Rating: 
Summary: ugh....
Review: I had a feeling that this movie wasn't going to be all that great when I first saw the commercials for it. I new that it wanted to be Spiderman really really bad. Well, lets say this, they got it half right: they got the really really bad part down no problem. Where should I start? They were going for some dark, moody, depressing atmosphere, and it just came off as fake. The title character was also a major dissapointment. They turned Daredevil into a cold-blooded killer. Then, after killing people, he says stuff like,"I'm not a bad guy". Well, its like this, if you kill people by cutting them in half on train tracks, or just kill people period, you're not that great of a guy. Also, Daredevil kills one bad guy (I'm not going to name names, because somebody might want to see this mess and I don't want to ruin the story like this movie did) and then spares the next one, saying," I'm no bad guy", just twenty minutes after he killed the previous villan in cold blood. Some hero. The characters weren't that great either. They were shallow, flat, and cookie cutter. The fight scenes were lame (they threw in some random heavy metal song whenever they saw the opportunity) and poorly done. The most retarded part of the movie had to be when Electra was using her sais to cut up sand bags that fell from the ceiling and were suspended by a string. There was no point to this scene and it wouldn't have been "cool" even if it did have a point. I'm going to give this movie one star for three reasons, Bullseye was the only cool person in the entire movie, you can't give a movie a rating of zero on amazon.com, and it was in color.
Rating: 
Summary: Daredevil lacks derring-do
Review: OK--so there was X-Men, Spiderman, and now, Daredevil, the blind superhero who has an enhanced sense of his surroundings due to biochemical material splashed inside him. When the future hero's father, a boxer on a comeback, defies orders to take a fall, he is killed, and from then on, Matthew becomes a fighter for justice, basing his costume on his father's red cape and his nickname of "devil." Costume-wise, think of Batman in a brick red outfit, with a cane that has a grapple attachment.By day, Matthew Murdock becomes a struggling lawyer whose kindheartedness is causing a cash-flow problem. He took a whole bunch of fluke from a Chinese merchant whose case he won, and that drives his partner crazy. By night, he is Daredevil. So, as this is the era of CGI and digital technology, in what areas is this used? Answer: the glowing blue outlined forms that serve as Daredevil's perceptions of his surroundings. That works best when we see his view of Elektra, the daughter of billionaire Nikolaos Natchios who is about to be set up by the villainous Kingpin, the city's crime boss. As much as I liked Ben Affleck in Chasing Amy, Dogma, and Good Will Hunting, he fails to plow any new ground here. Jennifer Warnes as Elektra--she's the one to watch, playing a tough, hard-edged beauty who shows moments of charm when it's brought to the surface. The scene of their martial arts demo in the playground is supposed to make the viewer go "Ooh!" but so what? And Colin Farrell as Bullseye would be more enjoyable if he didn't look so much like Andre Agassi. His response to an irritating airline passenger is laudable, however. Michael Clarke Duncan plays the Kingpin with a menacing edge, made so with his bass voice and enormous bulk. Oh, and there are two guest cameos. One is by Stan Lee, who is an old man at a crosswalk. The other, playing the pathologist on duty, is a big Marvel Comics fan, and he has a few lines more than usual in his screen appearances. Hint: can anyone say Silent Bob? Maybe much of the film's appeal was based on the fact that I didn't read much Marvel Comics when I was young. Anyone who has no previous knowledge of the character would see this as another boy becomes superhero, undergoes great loss, fights villains, falls for a girl, etc. In the end, Daredevil's not the film it could have been because of a lack of appeal, not much action or character development, and that while dark, it lacks the stylish goth of Batman. All I can say, let's hope this summer, The Incredible Hulk and X2 will surpass this misfire. Overall rating: 2.5 out of 5, rounded to 3.
Rating: 
Summary: Daredevil: Leads Without Talent
Review: i went into daredevil wanting to like this movie. really. i love ol' hornhead, bullseye, elektra, and the rest of the gang. they are some of the best and most complex characters in comics, and should have given the cast plenty to do in regard to characterization and such. sadly, for the most part, this was not the case. now, i don't blame the actors for this horror of a film... ben affleck, jennifer garner (who, honestly, could read a phonebook and still have my full attention), colin farrel, and michael clark duncan are great actors. top notch. if the script and directing had been better, this could have been one hell of a movie. but writing and directing are the things that make daredevil the movie without quality. first off, i would like to offer mark steven johnson (writer/director) some hints for the next movie, if he gets his grubby meathooks into it. #1: dropping names of comic book legends left and right is distracting.
