SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

bean-d I remember seeing the advertisement for "The Fan" (1981) as a child and feeling shocked by the idea that someone could like a star so much that he'd kill her. I also remember the critics panning the film, wondering why Lauren Bacall would involve herself in such a tawdry mess.While the film is awful, it does make me wonder what the producers were thinking. I mean, we know from the first frame of the film who the fan is and that his fixation on Bacall will soon turn deadly. Without the element of mystery, the film is rather like waiting for a bus. Imagine if "Psycho" began by showing us that Norman often dressed and talked like his mother, and that he killed any woman who aroused him. Without the element of mystery, "Psycho" would have fallen into the abyss of forgettable films. Still, all things considered, "The Fan" is well acted and the production values are good.

cchires The Fan begins as if it is going to be a study of an obsessed fan in contrast to the human fallibility of a celebrity, but it ends up being a routine thriller. The film gives the fan in question some background information to display his isolation and the value he gives the Lauren Becall character. Lauren Becall is also shown as having difficulty with middle age and divorce. The two character's stories are given equal time as the movie develops, but once the fan starts acting out violently, the standard thriller clichés kick in.I get frustrated in movies where the conflict can be resolved if the characters would just act sensibly, but to string the movie along they have to be stupid. The epitome of that in this movie is in the fact that Lauren Becall's secretary - who knows that the fan is disturbed by the content of his letters - never thinks to write down the man's name in the event his obsession becomes a criminal matter. There are some good things in the movie. Maureen Stapleton, in particular, gives an interesting performance and there is some interesting camera work in the theater rehearsals. In addition, Lauren Becall displays the qualities that have made her a Hollywood icon (even though based upon what is seen, it is doubtful that anyone would want to see this musical she is in). But the movie is brought down by a script that abandoned the character study aspects in favor of focusing on the cheap thriller qualities.

patr35 I saw this movie when it first came out, and again when it first hit video. Columnist Liz Smith was in the opening scene as Sally Ross leaves the theater (prodding the star with silly questions) just before Sally is victimized by strong-hand pen theft. I wonder why this part was edited out of the DVD release, and what else might have been cut from the first print. Bacall might have reconsidered her participation in this flick if she had had a crystal ball, considering the stalker aspect of the movie and the fact that she lived in the apartment building where John Lennon also lived and was murdered at the time of filming. However, it is one of her better films, and we also get a taste of her Broadway musical talents. Her songs are Camp, but not in a trashy way. They stick with you; Crapriffic lyrics not withstanding. The book was a favorite of mine when it first hit paperback, and although the story remained the same in many ways, the ending and style are quite different. Read the book and compare.

Neil Doyle THE FAN is based on a book of the same name and had the producers left the story intact without changing so many things (including the ending), they might have had a more profitable thriller on their hands.Horror fans in 1981 were expecting much more gore from their slasher flicks than THE FAN was willing to exploit, being that the story is about an obsessed fan with only one thing on his mind when he is rejected. His vengeance is a blood-thirsty one, but the script is too slow and talky for its own good, pretending to have psychological overtones when it really just wants to get the nasty business over with.LAUREN BACALL plays a variation of herself as an aging drama queen, a Broadway actress with modest musical talent, who is burdened with a stream of fan letters from an unbalanced admirer. MAUREEN STAPLETON is the secretary who has to bear the brunt of Bacall's rudeness and JAMES GARNER is her amiable ex-husband who has little to do when most of the film's focus is on the fan, played by MICHAEL BIEHN.Summing up: Best described by Leonard Maltin as "an exploitation cheapie in dress clothes", it's not as good as the cast would suggest.