morrismka I saw this 30 years ago, and still have never seen anything worse. Junior-high drama club could do better. Bad script. Bad photography. Bad. Bad. Bad! Painfully innocent county boy goes to the big city. Dies. Resurrected by mad scientist. The movie can not decide whether he is a Frankenstein monster or a superhero. I will be generous and say that the movie might be trying to deliver a moral or a message or something, but it fails.

TheExpatriate700 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 anythingHowever, 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.

djensen1 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.

lodger3 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.