-maybe your average joe doesn't know that the rapist (joe quesada) was named after marvel comics' e-i-c. maybe they don't know that the mortician (kirby) was named in homage to jack "the king" kirby (who, incidentally, had nothing to do with dd), or that the mort was played by kevin smith, who wrote 2 story arc's for the daredevil comic. and maybe they didn't see artist john romita, jr at the boxing match behind young matt murdock (whose father was fighting john "babyface" romita, named after jr-jr's dad, another marvel artist).
however, every comic's fan does. and, if they're anything like me, they would hear the name, see the face, what have you, and be snapped out of the movie and say "oh, yeah, that's so-and-so." it's horrible, and it has to stop. #2: stan, please, go into a home or something.
-stan lee is considered the father of marvel comics. although i would tend to argue that he is one of many fathers, yes, stan is important. i mean, without him, we'd have no spider-man, no fantastic four, no avengers (the team, not the 2 british spies), no x-men, no hulk, etc., etc. however, if i see him in another marvel movie, doing some damn camio, i am gonna puke. i have had enough; stan, please, take up bridge or something. this is just getting sad. #3: daredevil has radar sense, pal.
-however, magically, dd seems to have a sonar-sense instead. radar allowed him to get "pings" off of objects so that he could judge, by weight and such, what the object was. sonar? that gives him back his sight. lame, man, lame. #4: daredevil is not spider-man
-i know spidey was amazing (pun intentional) at the box office; however, there is no reason horn-head could or should be able to jump three stories into the air. #5: screw kingpin; give me more bullseye.
-for all the great movies he has done, michael clark duncan had more emotion in his latest car commercial than he did in this movie. kingpin was [garbage]. either write better dialouge, or tell duncan that, although this comes from a comic, he is allowed to portray emotions. however, for all the lameness of kingpin, you have bullseye. the only character they got right in the whole movie, bullseye was better here than he is in the comics. sure, he's nuts, and doesn't say much, and is kinda a one-note character... but it plays out so damn well on screen that, after re-reading frank miller's "gangwar" run on daredevil, the 4-color bullseye bored me. best adaptation of a comic book villian since magneto in x-men, folks... and, frankly, more true to the spirit of the character than the comics have ever been. ah, well, enough is enough. wait for this one on rental, folks. you'll be glad you did.
Rating:
Summary: Not quite disappointing
Review: The movie was ok, the whole mythos of Daredevil being secondary to Spiderman, the Hulk, the XMen-----no one ever screams "We need back-up, bring in Daredevil!" Ben Affleck does a pretty good job as the sightless superhero and Colin Farrell is good as Bullseye too. Jennifer Garner is.....passable as Elektra. But you can't fault that she has the physical chops to play the part. Jon Favreau is funny as Foggy Nelson, Matt Murdocks best friend and lawyer partner and Michael Duncan Clarke makes a fun Kingpin.
The movie is ok but its like everyone is doing their "superhero" movie. The stunts are fun and Daredevil's radar vision is interesting but its not the best superhero movie I've seen. Honestly I'm not sure which is.
