lost-in-limbo Hollywood legends in their twilight-years are what lifts this rather sub-standard, but callous thriller out the ho-hum mould. Refined performances by Lauren Bacall (which could be seen as a star vehicle for her), James Garner and Maureen Stapleton go along way and the chemistry they share is a pleasure to behold. That's not taking away from the rest of the cast, because everyone does an outstanding job… more so than the actual gaudy material deserves. A perfectly pitched Michael Biehn convincingly portrays a young lad who's a persistent admirer of an illustrious movie actress Sally Ross (Bacall). He constantly writes to her with each letter getting even more personal and disturbing, in which her long-serving secretary (Stapleton) at first hides from her. Soon enough it's gotten to the point that this fan would do anything to make his fantasy come true. Also showing up is commendable support by Hector Elizondo and Anna Maria Horsford. Watch out for the recognizable faces of Griffin Dunne and Dana Delany in minor parts. The problem mainly lies in its attempts for suspense and drama building, as it's too predictable and dry to be exhaustively effective. The shocks are nasty, but again lacking creditability and the lasting punch due to what characters are attacked or put under threat. The plot progression isn't as riveting. However Biehn's transformation from simple idol obsession to a possessively troubled mind is unnervingly intimate, especially when the narration has him reading out his letters before posting it. Ed Bianchi's black and white direction is technically sound, if mundanely slow-grinding which is bumped up by Pino Donaggio's vividly spiralling instrumental music score and grounded location work. Accessible, but unmemorable thriller.

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.

matt_tawesson-1 This movie, 1981's "The Fan" stars screen legend Lauren Bacall, Michael Biehn, and Maureen Stapleton. Bacall plays an actress of stage and screen Sally Ross. Biehn plays a man named Douglas Breene, who is a fan of Sally's, and Stapleton plays Belle Goldman, who is Sally's secretary. Douglas works in a record store, and is a fan of Sally. But he is not an ordinary fan; he has an out of control, psychological obsession of her that turns pretty ugly. He writes Sally almost every day expecting an answer from her directly, but gets answered by Belle. During this movie, you see how crazy, disturbed (and increasingly dangerous) Douglas is. A variety of odd things start happening. In one scene, he is in his apartment pretending to have a candlelit dinner with Sally, he sends Sally a very pornographic letter that gets answered by Belle in a reprimand, he sends another letter to her (in person) that he hopes she will receive, but it gets to Belle instead, he goes and buys a straight razor as a weapon, sees Belle in the hall of the subway station, goes up to her and cuts her face, then he goes after David, one of Sally's friends and slashes him (possibly kills him) at a public swimming pool, then goes after Sally's maid and kills her in the apartment by slashing her breasts (which was the real shocker), destroys the apartment, goes to a gay bar and sees a guy who looks almost exactly like him, and kills him by dousing gasoline on the guy and throwing a match on him to prove to Sally in a note that she is free, etc., then attends Sally's musical when it's almost over and goes backstage to kill other people (first the stage office manager, then Sally's new maid), and then there's the confrontation between Sally and Douglas (a small chase and then he catches up with her). Then, after a bit of his dialog of obsession he has with Sally and embraces her, she quickly stabs Doug in the neck and he is gone. I first saw this movie on TV years ago when I was a kid, and saw it again years later in the late '90s on Encore (taping it). The chilling incidental music is wonderful as well. I do like this movie a lot (but not the sadistic slayings). I am going to get the DVD of this movie soon. See it while you can!! Also, James Garner (from TV's "The Rockford Files") plays Sally's love interest. The actors were great; kudos to them!! Great movie, so why give it negative reviews, folks???

johnm_001 I'm surprised that so many people think this film is so bad. Everyone in it is first-rate in the acting department, and the overall story is both fun and fascinating. It completely grabs your attention, from the opening credits, while Michael Biehn (who is excellent in his stalker role) is typing a letter to Lauren Bacall, underscored by Pino Donaggio's effective music. Bacall and Stapleton have tremendous chemistry, and their characters are utterly believable. So too, are the musical numbers which Bacall performs, during the film. Singer or not, Bacall was quite successful in musicals on Broadway, and the songs in the film, are the type she would have performed. Dialog appears unscripted and completely natural, particularly between Bacall and Stapleton. James Garner and Hector Elizondo, are solid in their supporting roles. This film is a favorite of mine. Recommended.