Rating: 
Summary: Bullseye needs his own movie
Review: Contrary to both hardcore fans, and devotee haters, I thought this movie was enjoyable, fun to watch, (much better than I thought it would be), yet still nowhere near as good as X2 or Spider-Man. (People say that they feel that Daredevil was more of a realistic character, and I say "What? What blind guy has a radar sense? What blind guy can balance on a pole on a rooftop, or fight kung-fu in a public park? Realistc? get a dictionary!) But neither here nor there, the thing that, for me, really made this movie, was Collin Farrel's portrayal of Bullseye. He was so darn cool. He drank a lot, killed people without a second thought, heck, this is the first movie where Collin lets his true Irish accent show, and it works perfectly with the image of this obnoxious punk/rebel who happens to have a great arm/aim. Basically all the scenes with him (except when he's throwing glass at DD, that was too repetitive and reminiscent of SM), and especially the ones between him & Kingpin, were pretty funny, and really cool. So in summary, if they were to put Bullseye in his own movie, or at least a better movie (perhaps the next Spider-Man?) the movie would rule all, because he is what makes this movie at least enjoyable.
Rating: 
Summary: Best Comic Book Film Since Batman
Review: A lot of people were turned off by the violent and dark demeanor of this faithful and fantastic comic book adaptation of one of Marvel's most interesting characters. A year before, millions of people worldwide embraced the film "Spiderman." While Spidy's film was, in itself, quite good, it had a different atmosphere altogether. The mood fit the comic's style and story. Unfortunately, with a hero like Daredevil, the general 'comic fan' is unaware of the mood of the DD comics - dark, gritty, and ultimately quite realistic. I loved comics as a kid, and one of the books I had a subscription to was Daredevil. I liked the fact that although he was a good guy, he played by his own rules. DD would rather kill the bad guy than bring him into the cops like Spiderman would. This fact turned off a large number of viewers who were looking for another Spiderman-esque kid-friendly film. The sadthing is that the viewer is treated to the most faithful comic book adaptation since Tim Burton's magnificent "Batman" film. The only thing about this film that I didn't like was the choice of its villian. True Bullseye was a good choice, and Colin Farrell did the character justice, I would have rather seen the film focus on the Kingpin...or even Typhoid Mary, my personal fav DD bad guy. Regardless, the film is an amazing introduction to those unfamiliar with the DD universe(believe me there are quite a few!), and hopefully will spawn a GOOD franchise. This might be one that the kids who loved Spiderman want to stay away from - the film is dangerously close to an 'R' rating with its dark violence.
Rating: 
Summary: Daredevil: Great actors, dismal effects, dreadful script
Review: Great casting and especially great casting as the much underappreciated Michael Clarke Duncan makes Kingpin infinitely better than the doublewide Lex Luthor of Spider-Man's John Romita days back in the 1960s.
Colin Farrell is terrific as Bullseye; he knows that fans of the book, as few as there are, as well as illiterates who read less than the contents on their Happy Meal box need to see a well-rounded character. He delivers. Jennifer Garner is hot stuff. TV's ALIAS chick can kick the [stuffing] out of DD, but in this terrible, terrible condensed cream of comics, Frank Miller (who cameoed in Bullseye's bar scene) should have beaten the writers with the stupid stick; there is no character progression for Elektra at all. The character, no fault of Garner's excellent look and portrayal, is cut to minutes, not years, of face time. What the [creators] at 20th Century Fox and Regency Films SHOULD have done was to develop her alias alongside of DD from minute one, but they were probably jonesin' for their own cashcow like Spider-Man.
Alas, too many kooks spoil the sloth: lazy writing and too many whacky characters cut this down way, way too much. Superficial and with less depth than a Rolaids commercial, try as I may as an old DD reader, I didn't hate it, I was bored by it, and that's worse.
Ben Affleck looks the part and does a [heck] of a job as Matt Murdock, aka Daredevil, but we never can figure out what exactly he can see and what he can't: in the comics, DD could read ink on a page and had sonar-like abilities. Affleck has some of that and none of the other; not his fault, just...a writing team who should have received a remedial course in writing effective narrative. There are so many... unexplained element s...of DD's life that we wonder who the nimrod was who thought that this was brilliant... and why.
THE CGI was dismal stuff: even a sleepy kid in the back of the theater could have caught the same Daredevil moves twice, and they pretty much [stunk]: c'mon guys, not even Jackie Chan can run across buildings like that. And how'd DD get all of those powers from a can of toxic waste instead of the original truck full of radioactive materials? And how'd DD get those cool weapons? And if DD really could move like that, he didn't get hit much, so how'd he get all of those scars on his back and only a little shmear around the eyes? The back scars are lifted, that's right: [borrowed] from Alex Ross artwork for the book BATMAN: WAR AGAINST CRIME in which we see Bruce Wayne undressing after a night as Batman and we see his scarred back: same scene, different medium.
The CGI'd cityscape is flat. Everybody seems to know that blind Matt is really DD except Foggy Nelson, his law partner.
Marvel references: Kevin Smith as a coroner; Stan 'Hairplugs' Lee as an old guy about to cross the street, Matt's boxer dad goes up against John Romita, artist for Marvel's best years and Matt goes to trial against a guy named Quesada which is all cute and good for a wink among comic geeks but one too many references to the new 'old boys club.'
