willard's mother passes away there is a large mortgage left on the house and Willard's boss wants it as well. When at home, Willard spends most of his time with the rats he's raised and the two rats he's closest to are Ben and Socrates. Willard brings his rats to work with him, they get loose and his boss kills Socrates - that's when Willard becomes vengeful and Ben is willing to help.

This is a pretty good character & story driven film. Worth watching if you like the older horror films.

7.5/10
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Effective Mix of Character Drama and Horror
Michael_Elliott5 June 2017
Willard (1971)

*** (out of 4)

Effective film about Willard Stiles (Bruce Davison), a rather awkward man who is pretty much pushed around by everyone who knows him. His entire life is devoted to his mother (Elsa Lanchester) but after she dies he sinks further into a strange mental state where he only friends are rats. Soon his boss (Ernest Borgnine) tries coming after the home he's lived in all his life and Willard decides enough is enough.

WILLARD is a film that I watched when I was around ten or so and I really didn't care too much for it. Revisiting it over twenty-five years later it's easy to see why I didn't like it. As a kid I loved gory and over-the-top horror movies and that's certainly not what WILLARD is. No, this here is really a bizarre character study but one that manages to be highly entertaining because of four great performances in the film as well as a good story and a great character.

There's a lot to really enjoy here but what impressed me most is the fact that for a "horror" film there really aren't any horrific moments until the finale. You certainly couldn't make a horror picture like this today but at the time WILLARD was released it became a huge hit. I really loved the low-key style of the picture and the fact that it spends the majority of its running time building up the lead character. Even though the viewer can tell that there's something wrong with Willard, we still feel sorry for him and want to see him win over his enemies.

The screenplay gives us time to get to know and like the character but we're also treated to some great performances led by Davison. He really is wonderful here as he has a lot of details to the character and he pulls them off. Whether it's the nerd side of the character or the more broken down mental side, he nails everything perfectly. Sondra Locke is also extremely good in her supporting role as the love interest. Lanchester is always wonderful no matter what she does and that's true here as well. Then there's Borgnine who is terrific as the villain. He was a terrific character actor and he brings so much evilness to this character without making him campy or over-the-top. He's just the typical jerk that most of us know.

WILLARD was eventually remade but it came nowhere near the level of quality as this original. The film manages to have an effective atmosphere throughout and there's just so much right with the picture that you can overlook what flaws are here.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Where your nightmares end...WILLARD begins
dbdumonteil21 November 2009
Well,not for me;the first version of "Willard " which I saw when it was theatrically released did not scare me at all.It's one of these very rare movies the remake of which is better.Crispin Glover is far superior to the nice Bruce Davison;the only actor that was really impressive was Ernst Borgnine ,but R. Lee Hermey is not chopped liver either particularly when he delivers his famous line about Mickey Mouse .The first version lacks humor (present in the remake ,the scene of the computer -and the mouse- when the villain watches dirty pictures is hilarious ),and is marred by bland sentimental scenes .Actually the nightmare begins when the film ends.The rest could be an average episode from an average sitcom.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rats ...or staR?
farnum18 May 2001
This movie scared the pants off me as a kid - literally! Now I like rat movies as much as the next guy, but this one was CREEEEEPY! I suppose it was Ernest Borgnine's performance as Mr. Martin, Willard's boss, that made the whole movie so disturbing. It's so creepy because it's true! I once had a boss who reminded me of Ernest Borgnine, but fortunately I never tried to bring my pet rat to work with me!

Anyway, here's my advice - if you like rat movies, or movies with Ernest Borgnine, then see "Willard" tonight. If you DON'T like Ernest Borgnine and you DON'T like rat movies, then maybe "Willard" is not for you. I don't want to give any more of the plot away, but IF you do decide to watch "Willard", make sure you don't see it alone!
20 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Different From What I Expected And That's No Bad Thing
Theo Robertson16 July 2013
This is a film whose sequel is better known . BEN is remembered by people of a certain age after being broadcast one night and everyone discussing it in class . Rats were a mainstay of horror helped no doubt by the notorious British horror writer James Herbert whose novels were a massive favourite of British schoolboys in the 1980s . WILLARD is a film I had no knowledge and as far as I know had never been shown on British network television or if it had no one I knew had ever seen it and I only knew of its existence by looking up BEN on IMDb to find that fondly remembered film was a sequel to this one . I also managed to confuse the name Bruce Davison with Bruce Dern and had visions of a bitter and twisted misanthrope plotting cruel revenge against a world who has rejected him . This as it transpires in not how WILLARD pans out

There's a strange tone to this film . While up and coming film makers like George A Romero and Wes Craven were pushing the boat out as to what they could get away with WILLARD looks and feels exactly like a film that treats the Hats code as the word of God which was no longer in effect during its production . In fact much of it feels like it might be a romantic comedy or a Walt Disney film as a socially inept put upon young man trying to find some sort of target in life as destiny conspires against him

