In my opinion, most movies of this sort sink or swim (pardon the pun) based on the villain, and everyone else kind of falls to the wayside. This one swam. This villain was bad (as he should be), yes, but what I liked about Stan is that he really enjoyed his work, and I can somewhat relate to him as I have been dabbling with screenwriting myself. Judd Nelson played him just right, really giving the impression of a regular guy just trying to do his job.
Some other reviewers have questioned the genre classification of this film, and I'd just like to throw in my two cents. I looked up the individual who wrote this film, and he was a guy who had been in Hollywood for a while, so I'm thinking given the whole subplot with Stan's agent and the director, that this may be a dark (VERY dark) satire of Hollywood and the people who try to make a living in that town, much like "Swimming With Sharks", another fine film.
Some other reviewers complained about a lack of explanation as to why Stan does what he does, but I am not one of them. I'm sure Stan had a motive that made sense for him, and those last two words are what is key here: FOR HIM. Sure, we'd all like a reason for what he did, but the makers of this film are under absolutely NO OBLIGATION to tell us what it is. Personally, it made me wonder about his motives, and I found that much more refreshing than whatever motivation that might have been revealed. I mentioned that I am dabbling in screenwriting and one of the books I picked up said that as long as the screenwriter knows why his characters do things, that's all that matters. No one else has to know.
Good well-played villain, a darkly humorous look at the Hollywood system, and some wickedly funny moments add up to a worthwhile film.
14 out of 17 found this helpful