"The Fan" might have been more shocking when it first came out in 1981, because stalking people (famous or not) wasn't as publicized as it is today. But thanks to the news talking about it, as well as TV dramas using it as subject matter, the movie will feel very familiar to people. It certainly could have been better made. Among other problems, we don't really get to know much about the stalker character, James Garner's character could easily be eliminated without having to alter the rest of the script, and the climax is without question lacking punch. Still, the movie is never boring (though some viewers may feel the story is unfolding slowly), and all of the actors from the leads to the supporting roles are solid in their performances. I guess if you really want to see this subject matter again, the movie will give you what you want, but even then you'll see that it could have been done a lot better.

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.

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.

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.