User Reviews

Philip Kaufman is best known now for making art films for the masses but this early slice of madness is unlike any of his other films I've seen. Although looking very low-budget with shaky camerawork and bad on-location sound recording, this is a frenetic satire of comic book heroes with Voight as Fearless Frank and the bad False Frank. The bad guys look like they stepped out of a Dick Tracy comic with names like Screwnose and The Rat with cheap-looking makeup jobs to match. The anything-goes approach to the story seems like it was shot in an improvisational style which makes for a very disjointed film. I think Kaufman was trying to make an American pop culture satire in the style of self-indulgent European art movie directors like Jean-Luc Godard. This does not make it a good film, only an interesting one.

Knowing that Philip Kaufman directed movies like "The Right Stuff", it blows the mind that he once directed the cornball "Fearless Frank". Jon Voight plays a drifter who gets murdered and then reanimated as a superhero. With cartoonish action and speech that sounds like a recording of a recording, it's impossible not to laugh at this. It's going to be hard to find a copy, though. I suspect that Kaufman's too embarrassed about this movie to release it.

As for the rest of the cast, Monique van Vooren apparently is best known for appearances in Andy Warhol movies. Severn Darden was a character actor over a number of years (I best remember him from "The President's Analyst" and "Saturday the 14th"). Nelson Algren (Needles) was the author of "The Man with the Golden Arm", and Ken Nordine (the narrator) was a jazz vocalist.

Wow. You actually have to wonder how Jon Voight got the Midnight Cowboy gig after being in this one.

I only watched it to see Monique Van Vooren who got top billing and she was in it much. David Steinberg, of all people showed up playing The Rat.

This tells you what a weird movie it is. The effects suck.

Fearless Frank is a genuinely odd early work by Philip Kaufman, featuring an early performance by Jon Voight as a flawed superhero. It attempts to recreate the feel and atmosphere of a comic book, particularly in its first half. Ultimately, it is a mixed bag that will have difficulty appealing either to children or to fans of experimental film.

If you watch only the first half hour, Fearless Frank appears to be intended as a children's film. The characters seem straight out of a Dick Tracy comic, complete with bizarrely disfigured criminals. There is a definite camp element to this section of the film, with comic narration provided by a mysterious, and melodramatic, on screen narrator with a typewriter. Similarly, a scientist's patented evil detector gives the proceedings the feel of a sixties children's matinée. Only the plot line, which revolves around a young farm boy resurrected from the dead to become a superhero suggests anything

However, the film gets increasingly odd as it goes along. A clone of the hero is introduced, and the plot shifts from a straight superhero story to one of a character corrupted by success. From here the film becomes increasingly surreal and inaccessible. In the end, it becomes more of a film for Kaufman completists than a film one would watch for enjoyment.

I've seen a lot of bad movies: grindhouse junk, exploitation drek, inept and abortive attempts at comedy or porn or art. But this is one of the worst piles of dung I've ever looked at. A young and handsome Jon Voight is a country bumpkin who goes to the city, gets in trouble, and gets turned into a flying superhero whose troubles then compound.

The soundtrack is mostly dissonant jazz and the voice of Word Jazz artist Ken Nordine, when it's not awful location sound. The action is meant to parody Superman and Frankenstein, but instead it's just a pointless, ugly mockery of them. I suppose the intention was to create something like Blazing Saddles, but effect is more like a high school play put on by the kids from detention.

The dialog is inane. The comic gags are stupid. The acting is as broad as a Punch and Judy puppet show. And the direction is as clumsy as I've ever seen, with Kaufman framing scenes with urgent disregard for clarity and lighting and not bothering to redress actors to show the passage of time in a montage. It's not funny; it's not clever; it's not interesting; and it's not so bad it's good. The only explanation is that the cast and crew must have been inexperienced, stoned, and shooting as fast as possible. You couldn't make a POS like this on purpose.