Davison occasionally over plays the eponymous title character , but you do feel genuine pity for him as he returns home from work on his 27th birthday and the guests of the party are all friends of his infirm mother . He has no social life and his life revolves around work where he is bullied by his heartless boss played expertly by Ernest Borgnine . As some people have picked up on - it's too obvious not to notice to be honest - WILLARD spends most of its running time as a character driven drama with an element of black comedy and even when it does throw its hand in and becomes an out and out horror revenge drama it's quite bloodless . Some people might think this a completely bland film for that very reason but it makes a nice change even in a film from 40 years ago where character is to the fore instead of gore
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An Underrated Character Study
Aly20013 July 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Who thought a movie about a troubled young man and his army of rats would've been such a success? Well it happened back in 1971 with this bizarre horror-drama and to be honest the movie is far different than what you would expect. While billed as a horror film, the movie is more like a character study with a horror-style climax once the title character finally snaps.

The plot is pretty easy to follow as we follow young office clerk, Willard Stiles (Bruce Davison in his first lead role), as he befriends a group of rats. However his life goes south with his crooked boss and his overbearing mother leading to Willard descending into madness.

For a low-budget film, the acting is one of the greatest strengths of the movie. especially from star Bruce Davison. Now known as a character actor, at age 19 the young actor harnesses the depths required to go from a mild-mannered and put-upon blue collar man into an unhinged youth who brings about his own downfall by the finale. Davison starts the film as a bullied and molly-coddled boy who is too meek to stand up to his boss or tell his mother to stop interfering in his life. When he happens on the infestation of rats in their yard, it's fascinating to watch Davison starting to demonstrate his inner confidence as he bonds with his group of rats; especially his favorite, Socrates. The finale is where the actor truly shines as he dismantles his boss (the late great Ernest Borgnine) and watch his mental state finally collapse as he unleashes his rat army upon his aggressor and ultimately loses to battle to control his army during the final moments.

As Willard's scummy boss, Ernest Borgnine shines against his normally goofy amiable personality. He struts around like an arrogant peacock and berates any employee he wants, but especially our anti-hero, Willard. We know he is a catalyst for Willard's unraveling as he took away the title character's father's business from Willard and his mother and overworks the poor youth to his twisted content. It's a little hard to feel bad for his death at the climax due to his murder of Socrates and that he wanted to take Willard's home (which Willard overhears in a great tracking shot of Bruce Davison following from inside, but is never seen by his boss). Another nod goes to the late Elsa Lanchester as Willard's overbearing mother, Henrietta, who is essentially a cameo since she passes by the mid-point of the story.

The rats were famously wrangled by Moe Di Sesso and are the heart of the movie with its human lead. There were a few different rats who played the lead rats, Socrates (the pure white rat) and Ben (a larger black rat who was Bruce Davison's off-set lunch buddy) and rats are not easily trainable as production notes make clear. However it isn't too evident thanks to the filming style as Davison becomes the wrangler in the story (he openly acted around the rats when they did their own gigs). If you've got a fear of these rodents, best avoid the movie especially for the demises of two main characters.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Strange Affair at Stiles'
richardchatten10 November 2023
Although successful enough to rate a sequel and at the time of its release achieved the distinction of a parody of it's poster in 'Private Eye' depicting Harold Wilson as 'Wislard', the film plays more like a black comedy than the horror film suggested by the poster; an impression reinforced by Alex North's eccentric score.

Sondra Locke looks decidedly out of place in such surroundings, while Elisa Lanchester as Willard's mother mother manages to be even crazier than Piper Laurie in 'Carrie'; and who hasn't wanted (SLIGHT SPOILER COMING:) their boss to suffer an undignified fate like Ernest Borgnine does?

As for Willard's little friends themselves they actually seem rather cute (rats in reality are highly intelligent and make excellent pets) and the closeups of Ben are frequently worthy of Lassie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Funny and Campy
billcr1225 March 2018
I first saw this film in 1971 and just watched it again 47 years later. The only line I remembered was tear him up. I will not explain the line. A young man working in an office and living with his mother in a grand old California house is befriended by some rats who he feeds every day. Of course, he is treated badly by his boss and eventually gets revenge by using his rodent buddies. Ernest Borgnine is the bad guy and he is hilarious. The movie is quite campy and it is highly entertaining. This ain't high art but it is worth it for a few laughs.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Rats rule!
BA_Harrison25 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Ever since the whole 'Black Death' thing, rats have had a bad rap, but I love the much-maligned rodents: I owned a pair of pink-eyed whites and they were adorable - inquisitive, intelligent and very cute. My affection for the animals made Willard a real treat, the bewhiskered critters putting in winning performances throughout as the obedient furry friends of social misfit Willard Stiles (Bruce Davison).

Rat fans be warned though: it's not all cutesy fun. As Willard slowly loses control of his life following the death of his overbearing mother, and decides to exact revenge on his bullying boss Martin (Ernest Borgnine), the rat action gets more disturbing. Numerous rats are beaten by a chair when they crash Martin's dinner party, loveable white rat Socrates is poked to death in a stock cupboard, and, following the death of his boss (who leaps out of a window when he is attacked by the rodents), Willard is forced to dispose of his little accomplices by drowning them.

