*** Official "DAREDEVIL" Review Thread (1 Viewer)

[Hector de leon]

Just watched Daredevil today and I’m happy to say that this movie doesn't disappoint. Unlike other films of similar material, this movie focused more on its main character then on visual effects. Also, Ben Aflecks portrayal of DD was good too, I know allot of people out there tend to just hate Afleck, but he really did a fine job with the DD character. Elektra was just Hot, her chemistry with Afleck on screen was genuine (watch out J-Lo!). Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin was just perfect, and Colin Farrel playing Bulls Eye couldn't be better, Bulls Eye, despite being a few screws loose seemed to have a sense of humor. Besides everything else, my only beef was with the music. They picked music on some scenes instead of score, but it wasn't anything that stood out too much. Also, at the beginning when young Matt Murdock was honing his sonar senses, it felt like there were some elements of the character not told. Other then that, great fun flick. Good enough for guys and girls, Perfect for Valentines.

p.s. sorry for the small review, i'm a bit shy about these things :b


Something else I need to add is the X-Men 2 Trailer attached to DD. Simply put, WoW! Fast, Action-Packed, Ice Man, Night Crawler, extreme all the way, except at the end when we see a funny moment. So cute I don't want to say.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "Daredevil". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.

Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!

If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.



Crawdaddy

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Daredevil :star::star:1/2 out of 5

Some super-heroes lend themselves perfectly to a visual medium. Heck, the old Superman series thrilled an entire generation - and that was nothing more than a barrel-chested white guy in pajamas! Other characters are perhaps best suited to remain in their original pulp form and I suspect that Daredevil is one of them. On paper, it's easy to buy the concept of an acrobatic blind superhero in red leather. It would take a more talented team than writer/director Mark Steven Johnson and actor Ben Affleck to pull this trick off in movie form and despite a few glimmers of flash they fail pretty resoundingly.

Whoever thought the director of Simon Birch was the right man to oversee a comic-book adaptation was plain old wrong. Daredevil is a gloomily lit and choppily edited melange of overripe melodrama, painfully familiar action-flick conceits and howlingly trite dialogue. It showcases a massive array of talented actors while giving them virtually nothing to do; action scenes are tossed onto the screen seemingly at random (these sequences waver between fitfully entertaining and ridiculously contrived); and the film seems like it could be disassembled and re-edited together at random while making the same amount of sense.

The plot focuses on yet another angst-ridden avenger with special powers and a skin-tight outfit. (I of course realize that Daredevil is based on a decades-old comic-book, but it's astonishing how closely this film resembles last year's Spider-Man.) Our hero is Matt Murdock, a crusading-for-the-people type of lawyer who was struck blind after a childhood collision with some toxic waste. (Yes, toxic waste directly in the face and the result is blindness.) Matt discovers some bizarre side effects from his affliction: his four remaining sense are heightened to, well, super-heroic proportions.

So basically we have a blind hero who can do anything a sighted person can do - and a whole lot more. Where's the problem? Much like in any worthwhile comic-book, the problem here is a murdered father figure and a blind guy with a little too much time on his hands. (How Murdock can manage a lawyer's schedule and find the time to fight crime all night is anyone's guess.) If you've already guessed that Murdock's dead father has a connection to the arch-nemesis Kingpin then I assume you've already seen at least one comic-book movie.

The overstuffed flick tosses nearly a dozen potentially interesting characters onscreen (each one played by a solid actor) and only two manage to stick. Jon Favreau, Joe Pantoliano and Leland Orser are wasted, while the intitally intriguing choice of Michael Clarke Duncan as the head baddie proves to be cooler in concept than in reality. (One can almost see the teleprompter offscreen.) Rising above the tedium are Jennifer Garner as the shockingly cute Elektra and the manic Colin Farrell - who provides the only real sparks of life as the cartoonishly aggressive henchman Bullseye.

As the title slab, Ben Affleck provides the exact opposite of what one might expect: as the blind attorney, he isn't half bad. As the snarling and humorously gravel-voiced super-hero, he's a huge ball of unintentional hilarity. I don't care how much you're enjoying the film; hearing Affleck mumble from the rafters about "Justissss" is simply too campy to bear.

Daredevil isn't an awful movie and it should find plenty of supporters among the more forgiving comics crowd. But for every clever bit or flash of effective action there's at least five moments of wince-inducing silliness or yawn-inspiring yap. Plus the film features one of the worst soundtracks I've heard in years (full of blaring pop-rock and pseudo-angst growling) and that certainly doesn't help.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Daredevil
7 of 10
Well, first the bad news. Remember the bad CGI in Spider-Man on some of the Spidey crawling/leaping stuff? Well, every single bit of the often used CGI for human figures in DD looks just like that. Also, the script and direction are both rather clumsy at times in terms of storytelling. Things sometimes sort of stutter along rather than having a natural flow to them. The direction sometimes veers into some cliches, and the nature of DD himself means that you will see a lot of Batman in the storylines.

Now the good news, that bad CGI still serves the story well and the FX used for DD sonar are outstanding and very effective. Much of the character work both in the script and by the actors is top notch stuff, giving us lively characters who are interesting to watch even when their introductions are awkwardly done. And some of the directorial choices are pretty sharp, such as going into total quiet and darkness when Murdoch is blinded.

The film respects the DD character, which is it's strongest suit. Sure there is a bit of "wasn't he more hurt than that a second ago" type of story mistakes, but it's acceptable to spend time with the characters.

Farrell as Bullseye is at his most compelling. Who doesn't want to see this guy on screen doing anything at this point? Affleck has a nice dignity to DD most of the time. And Favreau makes for a terrific Foggy, good comic relief without resorting to silliness. I also thought David Keith was great with the father role.

It's not as good as Spidey or XMen, but its hella better than comic films used to be. It's a good time Feb ride that doesn't just leave room for a sequel, it insists upon it. Make sure to stay through at least the first few minutes of credits.


PS - I agree with Scott on the soundtrack. The film is scored horribly, even when using songs I liked. Very cheaply done with plenty of false emotion where the soundtrack is trying too hard to force the issue. Subtlety might have been nice (NERD to intro Kingpin, House of Pain to intro the Irishman Bullseye...please).

 

[Grady Hollums]

one man/woman's hate is another's love. I loved the sound track and my wife loved it even more. The movie was very entertaining and to tell you the truth I though for a comic adaptation I felt the camera shots were very good. I loved the symbolism and the contrast (i.e. red and white, and religious imagery) I am a sucker for imagery and love it when I see it. I felt they did a decent job on the movie, and actually for a comic adaptation I felt it is one of the better ones out there today.

I think this will be a must have for the HT though, because the entire movie revolves around sound!!! They had better recognize that and really use it to their advantage when they are mixing it for the HT and the use of the 6.1 speakers. I really think this movie has the potential if done correctly to be THE directional sound DVD of the year. What better way to use sound and the surround sound than to replicate the ears of a blind man.

Look forward to the DVD release and might even watch it again in the theater. Would definitely watch the sequel if produced.

7 out of 10 stars!

 

[Steve_Tk]

Bleh.

Thought the best part of the movie was the new X2 trailer.

I'll say the movie was OK. Not bad, just didn't get that feeling.

 

[David Rogers]

(It's a review thread, so I don't consider that this warning should be necessary, but…)
SPOILERS. Proceed as you choose.

Daredevil.

Over all, I have to say I mostly liked the film.

I'm not sure how Mark Steven Johnson (Simon Birch, writer on Grumpier Old Men, Simon Birch, Jack Frost) got his hands on this property. I have two major dissatisfactions with the film. One is the poorly handled "quick cut" method of filmcraft, which Johnson unwisely devolved to during the action sequences. The other is the overall weak threading linking the scenes and story together.

I like quick cut when it's used properly, but Daredevil mostly doesn't use it properly. Rather, the cuts confuse and interfere with the viewer's ability to follow what's going on. The biggest criticism I have in my bag for any action or action-element movie is that it shows motion not moves, and Daredevil is heavily guilty. The way the action sequences were assembled purposefully hides the moves, so there's little beauty or awe to enjoy during the fights. We see lots of jumping and spinning, but we really aren't offered a chance to appreciate anything that's happening. We can't enjoy the choreography since we can't see it.

And the overall threading. The movie just feels a little … loose … as it moves through events. Not lacking, not bad, just not tight. Not properly knitted together, perhaps. Just a fuzzy general slight lack.

These two downers aside, I really did enjoy Daredevil. The cast was excellent (Ben Affleck, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell, Jon Favreau, Joe Pantoilano, David Keith, Kevin Smith), really great performances from everyone involved. Each character was nicely fleshed out as much as their role needed, with most of the characterization going to the four main slots.

Affleck was more enjoyable as Murdock than Daredevil, but only due to how the action sequences were assembled in the final edit. The hero poses and "splash pages" were quite excellent, if anything there weren't enough of them. Dialogue was sparse but effective, I didn't wince as any one-liners and I rather enjoyed how the climatic scene played out (and I'm paraphrasing since this is from memory):

(after Daredevil takes Kingpin down and stands over him, preparing to deliver a final strike)
Daredevil: I've dreamed of this day since I was twelve years old
(Daredevil's strike hits the floor, and he stands over Kingpin motionless)
Kingpin: Why not finish me?
(dramatic pause)
Daredevil: Because I'm not the bad guy.

Overall, Daredevil works, despite some unfortunate decisions involving style. There are some moments of tremendous chemistry which help endear the characters to you, and the characters are enjoyable written. The cast makes the movie work for me, and helps to counter the disappointing efforts of the director.

(Admin note - added in spoilerized text because this "review" gives too much away.)

Author note - going forward I will post in the discussion threads to avoid the ST rule

 

[Patrick Sun]

Sheesh, please no more spoilers!

On to my 99% spoiler-less review:

This film is dimly lit (maybe as a homage to Daredevil's one handicap), but it doesn't work for the viewing audience.

The direction of the film, I think, is one of the 2 main drawbacks to the film. The other is the screenplay, which is too sparse, too 2-dimensional, too lacking in plot elements to tie events together. It's like there's no 2nd act to this film. The sense of flow is pretty average to poor.

The performances range from scenery-eating to above average. Affleck's Daredevil/Matt Murdock doesn't transcend the genre, but he doesn't stink up the joint either. Garner's Elektra was a little underwritten, but can pull off the tender and the action sequences easily. Farrell's Bulleye is just a force of nature w/r/t accuracy. Duncan's Kingpin is stealthily imposing, but isn't written as menacing and ominous as I was expecting.

The stuntwork is okay, but the fight sequences are too crowded and claustrophotic. The "obvious" special effects sometimes get in the way of the enjoyment of the running and jumping on the rooftops scenes for Daredevil.

In short, it didn't blow my socks off, and in the hands of a better director, I think there was some good potential that went unmined in this effort.

Given my penchant for super-hero films, I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

Just came back...

Overall, the movie is much better than I thought it would be. I did find some of the "pop-rock" choices to be annoying and some that didn't annoy, but are just classic; ie Bullseye introduced with "House of Pain" just works here, but then again, it seems that Colin Farrell can pull just about ANYTHING off in this movie! That said, the rest of the supporting work is all excellent, and aside from a couple of moments of clumsy dialogue, Jennifer Garner, Joey Pants, Michael Clarke Duncan, & John Favreau help sell the movie well, and provide some measure of depth to their characters (with the little screen time they each have to work with). How is Affleck? He is the central character, and his performance is key to the films' success or failure. He underplays Daredevil rather nicely, displays charm when he has to, and shares a believable chemistry with Jennifer Garner...then again, she could seduce a lawn chair, as far as I'm concerned.

The story is simple, yet gets the job done very nicely, without seeming overly drawn out, or too short (which was my fear when I heard the movie was only 96 minutes long); it's (for the most part) smartly & efficiently written.

The special effects are fine, for what they are, and because of the darkness that all the CGI takes place in, it is much more forgiveable than the broad daylight Gumby-jumping of Tobey Maguire's character in last year's "Spiderman".

All in all a very solid effort, and refreshingly, a little different than X-Men & Spidey.

:star: :star: :star: 1/2 out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

-Dennis

 

[Robert Crawford]

Anybody that reads an Official Discussion Thread before seeing the film under discussion, does so at their own risk because spoilers are not required after a film has opened. However, spoilers are required in an Official Review Thread if you're talking about plotlines that could ruin another member's viewing enjoyment, if they just want to read some reviews before seeing the film for themselves.




Crawdaddy

 

[Stephen Orr]

My wife and I (40-somethings) just got back from seeing Daredevil. We loved it, and my wife commented how she liked it a lot more than Spiderman or the X-Men. Her specific comment was, "This was a superhero for adults, not kids." We may be seeing it again soon, and will definitely add it to the DVD collection.

 

[James T]

I thought it was simply 'okay'.

The film is darker than most superhero hero films. It has a reason to be dark as well. The cgi ain't the best around. The church scene is the best example as there are bright lights all over and you can see what's real and what's fake. The first time we see Daredevil in action, I wanted to see more.

Also, there is some dialogue that just didn't sound right. It sounded like someone was watching all their favourite movies while writing this script.

I also didn't like the idea of years and years and years of comic book stories thrown into one movie. It doesn't leave much to do in the sequel.

I'm also going to be curious if there will be an 'R' rated version released later on DVD. I just didn't feel the editing was done right. My favourite scene in the trailer was when Daredevil doesn't even flinch when a sai is thrown only inches away from him. This scene is quickly cut away in the actual movie.

 

[DaveF]

The angst-ridden, vengeful superhero -- having lost his family at a young age -- metes out justice on the dark streets of the city. He has a costume, gadgets, and patrols for evil-doers from building tops. We saw this movie in 1989, and it was called "Batman". It has now been repackaged and is being sold as "Daredevil." Batman was better but I guess kids are are too young to have seen it and won't know that.

Despite its cliches and derivative plot "Daredevil" is an enjoyable movie. But I recommend waiting for the second-run theater or DVD.

 

[Dave H]

I would give it :star: :star: /:star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

As previously mentioned, the plot is choppy and the story didn't flow too well. While it was deliberate, I didn't like some of the "cheeziness" that was injected into the film. All in all, I would recommend just renting it. While they tried to copy a little of Batman '89 and Spider-Man, both of those movies were FAR better.

 

[Arman]

As much I would like to give it a better than a grade of C+ (Below Average), I can't. Daredevil tried to be & did a little bit of everything that has already been done by all previously released comics-based movies (specifically the well made Batman '89, Spider-Man, X-Men & Superman I & II) we had seen. Daredevil's versions are not worse but sadly neither better! The night scenes did look like Batman' 89 but less elegantly shot at times. The highly criticized mediocre CGI jumping & flying scenes in Spider-man are there. Affleck is very good & especially more convincing during his Matt scenes than his adequtely fair Daredevil's stunts/moments. I thought his dramatic performance near the end (his showdown with Kingpin) is a big letdown. And of course, like all other previous comics based films, it has a silly story & dialogue. What do we expect?

If not for these film's fine qualities, I would have graded it with a D (Very very bad):

- Fast-paced editing
- Engaging performance by the entire cast. The chemistry between Affleck & Gardner is one the film's biggest assets
- I agree, the rain scene with Affleck & Gardner is beautifully shot & the film's only memorable moment
- There are cheesy one-liners & moments that are also truly funny & humorous that kept me awake while watching this popcorn comics flick

Daredevil is not that bad, it's just that overall, the film did not really present anything inventively original. There is nothing wrong with the unavoidable similarities with some previously released comics based movies, it's just that they have been executed with pretty much the same results & impact.

 

[Dalton]

I thought it was a good film. Not perfect(not too many movies are), but my wife and i liked it. I liked Bullseye alot and Elektra was beautiful. Affleck is servicable as DD. I don't agree with alot of the negative reviews of his performance.

Overall i would give DD :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:



Dalton

 

[Frank Anderson]

:star: :star: :star: :star: 1/2 out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Justin_S]

I saw DAREDEVIL last night, and am just now getting around to posting my review. Well, I must say that this film kicked serious ass, and is one of my new favorite superhero movies! Daredevil, unlike Spider-Man, etc. was a pretty ruthless hero that actually killed the criminals he went after, and I liked that. It made the film have a nice and grim tone.

I never have been an Affleck fan, but I have to admit that he was quite good as Daredevil, and this is probably his best work to date. Also, if you ask me, Jennifer Garner is one of the most stunning, and downright fucking gorgeous women I have ever seen in my life! She also has a very charming personality, and hell, I taped Conan O'Brian the other night just because she appeared on the show! Anyhow, as I expected, she is wonderful as usual as Elektra, and she is quite talented. Now, Colin Farrell was an absolute riot as Bullseye! He was so damn off the wall and wonderful in his role, and in my opinion, he stole the show! I'm glad that he lived, and hopefully he'll return if there's a sequel.
Finally, Michael Clark Duncan was superb as Kingpin! A bunch of people have been complaining because they changed his race, but the movie is an adaptation, not an exact copy, and I don't really care if they change his race as long as long as the character is well portrayed. And guess what? Duncan portrayed Kingpin to damn near perfection in my eyes! Also, I spotted none other than Kane Hodder at ringside early on, and that was pretty cool in my book.

The action scenes are well done, and the effects are great too! The only complaint I have with the film is that Daredevil's battle with Kingpin is a little too short and comes off a tad anticlimatic, but thats a pretty small complaint, and this movie is downright fantastic! I absolutely loved it! :star: :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

(Admin note - added spoiler - Let's be more considerate to others who read reviews to not spoil plot points for the readers).

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

:star: 1/2

Way too many holes and silly occurances to add up to anything. The movie contradicted itself on multiple occasions-for example, DD can smell Jennifer Garner's character as she approaches a diner and later, he can't sense her when she's 4 feet away before their rooftop fight? That's lazy and contrived. Or how he can hear heartbeats, but can completely lose track of people if it's not pouring water on them? I'm not expecting a masterpiece, but how about a film that takes the time to make a little sense along the way to having choreographed and slick looking fight scenes? You won't find that here. Looks good, sounds good but it's empty calories.

Bruce

 

[Steve_Tk]

I do not know anything about this comic.

Just wondering, how does he jump 15 feet in the air sometimes?

Seems like this is going beyond the audiences realm of believability. His senses were good, but it never said anything about him being stronger and being able to jump like that, he's not spider man.

This was the biggest flaw for me, because you know he's not a Xman or spiderman, and they never put anything to say he became stronger.

I also got tired of seeing him stand over the city and upset, reminded me of Batman too much.

But, it could be an aquired taste, so I'll give it a rent.