This is a bizarre, uneven film. I watched through it though for the awesome '6os Chicago film locations. There are many outdoor scenes including an alley on Diversey Ave just west of Clark St, Lake Shore Drive, Belmont Harbor, the River View amusement park, and the Prudential Building skydeck. River View closed in the 60s and now the Prudential Building, which was the the tallest building in Chicago at 40 stories, has been dwarfed by many other buildings

"Fearless Frank" is a parody of super-hero films that looks as if it was made on a budget of about $48.32 but was, amazingly, made by MGM! It also features Jon Voight in the lead...and he shows none of the acting ability that would soon earn him an Oscar nomination for Best Actor. To put it bluntly, his performance is like a MUCH stupider Gomer Pyle...and this is really NOT an exaggeration!

The story finds the addle-brained Frank (Voight) shot by mobsters. Oddly, however, when he awakens he's fine...and he also becomes less stupid over time! This is all thanks to 'the Good Doctor'...who is a bit of a mad scientist. Then, Frank becomes a crime fighter...if you can manage to last this long, I am impressed.

There is a fine line between parody and just plain bad...and "Fearless Frank" falls in the just plain bad category. Additionally, the film is just boring and awful to watch. It's also a film, I assume, that Jon Voight would just as soon have us all forget!

I was on board with Fearless Frank for the first 30 minutes or so. It made me laugh a few times and had the sort of anarchic and silly energy that makes The Beatles' Help a lot of fun (it's easier to compare this film to that one, rather than anything else Jon Voight or Philip Kaufman went on to make; both went on to bigger and much better things).

But unfortunately, Fearless Frank is longer than half an hour, and I grew tired of it as it went along. For the sheer weirdness of its existence, I feel like it might be worth a curiosity watch. There were entertaining moments too (the first gag involving Frank's super punching ability made me laugh more than I'd probably be willing to admit), but not quite enough for this to feel like a "good" movie.

But hey, for what it's worth, I've definitely seen inferior superhero movies.

I first saw this film when I was 11 years old (on the KTLA 'Movies Til Dawn' at 2:00 am), and I didn't realize the impact it had on me until I saw it again a few months ago (17 years later). I found two scenes between Frank and False Frank had really affected me, SPOILER WARNING: One was when Frank, after he has fallen from grace, tries to fly and falls to his destruction on the pavement below and fades away. It affected me that the 'hero' of the film should die that way, the hero believing in his own abilities and dying because of his own failings. Second, when the False Frank is crying in the boat at the end of the film. I was again bothered by the image of the new 'hero' losing emotional control like that. Possibly these images don't mean anything to the vast majority of people who saw the film, but they had a profound effect on me. I am surprised at how few people have voted/commented on this film. I feel it is an undiscovered gem of film-making, waiting for a re-appraisal.

Starring Jon Voight and chubby comic actor Severin Darden, FEARLESS FRANK is an obscure pop morality play gone wrong. Receiving somewhat limited release, it quickly gravitated to infrequent television showings, via American-International Television.

The story concerns Darden's Doctor, who creates a perfect crimefighter, Frank. Played as immaculately cool, in a slick suit, narrow tie and shades, Frank easily bashes baddies until his ego gains the upper hand and proves his destruction.

In the end, battered and scarred, he's rowed off to quieter climes, no longer able to function as a crimefighter or -- in many ways -- a complete human being.

An interesting watch, though overall it shows largely cut-rate production values and a somewhat depressing atmosphere as Frank begins developing chinks in his armor which first pit him against the Doctor in small ways, and later lead to his falling from grace and into the hands of is enemies. The films seems to have vanished from sight, last showing on regional television in the early 1970s, slightly prior to Filmways' buy-out of AIP and their subsequent selling off of the studio's film library.

This was an amazing find for me and my girlfriend. We were watching late night television and were enthralled by this comic gem from the great director Philip Kaufman starring the young Jon Voight before he did "Midnight Cowboy", etc. This film was made before the television series "Batman", etc. and has some brilliant comic book conceits that have been copied in the Batman films, etc. After Frank is brought back to life by the good doctor, there's a wonderful scene which could have been the inspiration for Geoffrey Rush's character in "The King's Speech". The film stars a who's who from Chicago's Second City and is full of humor and energy. The acting and the directing are spot on for a little independent film and it foreshadowed Kaufman's talents for his later films like "the Right Stuff" and, in some ways, "The Unbearable lightness of Being". Hope it plays again soon. Does anyone know how to get a hold of a DVD of this film? We would love to get a copy.

