Andy Sheets
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2000
- Messages
- 2,377
The name drops (of comic book creators who have worked on Daredevil in the comics)So it wasn't just me that missed Gene Colan's name not being mentioned? He's the definitive artist of Daredevil! I really hope that his name was simply a casualty of being in a deleted scene because there's no excuse for leaving him out and yet name-dropping all those other guys.
Anyway, I hate to say it but I strongly disliked the movie. Worst superhero movie I've seen since Spawn. I felt that by trying to do way too much, it wasn't able to dig into any of the characters or their stories sufficiently and thus none of it was at all fulfilling. After about 15 minutes of the movie, I was bored and nothing could capture and sustain my interest after that.
I did like the opening with his origin. The film still had focus at that point and David Keith did a great job as his father. And the introduction to his new senses was very well handled.
Affleck did a good job as Murdock, but his Daredevil needs to lighten the hell up. Even during the gritty Frank Miller run, DD still had his wiseass sense of humor. They should have let him use that, instead of making poor Affleck growl all the time.
Did Joe Pants really have anything to do with the plot of the movie? I like Ben Urich in the comics but I can't help thinking they should have left his stuff out entirely and given more time to the central characters that desperately needed more development.
Duncan was fine but there simply wasn't enough of him. And the climax with him, like too much of the movie, felt like it was rushed into and therefore became anticlimactic when it happened. The rose thing was lame; I'm not a fan of that sort of thing in superhero movies. Why isn't it good enough to just let the hero and villain kick the crap out of each other based on principle? They always need to "make it...personal!"
Garner I thought should have been a little edgier than she was, but at the same time I think Johnson let her down as the creator of the film. There's such a juicy story behind Elektra in the comics as this fallen, corrupted character, but reducing her to simply being a revenge-driven woman wastes all of that. I feel like Johnson simplified things way too much and we got a far less interesting character and story as a result (of course, I'm thinking this about every thread in the movie). As it is, if I want to see an Elektra adaptation done right on screen, I'll go watch the Faith episodes of Buffy and Angel
But anyway, yeah, I wanted to like the movie more but as a general filmgoer I feel like the movie was sloppily written/directed/edited, and as a comics fan I feel that the story was an awful adaptation of some classic stories. Even though I got to see the movie for free I can't help feeling like I'm owed some money back