Rating:
Summary: A step backwards for comic book adaptations
Review: Studio execs knew exactly what they were doing when they gave this mediocre film it's unpopular February release date. At least it now has a chance to tread water for a while before drowning. I just don't get it. Why is it that Hollywood still can't get it that comic book adaptations don't need to be mucked with to have a chance on the big screen? It's no coincidence that the most successful comic book adaptation (and 5th highest grossing film of all time) was also the most faithful to the comics. There is not one instance of a mainstream (or non for that matter) comic adaptation that was anything beyond mediocre when Hollywood twisted it from it's original pages into the barely recognizable mutants that we end up seeing on the big screen. Why? Why didn't Spider-man teach them a lesson? Why if they have so little respect for the original do they want to adapt it in the first place? Daredevil the movie isn't just different than the comics, it's also far less interesting and far more shallow. One knows that this movie isn't going to be great when the creators found it fit to change every single character they extracted from original pages. Making main nemesis the Kingpin black was the most obvious, but pulling off the lame Batman-rip-off and making him the killer of Matt's father was worse than being innaccurate. It was unoriginal. Next was making Bullseye a crazy-on-the-verge-of-silliness irishman who's bald but otherwise dark haired, has a brand of a target on his forhead, and doesn't have a costume, though he wants one. Bullseye in the comics is none of these. Then Elektra, Daredevil's foe/lover is reduced to nothing but a daddy's girl who happened to train with sensei's from all around the world soley so she "wouldn't be a victim" only to become a victim. Hello? Where's 'Elektra: Assassin' in this movie? Why does Matt have dark hair but Elektra have blond highlights? The director finds it fitting to put in subtle name references to famous artists and writers of the original comics. Kevin Smith and Stan Lee actually have cameos. It's a worthless ploy to please fans because fans would much rather you show respect to those creators by capturing their work in the film. Indeed, the biggest insult is when the film copies direct scenes from Frank Miller and John Romita's masterwork Daredevil story, "The Man Without Fear" only to completely omit or worse, rewrite what happens in between. In Daredevil's true origin, he is tought by a mysterious mystic martial arts master known only as Stick (who is also blind). The movie completely rewrites him out of the story and expects the audience to believe that Daredevil mastered martial arts completely on his own. And in this movie, Matt Murdock, the hero who doesn't take lives, is turned into an aggressive vigilante more reminscent of The Crow than Daredevil. The problem with movies like Daredevil, is that they try to downplay the fantastic in favor of realism. Superheroes in their skin tight costumes would look silly in real life which is why Daredevil is the only one who has a costume. Even it looks more like a leather sport bike riding suit than anything else. When your trying so hard to create a world where costumed heroes are silly, how can they look anything but? Besides all these problems that will annoy fans, people who haven't read the books will still find nothing more than a mediocre action movie with poor fight choreography that's all too often hidden in close-ups and that will remind you of a Batman sequel. The Wachowski Bro's and Sam Raimi showed everyone how to make superhero movies, and Hollywood still hasn't listened.
Rating: 
Summary: Either you love it or you hate it.
Review: Daredevil. Another famous Marvel Comics character, now brought to life on the big screen. Many saw this as a "cash-in" on the SpiderMan fame. Before you judge this movie, I would like to make a few points. 1) Stan Lee appears in a cameo. Some saw this as a .... of SpiderMan, but keep in mind (for those of you that don't know about the comics at all) that HE IS THE CREATOR OF MARVEL. This was probably his decision anyway. 2) Yes, Daredevil is blind but with enhanced abilities as the result of the accident. This is where people get put off and think it's stupid; I really thought that this was a unique idea. Even if I wasn't a fan of the comics I would still be intrigued. Was this a good movie? I really thought it was. Sure, the screenplay could've used a bit more tightening, but the film was helmed exceptionally well by Mark Steven Johnson. The film is dark and brooding, almost like Tim Burton's Batman. The cast was good, with special notability to Michael Duncan as the Kingpin. I was especially surprised at how close it is to the comic. Sure, there were some differences (like Ben Urich reporting for New York Post, whereas in the comics it's the Daily Bugle---connecting to SpiderMan) but they were good all the same. Overall, I was very impressed. When you watch it, keep an open mind and judge it by its own terms.
Rating:
Summary: Deep yet shallow at the same time
Review: I liked this movie a lot; I have to say that before I start picking it apart. This movie had a lot going for it; it just didn't take it as far as it should have.
I'm a huge Marvel Comics fan. I am fiercely loyal to the brand, and I seldom, if ever read comics published by other companies. As such, I have been very happy with the majority of movies based on Marvel titles. X-Men was fantastic, Spider-Man could have used a little more polish in the CGI arena, and Blade 2 was at least good for a laugh.
Of the Marvel movies I always imagined that Daredevil would be one of the most difficult to do as a live action movie, simply because Matt Murdock is so deeply tortured, and the characters around him are so deep that it would take the perfect cast, the perfect director, and a good solid script to pull it off... the same with any other Marvel comic-turned movie. So far so, good, right?