The story is told in a comic book style but it grabbed my attention even though I didn't know the actors or anything else about it. It has a sense of humor in its silliness which is probably a turnoff for adults. I watched it again and was amazed at how much I remembered from seeing it 50 years ago. I can't really give this movie a rating because it is so unconventional. It is like watching a cartoon except filmed on location with live actors. The closest comparison I could make to it would be the Batman TV show that was also in the 1960s.

I just finished watching this odd movie which I had taped last year but forgotten until now. (I think it ran on Showtime.)

I think if Troma Studios had existed in the '60s they would have come up with this; it seems too strange for American International, no slackers when it comes to weird movies. Oddly disjointed story, cheesy production values, but the whole film is enhanced by narrator Ken Nordine (Word Jazz) and the appropriately chaotic jazz soundtrack.

This is a movie you should acquire and save for a late-night party with friends. It needs to be watched, not ignored as background, or you lose track of the surreal plot line. I wondered if it had been cut mercilessly because it seems too choppy. But seeing it without commercials helped immeasurably.

Somehow I doubt you will watch it more than once.

This movie was a breath of fresh air after watching too many formulaic Hollywood clones. Campy, clever and novel this gave me a new appreciation for Jon Voight. It was decidedly low budget, like a film school project but the director worked around this in humorous ways. Some cliche villains made this like reading a children's story, but with a wicked grin and a wink. It reminded me of performance art my college roommate used to do that kept us up laughing until all hours of the night. This movie single-handedly convinced me not to cancel my subscription to Showtime, because I never would have watched it if it wasn't coming on at the same time I was channel surfing, but I'm so glad I caught it and would recommend it to anyone who is sick of seeing the same soulless big-budget movie over and over with different titles.

One of the most refreshingly unique films I have ever seen. A must-see for those who liked Raising Arizona or the Space Ghost series. Campy and entertaining and a most welcome break from the formulaic drivel. If you like "pop" movies, you will not understand this one. But if you are tired of the same old thing, you need a hero. Fearless Frank is that hero.

and it's deep if you want it to be. john voight is great in the dual role of frank and false frank. the writing/narration is funny too. i saw this on late night tv in the early 70's. i wish it would be released on dvd.

I loved the cartoonish aspect of the movie. Jon Voight was excellent and showed great comic flair. The movie Mystery Men reminds me of FF. I saw it as a kid and thought that it was coolest movie I had ever seen, but that was over 30 years ago. I would love to see it again.

Some Notes Toward a Review:

Virtues of the Film

1. Plays it straight 2. Genuinely funny 3. Ken Nordine's earnest narration 4. Voight's good-natured performance-sweet (the rube) but also sour 5. Darden's funny dual performance, particularly his Yiddish accent 6. Chicago in glorious technicolor 7. Making the movie at all was bold 8. The two songs create a dream-like atmosphere-one sounds like Nico 9. A little bit of everything-comedy, drama, mood piece 10. Every performance is good 11. Where else can you see Nelson Algren in a movie? 12. Some of it seems like it was being made up on the fly 13. The freedom of creation shown by Kaufman 14. Quirky henchmen-Rat, Cat, Needles (an allusion to "The Man with the Golden Arm"?), and, of course, Screwnose, who is obviously based on Richard Nixon

Some reviewers take it WAY too seriously, missing the oddness that makes it unique.

Added over a year after the initial review: I just watched this movie again and didn't like it nearly as much as I had, proving that our mood while watching a movie has a lot to do with how we experience that movie. Upon a second viewing, I found the movie more tedious than I had remembered it, and what I had found hilarious-or, at least, amusing-the first time around, had tended to fall flat the second time. Its slipshod nature, which had been a virtue to me was now a vice. I do know that at least once or twice, this second time around, I had laughed so hard that tears had come to my eyes so it still had the power to amuse. I think so, anyway, unless it was something else that I had watched recently, and I'm confusing that with this movie.

Why am I adding these comments to my initial review? Because my integrity wouldn't allow me to do otherwise. One's assessment of everything should always be changing. If not, one is stagnating, which isn't too far removed from being dead.