Bringing X-Men to the screen worked, so did Spider-Man, but not the Golan-Globus CAPTAIN AMERICA or some of the other quickly-buried comic book adaptations. It seems almost oxymoronic that a multimillion dollar movie could be based on a 12¢, 24-page pulpy series of pictures, but for a nation that paid to see KANGAROO JACK and JACKASS: THE MOVIE no better is apparently needed, but it sure would be appreciated.
Rating: 
Summary: A wonderful comic book movie! Better than Captain America!
Review: Daredevil tells the story of a young boy who lost his genitals in a forklift accident and becomes blind. With much passion, he learns to overcome this and become a fighter just like his father and he prowls the streets at night searching for his mother. He dresses up in a dopey costume similar to the one featured in the movie Daddy Day Care. Jennifer Garner plays a character who is just a token love interest, Colin Farrell plays a guy who can throw things really fast, and Michael Clarke Duncan plays a big kingpin dude. The movie also features Bernie Mac portraying a midget and Jennifer Lopez as Ben Affleck's girlfriend. Oh, and Queen Latifah sings something about mambo somewhere in the movie. I give Daredevil a rating of 15.5 out of 4 stars.
Rating:
Summary: Most Awesome Ever
Review: This movie is incredible! Everyone must see this movie. It is wonderful! All of the characters that are in the film all have different looks and costumes. At first when the movie starts I didn't really think it would be all that well, but then about 10 minutes into the movie it was the BEST movie I have seen in a while. Everyone must see this movie, anyone who likes X-men, or any other adventure movie's I assure you that you will love this one. And it is definitely NOT a waist of time!
Rating:
Summary: Great for Daredevil fans
Review: Spiderman, this ain't. But it is a reasonably good movie that stays very true to the spirit of the character.Fun for Marvel fans to play "spot the in-joke"
Rating:
Summary: Amazing!!!
Review: After last years success of Spiderman, teenagers across this great nation anticipated another teenie bopper movie. After leaving the movie theater at the end of Daredevil, these teenagers said the movie, "Was awful". I asked them why it was awful, but they couldn't come up with a legit excuse. This movie was 10 zillion times better than Spiderman. It was dark, and touched on personal subjects. This showed Daredevil, as just a man. Anybody who said this movie was awful, should probably stick to the feel good movies like Spiderman.
Rating:
Summary: Can someone please help me understand...
Review: Can someone please explain to me why the heck think this is a good movie.
It has absolutely no story. You can't tell what is going on in any of the fight scenes. It's so dark. Plus, how much can it possibly rain in this movie!!! Plus Affleck is the worst blind man ever. Why doesn't elektra question the fact that ben keeps stop her from crossing the street and having an elaborate kung fu battle on seesaws in plain view of everyone. The point of Daredevil's secret identity was to pretend he was blind so no one knew he was daredevil. Plus he was around with the same stick he fights crime with. Worst blind man ever! The only enjoyable part of the film was Colin Farell's over the top performance as Bullseye (point to bullseye on head then repeatedly say bullseye) I just fail to see what's so entertaining about this film. Please if someone can explain it to me do so. But I urge you not to waste your money on this film or it's inevitable sequels.
Rating:
Summary: more clever than credited
Review: i am a media studies/television production degree student and although i know this doesn't add any more weight to my opinion i'd advise all serious movie viewers that were critical of this movie and called it juvenile, should give it a second viewing, whilst not comparing it to genuinely(but fun)juvenile movies like spiderman and xmen. look closely at the mise en scene and symbolism that permiates this film. for example a man dressed as the devil fighting a man in a church with pierced hands (stigmata) this really is a quite clever film that works on two levels much like the simpsons. watch it again.
Rating:
Summary: Quality movie?
Review: Was this movie all that good? Maybe if aren't a critical viewer of movies.
Personally, I didn't like the movie from the lead actor on down. For me the only bright spot was Collin Farrell and Michael Duncan's characters who acted with the type of over the top emotion that is needed for the way the movie felt. It really made Affelck's minimalist acting stick out all the more. Yes, it tried to have a dark, brooding approach to itself, but it failed miserably mostly because of Affleck's minimalist acting. I do like him as an actor, but the role required someone harder and with a greater range of believable emotion. When he acts an emotion in this movie, you SEE him acting it. One of my favorite acting quotes is from James Dean. "Don't act like your drinking a drink. Drink the drink." In almost every scene it seemed like he was ACTING with someone, and not there doing the things himself. And to those that say it sticks closely to the comic, I'm going to point these facts out. Matt Murdock was a GOOD lawyer in the comics. The way it's portrayed is that he acts as the Daredevil because he isn't a good lawyer. Not to mention the fact that he never questions himself in the comics (this Daredevil asks "Why me?" so many times you start wondering yourself if he should be doing this). I could get more into the innaccuracies, but I won't. It was a special effects movie, plain and simple. If you're looking for good acting, look else where. In all, A for effort, but it falls very short as far as the lead character goes. When you can feel wheels turning in the actor's head, it makes the movie long and tedious.
|
