Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

guil fisher I have seen THE FAN at least 3-4 times and am never disappointed in it. Of course watching Lauren Bacall in any movie is a thrill. Sad that she recently passed away. R.I.P. She plays an actress of the Broadway stage doing a musical, not unknown to Miss Bacall having done several Bway shows including musicals such as APPLAUSE and WOMAN OF THE YEAR. As a matter of fact her first film break had her singing to Humphrey Bogart in TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT with Hogey Carmichael. She had Hogey and Bogie. Just a little humor.Back to this movie. The wonderful Maureen Stapleton plays Lauren's secretary and as usual is brilliant almost stealing the film. She never misses a beat this fine actress. Add to that James Garner in a somewhat thankless role and Hector Alonzo as Lauren's suitors. However the real treat is to watch Michael Biehn make his film debut as the crazed psycho who is an ardent fan that goes too far in stalking his favorite actress. He plays an in the closet gay boy, which isn't really the theme of the story but explains his frequent trips to gay bars and gyms in search of his next victim.The film had that New York theatre feeling. Well filmed and written, to me it is worth seeing again and again. Biehn has done well from his beginning work having done several good films since and still working in the industry. His gorgeous youthful face from THE FAN has now become a wonderful chiseled character face that is intriguing. Here's to THE FAN.

mercuryix-1 Spoilers (not that it matters): This is the most ludicrously melodramatic line in the movie sung (actually spoken) by Lauren Bacall, an aging actress staging a comeback in a musical in this "suspense thriller". There is nothing suspenseful or thrilling in this movie, and the alleged musical the actress is starring again, seems to have been improvised on the spot instead of being fleshed out even minimally; which only serves to undermine an already unbelievable plot.The villain of the piece is a disturbed young man who has developed an obsession of this actresses old films. He is never explained, and we learn nothing about him, other than he has chosen complete isolation as he pursues his obsession. His sister comes to his apartment to try to talk to him before he shuts her out too. He remains at this level of anonymity for the rest of the film. If this was intended to add to the mystery or interest of the character, it doesn't succeed. We care nothing about this character, other than he appears to be a sad, lonely young man with little social skills. It's hard to believe however that a guy this good-looking with this good a voice, would be this lonely and isolated. If he were truly mentally ill, he would have been evaluated by now.The movie is mean-spirited and sadistic, only Maureen Stapleton seems to actually be alive and fleshed out in the movie, and James Garner seems to be there only as a prop as the boyfriend.I actually came across a copy of the book this movie was based on, in the value bin of a bookstore many years ago. I leafed through it, to see how a movie this bad could be based on a successful novel. The book is written as a series of "letters", which used to be a popular style in the late 1800s. In the book, the heroine is aloof, her secretary is abrasive (she actually responds to the fan's first letters by saying "Are you for real? Why don't you go bother another actress?" Something a real assistant to a celebrity would never do: antagonize an unknown loony.) The boyfriend is presented as an aloof lug. The villain is presented as an emotionally-numbed narcissistic verbose bore. The author is deliberately laconic about the heroine's demise at the end. In short, the book is deliberately written as emotionally distanced. Why the author thought this would be effective in a thriller, I have no idea. Why the book was a success is a true mystery.Unfortunately, the emotionally flat part of the book got translated into the screenplay. The older actress is never developed, the lonely and pathetic villain is never explored, and nothing actually "develops" in this movie. There is no arc of any kind. The actor playing villain pumps as much life as he can into a dead script and dead lines that do nothing to help him; to the point where you actually start feeling sorry for the actor, not scared of the character! This movie deserves to be forgotten about and obscured in film history. This may sound harsh, but it contributes nothing to the viewer, will waste two hours of your time, and will leave you wondering why it was ever made based on its screenplay.Lauren Bacall deserved much better than this, and why she didn't demand better is the biggest mystery about this movie. I'm sure it's not one of the films she enjoys talking about.I'm glad the "villain" of the piece, went on to bigger and better things.Bacall sings "I want it all!" at a point in this film; that's especially ironic, considering there's nothing here. Two stars.

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.

ccthemovieman-1 I thought this film was much better than the critics made it out to be at the time. I found it to be an interesting character study of an obsessed fan, played by Michael Biehn. He was a new actor at the time and a total unknown, which helped in this role. He went to star in "The Terminator" and has had a decent career. The other co-star....well, you might have heard of her: Lauren Bacall.I read a lot of criticism of Bacall for this role, and think it is totally unjustified. She was just fine, thank you, playing a believable character: a veteran actress being talked by some deranged killer.With Maureen Stapleton, James Garner, Hector Elizondo, some great cinematography with wonderful close-up shots and a good score, what's not to like? It was a good thriller and deserves better ratings.