Genres

Visitors Review

eedmond 2012-05-20 20:33:57

Ho Hum.

This movie was ok. I didn't like the computer graphics. The fighting attimes reminded me of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon were they just flew butthe chars in these scenes were computer graphics and CTHD was wires.Wouldhave preferred wires over the horrible computer graphics. Thought thesamething about Spiderman. Looks like Hulk will be the same way. X-Men 2 inthe previews looks promising though.We'll see,eedmond

sseaburg 2012-05-20 12:09:51

Cream of the Crop

I'm a big fan of super-heroes and the comic books they inhabit. I admitit,I'm film geek when it comes to this stuff. I think I've seen almost everysuper-hero film released over the course of my entire life (almost threedecades now). This one is it. It actually has the soul of the comic bookit is based on. I cannot say this about the recent Marvel offerings of"X-Men" and "Spider-Man". "Daredevil" is the best work of Ben Affleck'scareer. Let's face it, the entire thing hinged on his performance. Thisfact initially scared me. I was fairly confident in all the other castingchoices. I had to see the film, though, to be convinced Affleck couldplayMatt Murdock/Daredevil. I pleasantly surprised. The movie could havebeenlonger with more screen time for the supporting cast and for me the endingwas a little too "rosey" for a Daredevil story, but overall it didn'tsportthe flaws of other comic book movies in the near past. I walked awayimpressed with the product. Money well spent and pleased to have goneopening night.

steve 2012-05-17 20:16:58

Dissapointing...but with potential

I've been looking forward to this film since it was announced. I'm afan of the comics and was won over by all the articles about MarkSteven Johnson's passion for the film. I saw it today and was fairlydissapointed with the outcome. There are good moments, but theyare overshadowed by too many weak elements. In its favoutr, the"radar vision" of Daredevil is very well done, and Colin Farrell'sBullseye is entertaining but underused.In the hands of a better film maker, this could have been great, butJohnson is lacking an originality that would have elevated this tothe same sort of level as the original Batman. The fight scenes arefilmed almost all in fast flashy close up cuts that show neither whois winning, or how the fighting is done. The early fight between Mattand Elextra is better, as Johnson shows some restraint andactually lets us see the two of them fighting rather than justshowing a blur of hands and weapons.The characters are underdeveloped, and I felt that Electra,Bullseye, Kingpin and even Foggy were extended cameo's morethan real parts. Matt Murdoch showed signs of depth, but neverproperly scraped the surface.My final gripe ( of many !) is the structure of the piece. Instead ofbuilding to a climax, it just saunters along without a real plot tospeak of. I felt liked I'd been robbed of a big finish.This may sound harsh, and maybe I need to see it again, but hey, Ijust feel let down.

Shah 2012-05-17 07:59:14

Spider man was better...

SpoilerWell, another Marvel comic book has come to life. This time, worse thanever. I was actually really looking forward to seeing this film when Isawthe trailers, but I now see that it was an utter waste of time and money.Its one of those films that you rent when it comes to video and neverthinkof again.The plot was crummy. Sure one gets interested with the nuclear waste(whichhappens to be a big part of many marvel comic books). His senses areenhanced (memories of Spider man?). After that, all goes downhill.The costumes were interesting. Especially the ones that Jennifer Garnerwore. I was pleased. Other than that, they sucked. Bullseye, uponrequesting a costume from the Kingpin (the only humorous part of themovie),changed into something that was so subtly different from his original"costume", that it didn't make a difference whatsoever. Pity he didn'tstick with his comic book costume (tight white leather with a pointlessutility belt). Ben Affleck wore a tight maroon leather costume. Itlookedrather foolish I must say. My big question is, why the heck are all thecharacters so homosexual. Spiderman wore a spandex costume, Batman, anoddplastic covering, Superman, also spandex... And now daredevil, tightleather. Okay, aerodynamics are cited as the reason, but why not atleastwear capes that cover things? They're creepy. And why in Spider-man didthey contract their names, such as "Gobby" for the green goblin, andSpideyfor Spider-man? What next? Devily, Batty, Soupy? What utterstupidity.Perhaps the three things were a benefit to the film were Ben Affleck,Jennifer Garner and Michael Clarke Duncan were the only assets, maybeevenColin Farrel. The acting was okay, but the characters were properlychosen.Affleck played blind quite well I must say. Mr. Duncan, the Kingpin,though he was supposed to be white, adapted the role very well. PityJennifer Garner died so soon into the movie. She was hot. Colin Farrelwasokay. Not so great, not too bad. His ability was cool though. Usinganything as a projectile was funky. Other than that, everythingsucked.Thats about it.But at least we know there will be a sequel that maybe they will do abetterjob on. But maybe not...

jks81 2012-05-16 03:14:00

This was a really good movie

The movie was good. It was well told, and all the actors played their partswell and believably. It was fun, funny, and a good story. I think most comicbook stories have archetypes, and this one was no different. The charactersseemed three dimensional and well developed enough to make the storyengaging. I like the beautiful shots of NYC and Hell's Kitchen. Matt's storywith his father is so heartbreaking and real. And the love story is alsobelievable. I really liked it. The tone and mood of the movie was right on,and the music was great. Jennifer Garner was awesome, Ben Affleck reallypulled off the role splendidly, and made Daredevil a character you reallyfeel for. Michael Clarke Duncan was awesome in all his scenes as was JoePantoliano, and Colin Farrell who I think is great in so many things. Allthe actors had passion as well as the director and rest of the cast andcrew. Excellent job, just really excellent.

2012-05-15 16:46:47

Disappointing!

I'm not sure if i was the only one, but i found this film a littledisappointing!the fight scenes were good, but were there really enough?I think that a lot more action was needed.Some funny points, but overall, i wasn't impressed.

Boba_Fett1138 2012-05-12 06:20:03

The Director's cut is awesome!

I had seen the theatrical version of "Daredevil" a couple of monthsago. I hated it. I thought it was dreadful and it was lacking in itsstory, characters and pace. The movie was incredibly weak and totallyuninteresting to watch because it lacked substance. Still I decided togive the director's cut a chance. I'm glad I did, for the Director'scut is so much better to watch. The pace is better, the story makesmore sense and the characters are more involving. The theatricalversion was lame, the Director's cut is awesome!The Director's cut takes its time to build up the story and itscharacters. The Director's cut is about 30 minutes longer than theoriginal version and most of that time is spend on extended scene'swith the characters. Suddenly because of that not only the charactersbut also the story became more understandable and interesting.Especially the villains became so much better. Colin Farrell asBullseye gets more opportunity to show his coolness and his characterbecame so much more cooler now. He also really seemed to be enjoyinghimself playing this villainous over-the-top role. Same goes forMichael Clarke Duncan. Main reason why his character didn't reallyworked in the original version was because his character had quitelimited screen time. The only part of the movie in which he wasprominent present was the ending. In the Director's cut he gets to showmore evil and his character becomes so much more villainous. Also theJoe Pantoliano character no longer makes a pointless impression and hegets to play a way more important part in the movie. Same goes for theLeland Orser, Derrick O'Connor and Erick Avari characters. Because themovie takes its time to build up the characters suddenly everything inthe movie just makes more sense and everything suddenly fits and feelsright.Because the story flows so much better I can now actually say that"Daredevil" is a really cool movie to watch. The action sequences alsosuddenly are way more exciting. They are nicely choreographed andedited together.Sure, the movie still does have its flaws and it still is far from thebest superhero comic-book movie ever made but its just the fact thatthe Director's cut is so incredibly much better than the originaltheatrical version that causes my sudden (late) enthusiasm for thismovie.Lets do the world a favor, lets all burn the theatrical versions andlets all embrace the Director's cut.7/10

AtomX 2012-05-11 19:52:24

Nobody who likes the Daredevil comic book should like this movie

The main problem with this movie is not the suit, its not Ben Afleck, itsthe script. Daredevil's orgin has been rehashed a few times in the comicbooks, my personal favorite was John Romita Jr.'s rendition. So I canunderstand that they wanted to mess around with his origin. There areseveral KEY elements to the character that the movie did just not get, andthere are more scenes in the movie which just did not play well. Let megive some examples...- Matt was blinded while saving an old man from getting hit by a truck....not running crying from his Dad. This is a young act of heroism that wascomplete ignored by the film for no good reason.- Matt in the comic book was once punched by his father... who was terriblygrief stricken after doing so, and Matt's faith in his father was shaken. This character building event should have been left in themovie.- Matt was trained by Stick to fight against the hand. When Mattdisappoints Stick, Stick leaves. This mysterious character should have beenin the movie... it would have made Matt's marshal arts morebelievableNow on to dumb stuff IN the movie...- The trial scene in the begining was a mockery of the court system. Ican't remember it all that well as I saw the movie once over a year ago, butI do remember thinking that.- Matt meets elektra, both in plain clothes and they fight? For what? Thatmade NO SENSE!- Kingpin while played really well did not show any of the manipulation thathe does in the comic.ugh... Well this isn't a very good review but again, I haven't seen the movie in ayear. Trust a daredevil fan... it sucked.

Andrew Manning 2012-05-11 09:09:33

Ben Affleck as a superhero: isn't this inherently ill-conceived?

Kenneth Turan 2012-05-10 19:36:03

While Daredevils' title role proves to be a snug fit for Ben Affleck, the movie itself sags in all the wrong places.

Logic404 2012-05-08 07:12:49

Theatrical - 8 Director's cut - 8 (It does depend on taste).

I've just finished watching the director's cut (I've seen thetheatrical version 3 times). If you want faster pacing but less storygo with theatrical. But if you want a almost fully fleshed out storyand slightly more cohesive action scenes then the director's cut is foryou. I feel that both offer different but just as good rewards.I have to mention the reason I think this movie gets less than decentratings on this site is because of Affleck. Since this movie wasreleased back in '03 Ben's career has taken a down slide in the publiceye. As long as an actor does his/her job it shouldn't (and in myeyes)does not affect how I rate or view a movie. So take my rating's asunbiased.The Good: Stylish action scenes, good atmosphere at most times, mostlyfair acting and a grittier and darker vision than most superhero/comicbook movies.The Bad: Some really cheesy and stupid scenes, some awkwardly saidlines, some weaker music on some scenes and like I said about thetheatrical version a not so filled out plot.I almost forgot: I really liked the way Bullseye's character wasplayed. It really looked like Colin Farrell was having a fun timemaking this and it carries over into the viewing experience.So with either version you can't go wrong but if I had to pick one I'dgo with the Director's Cut.

Jonathan 2012-05-07 13:42:33

Almost very good.

Despite feeling that this was not as polished as Spiderman (clichecomparison) I felt that it had more to offer an adult audience. There's ascene where after a fight Matt Murdock is showering and he's so beaten up,he pulls out a broken tooth and then knocks back some pain pills. I feltthat it had a gritty realism to it. The effects were at least on a parwithSpidey and in some cases the animated movements looked more natural (I putthis down to the night time setting which can allow you to smooth away alotof the unrealistic stuff).However, the non-costumed fight scenes were poor and looked posed. Also,some of the scenes didn't flow properly and it gave the impression thatthere was some rushed editting.Overall, good with a seriously cool soundtrack.

BigGuy 2012-05-06 08:03:56

Poor compared to recent comic fare

This movie was exceedingly flat and lacking in pace. It also falls victimto the recent trend in action movies of obscuring the action as much aspossible. Shaky camera, flashing lights and too tight zooms are thetrademarks of this unforgiveable style. How about this, hire stars whocanactually fight, or at least look like they are doing the fightingthemselves. This is especially true of the leading character.I never read the Daredevil comics, so I can't say how bad the casting isasfar as accuracy to the characters. But I can say that the supportingcharacters were much more enjoyable than the main ones. Jennifer GarnerandCollin Farrel I thought did well in their roles. Michael Clarke Duncanwaswell cast, although he gave a slightly flat performance.The story was pretty flat as well. The story just kind of jumps intotherebeing a conflict between Kingpen and Daredevil. There isn't a buildup itjust is there. Yeah there is some backstory, but it explains, it doesn'tcreate. Along with unwatchable action scenes, I hate having a romanceshoehorned into an action movie.6/10

Mick LaSalle 2012-05-05 23:50:05

One of the biggest misfires in its genre since Godzilla.

Chris Vognar 2012-05-05 07:09:59

A dull waste of a compelling comic-book character.

Lawrence Toppman 2012-05-04 18:59:55

For all its initial originality, Daredevil eventually smacks of more calculation than the Batman series.

Scott A. Mantz 2012-05-02 16:57:19

It looks like Marvel's invasion of the 21st Century will continue for quite some time.

Jorge Avila Andrade 2012-05-02 07:48:10

'Daredevil está plagada de acción, luchas cuerpo a cuerpo y grandes efectos especiales que la hacen bastante atractiva, incluso mejor en muchos aspectos que la sobrevalorada El Hombre Araña.'

nutsy 2012-04-26 09:51:08

A YAWN WOULD BE A COMPLIMENT TO THIS. "DAREDEVIL" IS PURE CRAP.

Why the hell did anybody like this? Ben Affleck is a terrible actor.DAREDEVIL is yet another bad comic-book-movie in a long line of badcomic-book-movies. The story isn't strong, and it's poorly told. The filmuses montages to pop music to convey emotion. The "dark" edge to thismoviehas such high gloss that viewers might need contacts after a sitting. Thevisual effects are all highly unconvincing CGI, and the hero's point ofvieweffect is over-used. The direction is unimaginative and I've seen betterscripts in Saturday morning cartoons.As if anyone should care, SPOILERS follow.Affleck's character starts the film as a poor kid (who looks like he'sfreshfrom the pages of Tiger Beat) living with his father who is mixed up withcriminals. This soon leads us to our superhero's origin. He sees somethinghe shouldn't, drops his A+ report card (spare me!), and winds up withtoxicwaste in his face. He wakes up in the hospital blind, but with all hisothersenses heightened enough to completely compensate for it (that's whyStevieWonder is such a bad-ass). Through the first part we have to hearAffleck'slame narration. When grows up he's a lawyer by day and DAREDEVIL the restofthe time. Naturally, he meets an attractive girl, whom he fights for somereason (think the scene in BASIC, except dumber and without gravity). Sheisthe stuff of centerfolds, Elektra King, whose father is in trouble withtheevil Kingpin, who killed Daredevil's dad, which makes him his archnemesis.A romance blooms and the villain does villain stuff. Daredevil becomes aproblem for Kingpin, so he sends in Bullseye to frame him for Elektra'sdaddy's murder. The frame-up scene is so incredibly dumb that PaulVerhovenprobably had a laugh on it. Elektra thinks DAREDEVIL killed her daddy, soshe must become a costumed freak in order to take revenge. Costumed freakElektra really only has time to spill some sand, misuse Eastern weapons,anddie. Daredevil and Bullseye fight in a cathedral. During the epic battle,scale disappears, and the pipe-organ (which they fight on) changes sizeandhight several times, particularly when they are falling past it. Thencomesthe real showdown, between Daredevil and Kingpin (the ever misused MichaelClark Duncan). Rather than do the logical thing and kill his enemy,Daredevil leaves him alive (minus his knees). Yeah, injuring a major crimelord, identifying yourself, and leaving him alive is not the smartestthinga person can do. But superheros seem pretty dumb these daysanyway.Let's face it, people, BATMAN (1989) is the yardstick to which allsuperheromovies and comic book adaptations must be measured. Nothing has evermeasured up (except maybe DICK TRACY). X-MEN, X2, HULK, SPIDERMAN, andDAREDEVIL are all crap, both by comparison and by their value as films.Anyone who thinks DAREDEVIL is good is either plain stupid, or an obsessedfan who shouldn't be listened to anyway. To yawn at this movie would be acompliment.

Drak 2012-04-25 19:11:50

Good to watch

I wasn't expecting too much of this movie when I went. A friend hadcommented that he thought it wasn't all that good, but I had to see formyself.The movie was actually fun to watch. Enough action, enough talk, somelaughing moments, some 'ouch' moments.Some of the characters seemed to be overplayed, some others seemed to beunderplayed, but overall the balance was good, and the movie moved onswiftly, and even the sex scene was short enough to ban it out of my mind (Ihate sex scenes in action movies. Save them for romances or mini-series andall that).Overall, good to watch, and I think I'll be going again this weekend withsome other friends.