Of course, those who find rats about as appealing as I do spiders (aaaargh!) might feel differently: they'll be squirming in their seats as the rats go about their business and cheering when they get killed. Either way - love 'em or loathe 'em - the rats make this film highly entertaining, although solid human support from Davison and Borgnine certainly helps. The film ends with large rat Ben, who escaped a watery death, taking revenge on Willard with the help of some furry pals, paving the way for the following year's sequel, Ben.

6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Character piece-cum-rodent thriller with solid talents behind it...
moonspinner5523 June 2017
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 ****
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Imaginative and Well Done
dougdoepke10 November 2017
The movie may have done the impossible---actually making rats, of all things, seem sympathetic. At least it did for me. Add a plot that features a double twist on a premise of righteous revenge and you've got a cult film. Poor Willard (Davison), his skinny frame perfectly reflects the lack of respect he gets from family, employer, and himself. Worse, as the only son of a wealthy manufacturer he should be getting maximo respect. But mom's kept him on a suffocating leash, isolating him from younger folks his own age. (That birthday party amounts to a poignant hoot and an illustration of Willard's plight.) At the same time, office shark Martin (Borgnine) has taken over the business relegating Willard to a menial slot. No wonder Willard looks for a substitute family and circle of friends. And the movie being a feat of offbeat imagination, he finds them in the world of rodents, namely Ben and Socrates as leaders of the pack. Now poor Willard's finally happy if only he can keep his big house where he and the pack live in symbiotic harmony.

Davison delivers a cracker-jack performance as the needy Willard, while Borgnine seems made for the bullying boss role. Too bad we don't see more of Sondra Locke who appears Davison's skinny blonde double-a perfect matchup. Plus, I nominate Ben and Socrates for four-footed Oscars though they have no lines, not even a woof, woof. But oh my goodness, I almost didn't recognize Elsa Lanchester without that leaning tower of wavy hair and gray racing streak-- but where's hubby Frankenstein. What a great eccentric actress she was.

All in all, the flick's surprisingly well done for a horror thriller. No corner cutting that I could spot. And if you think about how the rodents, on one hand, behave, and how people behave, on the other, there may well be an unsettling message lurking inside.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Good (Rat), The Bad (Rat) and the Nerd
Coventry1 February 2008
There's quite a few horror movies dealing with killer rats, but the story of good old Willard Stiles (based on the novel Ratman's Notebooks by Gilbert Ralston) is still very unique, because it mainly revolves on the communicative link between the vicious rodents and a human being. This is actually a predecessor to all the films centering on (young) people that use special powers to extract vengeance on all those that have wronged them, like "Jennifer", "Stanley" and even Stephen King/Brian De Palma's "Carrie". Hmm, how strange I only just notice now how all these film have the protagonists' names as a title. Anyway, the titular character here is an extremely introvert, nerdy and oppressed 27-year-old guy whose life is truly worthless. His domineering mother invites her own friends to Willard's birthday parties (also because he hasn't got any), he has an inferior job in the factory his own father founded and the boss Mr. Martin treats him like a slave. The only person in the world who respects Willard is his temp secretary, but he doesn't even notice that himself. Willard finally finds some happiness in life when he befriends a handful of rats in his backyard. As the number of rats rapidly increases, Willard learns how to correspond with them and even succeeds in controlling their actions. He keeps his two favorite rodents (a white one called Socrates and a big fat mean-spirited black one called Ben) with him at all times and uses the hundreds of others as a personal army of retribution. "Willard" is not a scary or gory film, but it does feature some admirably atmospheric sequences, dark & grim set pieces and a masterfully tense climax. The hectically crawling rats are eerie to behold, but still the film primarily relies on good old-fashioned human acting performances. Bruce Davison, Elsa Lanchester and Sandra Locke are great but it is – as always – Ernest Borgnine who steals the show. His character Mr. Martin is a sleazy, corrupt, greedy and preposterous SOB you simply love to hate. Borgnine depicted quite a few memorably villainous types in his long & terrific career (like the satanic cult-leader in "The Devil's Rain" and the uncanny Amish patriarch in "Deadly Blessing") and Mr. Martin definitely ranks high on top, too! In 2003, "Willard" received the widely feared remake treatment, but against all odd the new version, starring cult favorite Crispin Glover as Willard and R. Lee Ermey as Mr. Martin, turned out to be a genuine winner. There's also a direct sequel called "Ben", which is actually more of a spin-off with the evil rat as the anti-hero, but that film was too Disney for my likings and only worth seeing because a young Michael Jackson sung the title song.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not as good as it should have been
haristas21 July 2002
The book this movie is based on, "The Ratman's Notebooks," is so much better that this film has become over the past thirty years really insignificant. At least it has good performances, but the general Made-for-TV feel of the picture ruins it. Now I understand they're doing a remake. For God's sake, just follow the original book. It was damn good!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed