Daredevil (2003)

[A beaker full of death]

Why the rampant dislike for this film? I caught it again this morning, and it seems to me the main character, his story and his important surrounding characters are well-represented (except, perhaps importantly, Bullseye). Affleck was a perfectly serviceable Daredevil, while Michael Clark Duncan was an inspired choice for Kingpin.

The CGI was iffy but sufficient. Elements that especially sat right to me were the Elektra story, the boxing background, and his Catholicism. I thought his "sonar" hearing was well represented visually, as well as the depiction of it as a blessing and a curse. I loved that the film opens with what must be the most realistic depiction of the effects of crimefighting I've ever seen: the hero downs a handfull of pain killers.

Thoughts? I'm especially interested in hearing from comic readers.

 

[Brikar99]

I dig the longer director's cut that was released on DVD a little while later. The theatrical version was pretty meh, and parts of it didn't make a lot of sense. My real problem with the flick is that after the opening bar fight sequence, none of the action was really all that impressive.

I really liked Bullseye; Colin Farrell is clearly having fun, even if it's absurdly over the top.

 

[captcalhoun]

i think it's criminally under-rated. i think it tried a bit too hard to be a Spider-Man clone, but is nowhere near as bad as people make out.

i rate it as a solid 8/10

 

[TheSeeker]

I just couldn't get past Ben Affleck's hair in that movie.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I like this movie. I thought it and the director's cut were both overall superior to Spider Man, although not to Spider Man 2.

One of the complaints I heard a lot was that the playground scene was hokey. I felt that while, true, that scene wasn't necessarily 'realistic' in that maybe the characters wouldn't behave that way, it was still quite fun.

I liked the way that Elektra immediately ran into more than she could handle at the hands of Bullseye. It was tragic and it underscored just how much of a badass Bullseye was. In fact, after Garner, Bullseye was probably the high point of the film.

The visual depiction of the sonar was brilliant. The rain scenes were fantastic. The ending with Urich autorepeating on the backspace key was .

The director's cut was indeed a material improvement.

I could go on, but you get the idea: I like this film.

 

[Agenda]

The thing about Daredevil is that Frank Miller's run is one of the most classic storylines in all of comics. So if you're going to come up with a DD movie that features that storyline, it has to be better than "okay".

This movie was like a Cole's Notes version of the storyline. I'm not saying they had to devote an entire movie to an origin story, but they put that and waaay too much into one movie and the whole saga comes across as undercooked.

For instance, if they barely show the Kingpin, it's hard to feel any satisfaction when DD beats him. Likewise, if they barely show DD and Elektra together, it's hard to feel the love between them and the tragedy in her death.

I think they should have taken things slower and stretched it out more. Maybe save the first movie for the origin, the Kingpin and Bullseye. Maybe introduce Elektra in the sequel. Maybe have the third movie have concepts from "Born Again."

BTW, the problem with the playground scene is that it looked straight out of a comic book. Maybe that would work in a comic book, but not in a movie.

 

[davejames]

Don't know the character that well, but I thought it was a fun, decent enough movie.

I think most comic fans just automatically hate on it because they can't get past the idea of Ben Affleck playing the character (much like with Reynolds playing Hal Jordan).

I don't really understand that thinking myself. Even if it's not your "ideal" version of the character, that doesn't mean the movie can't still work well on it's own terms.

 

[Agenda]

I don't think Ben Affleck was really the problem. He played Murdock pretty much like he is in the comics (a few quibbles with the script notwithstanding). But he also didn't elevate the material. I didn't find him very charismatic. But again, that may have been the script's fault, not his.

 

[davejames]

One of the complaints I heard a lot was that the playground scene was hokey. I felt that while, true, that scene wasn't necessarily 'realistic' in that maybe the characters wouldn't behave that way, it was still quite fun.

I thought that was the highlight of the movie myself. Regardless if it was true to the characters, it was charming and unique.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think they should have taken things slower and stretched it out more. Maybe save the first movie for the origin, the Kingpin and Bullseye. Maybe introduce Elektra in the sequel. Maybe have the third movie have concepts from "Born Again."

Green Lantern seemed to follow this advice and now we can't ever expect to see him fight Sinestro on the big screen. GL didn't necessarily fail just because the writers evidently were saving stuff for the next movie (which likely ain't coming), but I believe that blatantly trying to set up a sequel didn't help it make its case to the public.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I haven't seen the Director's Cut, but what I recall from the theatrical, I thought Affleck was sorely miscast. He's wooden and lacks charisma. And the same for Garner. There wasn't much sparks between them--ironic, I know.

I've liked them in other things, but, in this, it felt like they were phoning it in.

So, for me, what I didn't like about the movie falls on their shoulders.

 

[Agenda]

I think they should have taken things slower and stretched it out more. Maybe save the first movie for the origin, the Kingpin and Bullseye. Maybe introduce Elektra in the sequel. Maybe have the third movie have concepts from "Born Again."

Green Lantern seemed to follow this advice and now we can't ever expect to see him fight Sinestro on the big screen. GL didn't necessarily fail just because the writers evidently were saving stuff for the next movie (which likely ain't coming), but I believe that blatantly trying to set up a sequel didn't help it make its case to the public.

But you can do these things and not make it look like you're setting things up for a sequel. Look at the first Spider-Man. It's a standalone movie, but it's flows nicely into Spider-Man 2. Superman is the same way. Except for the unresolved plot point of the Phantom Zone criminals at the very beginning (which you forget about by the end), it's doesn't feel like it's setting anything up either.

 

[Captain Craig]

I think Daredevil takes an unfair beating about the 'net as well, not to unlike IM:2 imo. While I thought the theatrical version was servicable the Directors Cut to DD adds over 20min of footage which includes a whole subplot that gives more depth to the scope of the film. It makes the confrontations with Elektra, Bullseye and Kingpin not feel as rushed as well.

It's one of the few movies I actually like Affleck and think he was well cast. Matt Murdock has never been a wise cracking happy hero for any stretch. He's a stoic, hard nosed lawyer who handles crime the same way and Affleck did that well. The vat of healing fluid he soaks in might've been a bit much but the pain pills and him pulling his own tooth out are great "moments" of insight into what a hero goes through out of the suit after he's done his good deeds.

 

[Holdfast]

I used to read a bit of Daredevil as a kid and always liked the core concept, so was quite looking forward to the film. I liked Affleck in it and thought he did a good job. I also really liked the overall look/design of the film. Kingpin was fine as well, though it would have been nice to see more of him. Biggest problem was Garner's Elektra and the screentime she occupied while still failing to convince as being Murdock's love interest. I agree with those suggesting that it made the last third of the movie feel too compressed. I haven't seen the Director's Cut; it sounds like that made some improvements.

 

[captcalhoun]

it wasn't a vat of healing fluid it was a sensory depravation tank so he could sleep without being overwhelmed by the noise of the city.

 

[Shazam!]

I have a soft spot for this movie and an even softer spot for the director's cut.

I just wish they had laid off on the CG stuntwork and lost the heavy metal music.

 

[spooky spice]

I am not familiar with the source material, but I do love my comic book hero movies! I really liked DD, bought the DVD, haven't watched it for ages though...

 

[Greg Cox]

The Director's cut is probably the way to go. When I saw the theatrical version for the first time, after writing the novelization, I was startled by just how much had been cut from the original script. "Hey, where did all the lawyer scenes go?"

An entire subplot had disappeared.

 

[IcecreamLtDan]

Read the comic book myself as a kid and was worried when I heard Ben Affleck had been cast for the role. It wasn't necessarily that I didn't like him, I just didn't picture him in the role. Surprisingly to me though, was that I actually liked his portrayal of the character and while I don't hate the movie itself, I don't consider it a favorite of mine and don't own the DVD. I've never seen the extended version, but from what I'm reading here I guess I should check it out sometime.

 

[davejames]

I have a soft spot for this movie and an even softer spot for the director's cut.

I just wish they had laid off on the CG stuntwork and lost the heavy metal music.

Yeah it did strain credibility to see him doing all those fancy, complex acrobatic moves 20 stories up. That kind of thing might be easy to buy in a comic book, but no so much in live action.