Willard - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Willard Reviews

Page 1 of 7
Top Critic
Roger Moore
Orlando Sentinel
March 13, 2003
A movie that wants to be funny-scary and is satisfied with just funny.
| Original Score: 3/5
Top Critic
Roger Ebert
Chicago Sun-Times
March 14, 2003
It has attitude and a look, but the rats aren't scary.
Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/4
Top Critic
James Berardinelli
March 16, 2003
This new incarnation of Willard emphasizes one thing: no matter how bad the original was, it didn't need to be remade.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/4
Phil Villarreal
Arizona Daily Star
March 13, 2003
Why this tepid horror flick, a remake of the 1971 film of the same title, is being released nationwide is beyond comprehension.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/4
Top Critic
Richard Roeper
Ebert & Roeper
March 18, 2003
[Y]ou got a real opportunity here to do something really funny -- because Crispin Glover is really fun -- and something scary, but the rats, I guess, aren't up to the task.
Rob Vaux
Flipside Movie Emporium
March 17, 2003
Any film with Crispin Glover's name above the title is marching to its own beat, and it has little interest in convincing us to dance along; we simply will or we won't.
Full Review | Original Score: C+
Felix Vasquez Jr.
Cinema Crazed
April 29, 2009
Never scares, never pulls off enough tension, and the rats are bland.
Christopher Smith
Bangor Daily News (Maine)
September 20, 2007
The rats multiply at a rate that suggests Willard's basement is the city's red light district.
Full Review | Original Score: C+
Susan Granger
March 17, 2003
Full Review| Original Score: 4/10
Dennis Schwartz
Ozus' World Movie Reviews
March 17, 2003
The problem is that "Willard" never becomes anything more than a ham-fisted revenge-of-the-nerd horror fable.
Full Review | Original Score: C
Top Critic
Stephen Holden
New York Times
March 13, 2003
Barely a line flies by that doesn't land with a wooden thud.
| Original Score: 1/5
Top Critic
Mike Clark
USA Today
March 13, 2003
The movie isn't without style, but the material can't remotely sustain 100 minutes.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/4
Top Critic
Robert Denerstein
Denver Rocky Mountain News
March 14, 2003
A lamely acted and frequently dull remake of the 1971 movie.
| Original Score: D
Top Critic
Tom Maurstad
Dallas Morning News
March 13, 2003
Nearly every scene along the way to the movie's Psycho-like conclusion is fundamentally silly in ways that don't always seem intended.
Full Review | Original Score: C
John A. Nesbit
Old School Reviews
March 17, 2003
the technically 'improved' version just doesn't have the same heart of the original
Full Review | Original Score: C-
Steve Newton
Georgia Straight
February 9, 2014
The vengeance-driven plot creeps along at a snail's pace, and all the teeth-gnashing and cheek-quivering in the world-courtesy of Glover's demented Willard Stiles-cannot save the day.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/5
David Keyes
March 14, 2003
There is a great idea in the fabric here somewhere, no doubt, but it gets lost, and it gets lost very fast.
Full Review | Original Score: 1/4
Daniel M. Kimmel
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
January 4, 2004
Each era gets the movies it deserves... This new version seems to exist in a bubble. It's got atmosphere to spare, but no real compelling reason...
Full Review| Original Score: 3/5
Jake Euker
F5 (Wichita, KS)
July 5, 2004
The filmmakers may have been too intelligent for their camp material. They spend too much time on background material, an over-developed hero, atmosphere, and in-jokes.
Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5
Jim Judy
Screen It!
March 14, 2003
Perhaps it's because rats and their like don't have that sort of effect on me, but I found little of the film to be spooky, let alone frightening.
Full Review | Original Score: 4/10
Page 1 of 7