MovieChat Forums > Willard (1971) Discussion > this or the Crispin Glover one

this or the Crispin Glover one


which is better?



When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply

This is one of those rare instances where I actually prefer the remake over the original. I think the new one has a stronger atmosphere and more creative cinematography and direction. Also, Crispin Glover's performance is consistently entertaining and lot more intense than Bruce Davison's, in my opinion. Really the only thing I didn't like about the remake was the main character's boss. R. Lee Ermey is great and all, and he plays the role adequately, but the character is just incredibly bland and uninteresting. Borgnine's "boss" was a tyrannical and realistically sleazy assh'le, while Ermey's version only yells and curses a lot. You just never get the feeling that he's really in control of Willard's life. He's more like a dumb bully.

Anyway, I don't mean to bash the original, but in my opinion, the remake's more enjoyable.

reply

The remake turned me off even before I saw this one. I found Crispin Glover's performance way too OTT and bonkers from the beginning to really sympathize with him. He already seemed so crazed from the start I expected him to just off his boss himself without the rats' help. I kept wondering throughout the rest of the movie what exactly Cathryn saw in him that she would bother hanging with the creepy dude. What I will agree with you about the remake though is the portrayal of Willard's boss, he seemed too much like the shouty cartoony newspaper guy from Spiderman to really take as a serious threat. Ernest Borgnine was way more subtle in his way of keeping Willard in his iron grip through his belittlement of him and making him seem like an unreliable slacker in the eyes of his co-workers. Well, except for Joan, of course.

reply

The original's more like the actual novel, The Ratman's Notebooks, except the novel's British and the name "Willard" isn't mentioned anywhere. The remake was a remake of a movie based on a novel and not a new take on the novel (which it should have been). The remake was very poor, made for today's attention-deficit audiences.

reply

I don't really like that rationale. Remake seems such a harsh buzzword now for movies. If the movie wasn't the original story, it's an adaption. A newer version later made is not undeserving of the same labels. Drawing it out as "this was an adaption of the book" and "this is a remake of the film" just seems an attempt to put up labels for the sake of complaining.

That being said, having just recently read the book and rewatched both versions, they do both stay pretty close to the book but do shift and move some things per their own version.

One striking thing to me that was put into my mind so much by the movies that's done differently in the book is the death of Socrates. Both movies showed us Ben watched but didn't do anything. In the book his whereabouts are uncertain, and Ratman never once seems to suspect perhaps Ben let Socrates cross into the bathroom knowing the girl was there. Even with the knowledge going in Ben wanted special privileges too.

Watching the scene with Willard and Ben in this movie after just makes it seem more eerie, as in this version he watched the whole time!

Besides that though both only really dropped two things from the book. The aspect of the notebooks and that narrative was gone for obvious reasons. But both kind of dropped some of Ben's more mysterious parts in the narrative in favor of him being bigger and more direct (as mentioned in the above scene)

I like both adaptions over all, but if i had to pick I go with this one as a whole. But some invidual points i'd side with the second.

Communities left for being out of touch: Gamefaqs, Home Theater Forum
Also left a group on Flickr

reply

I'm pretty much with Roddenhyzer on this one...they're both good, but I actually prefer the remake. Don't know why the rest of you didn't, but I sympathized enormously with Glover's Willard and if I were Cathryn, I would have been his friend as well (okay, I'd have wanted to be more than his friend, but that's sorta beside the point!) And I would never have abandoned him. Martin clearly deserved what he got. =p *cue "I'll Stand By You"* Oh, would that I could be in her place...

Also, if you were to watch all of the DVD bonus features, you'd realize that not only does the remake NOT overuse CGI, but that the film went through numerous phases...I think that the way it came out is great. The ending has its own meanings. But originally, the movie was longer and slower-moving, ended in Willard's death, and had various other differences from the final product. Complaints and poor ratings from many test audiences forced the director to continuously cut things to speed it up, tack on a new Willard-lives ending, etc. One might get the impression that the movie was made for "today's attention-deficit audiences" who demand such things as speed, instant gratification, overly simplistic clarity, and happy(ish) endings...but the fact is, it's not that type of film at all, and it was still much less so in its original earlier stages.

Additionally, they're not precisely 'horror' movies to begin with, in the sort of typical shock!gore! sense...they're just a little more psychological than that, and really quite poignant character studies.

flowerpower

reply

This one, definitely!

The original gives you a real sense of Willard as a beat down loser in life. He's totally pathetic at the start of the film and gradually becomes crazy. Nonetheless you connect with him. You see how his overbearing old mother and a-hole boss have kept him stifled and you FEEL for him, despite his pitifulness. You can understand just how Davidson's Willard would be driven to madness. Glover's Willard just seemed weird. Unlike Davidson's Willard, you don't really connect with or feel for him because he's starts off so eccentric. Consequently, when Glover's Willard starts acting more loony it's just par for the course and it isn't as compelling to watch him become more empowered via the rats as it is with Davidson.

The original has a painfully slow ascend, but the climax is worth it! The remake has a more lively tone throughout the movie, but the climax was weak. Very weak. The death scene of Willard's boss in the original was just BANANAS! The death scene of Willard's boss in the remake was dry...plus because he was such an OTT a-hole you knew within the first ten minutes that his killing was coming.

The ending of the original Willard was SHOCKING and left you feeling unnerved. The ending of the remake was lame and a bit of a copout. The original has a sort of "you reap what you sow" final message. The remake has no real message.

The remake furthermore relies too much of the mere creepy visual of the rats and overuse of CGI to compensate for water down horror action.

The original film, although a bit slow moving and old fashion by today's standards, is much more rewarding. The remake was shallow.

reply

Having seen this one earlier tonight I can now say I like things about both of them. I could elaborate, but it is 1 am now and I need sleep. Maybe later.

You! Obey the fist!
RIP Heath Ledger

reply

I like both, but slightly prefer the old one.

reply

Original is better but i do like the remake.

reply

I love Crispin Glover but I hated the remake. It was terrible. The original is a good film and Bruce Davison plays the part well. I also really enjoyed the sequel. It was aimed more at a younger audience. I was rooting for the rats in the sequel.

reply

I preferred the original. I could sympathise with Willard in it. In the remake I found him unlikeable.
I've just ordered the novel to get an idea which version is closer.


Love is never having to say you're sober.

reply

In the remake, Willard was much weirder and unrelatable. At least in this version I can see why a beautiful woman would want to spend time with him. I liked this version which I just saw last night on Youtube much better.

Just got secretly engaged to the best guy ever!!

reply

The original,much more.

Bruce Davison is excellent and believable in the role,Crispin Glover is just nuts,a cartoon. I haven't seen the original in years but I vividly recall many scenes. I saw the remake when it was released but other than Glover's overacted performance and that fact that Ben was really huge,I can't recall much. I don't even remember the ending. The shocking ending of the original is burned into my memory.

I can't believe the remake is so readily available but the great original has not been released on DVD.



reply

[deleted]