Daredevil did not have the perfect cast. While Affleck was perfect for Murdock (I know not everyone agrees, but I think he did great) and Farrell turned the cheesy villain Bullseye into something really cool, Jennifer Garner's Elektra left much to be desired... especially since she looks nothing like the comic character, not even remotely close, and as big of a fan as I am of Michael Duncan Clarke I was not impressed with him as the Kingpin, but that's the script and director's fault. I sincerely believe that this flaw in the film was the result of lacking screen time. Daredevil did to Kingpin what Star Wars did to Darth Maul.
The plot was also a bit shallow in some regards. The movie did a great job in focusing on Matt Murdock, and his tortured soul, and presenting the world from his eyes... it did not do a good job of presenting the world around him from any other perspective. We do not get to know Elektra, we do not get to know Foggy, we do not get to know the Kingpin, or Bullseye. That's where this movie goes wrong.
Spider-Man did a great job of allowing us to get to know both Peter Parker and Norman Osbourn, as well as Harry Osbourn, Mary Jane Watson, and even Aunt May. Spider-Man was a little on the long side, but that's a plus. I can sit through two and a half, or three, or even four hours of a good movie no problem. In contrast, Daredevil seemed too short for me, and the only hope I had by the end of the film was that they sequel wouldn't take long because I was not happy with the way the film ended, I was left hanging.
I think that this movie should have left the audience, and Matt with a bit of a mystery to solve. Who was the Kingpin? Did he even exist? Elements of this mystery were there, but should have really been played upon. Perhaps we should have seen Wilson Fisk as a Philanthropist, someone that the uninitiated audience, as well as the community of the film would be shocked to find out turns out to be the Kingpin. Or at least the community of the film if we HAVE to have the interaction between Fisk, and Bullseye. Maybe Bullseye could receive emails instead just to ad to the mystery?
What this movie did right was beautifully done, however. We got to know Matt Murdock very well, and for that I have to say kudos. I just wish that the movie had developed the other characters of Hell's Kitchen as well. The movie would have been a lot better that way. Instead it left me wanting.
Rating:
Summary: Superficially entertaining movie about a comic book hero
Review: In order to appreciate the comic book hero movie genre, a viewer must be able not only to suspend disbelief regarding the superpowers of the characters, but also to expect certain forgivable clichés. For instance, we all know going into this that our hero will have a passion for vigilante justice inspired by some childhood tragedy involving the death of his parent(s). He will necessarily have to keep his identity secret, thus the tight leatherette costume. He will have superpowers that are triggered by some freak accident (Batman is the only exception that comes to mind), and the villains may as well. There is always a reporter lurking, waiting to expose him and pop the story of a lifetime. And according to all good postmodern comic book superhero bylaws, he must be dark and conflicted; no more squeaky-clean, cheery, optimistic Superman types, no sir! Yes, I expected these clichés and more, and I was even prepared to embrace them. I was not disappointed there. Daredevil delivers the expected elements, no question. There is plenty of action and excitement as he leaps across rooftops, takes swan dives straight down skyscrapers and generally kicks ... like an uber-blackbelt. The art direction and special effects are of course cutting edge (I ask you, could Ben Affleck sign on to a movie with second-rate special effects?). I was particularly impressed with the sequences in which we are treated to a glimpse of the world our blind hero lives in; a vision of figures and objects rendered by his sonar senses into a sort of topographical light/shadow pattern. The film noir look of New York City at night completes the mood nicely. Where Daredevil failed for me was in the conspicuous logical flaws popping up throughout the film. For instance, it was quite a stretch to believe that a childhood accident involving biohazardous liquid spraying across his eyes could impart supersenses while at the same time blinding Mr. Murdock: but how does that translate to supernatural strength and reflexes? And how would that protect him from being pulverized when landing on a fire escape from a head dive 40 stories up? There was no freak accident to explain how archrival Bullseye and girlfriend Elektra came up with similar roof-bounding, gravity-defying abilities, either. In a movie specifically billed as adult-oriented fare, I found these and other plot holes to be downright insulting to my intelligence. This film would certainly have been condemned straight to video if not for the casting coup of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner in the leads. Still, their star qualities could not salvage a contrived plot, unbelievable martial arts moves (note to director: this was not Crouching Tiger!) and corny dialog. I for one hope that it doesn't finish Jennifer's budding career, or ruin Ben's. That being said, at least it was entertaining enough to sit through at the matinee price. One star for the special effects, one for the stylish art direction and one for the casting.
Rating:
Summary: Ethically shaky Hollywood moneymaker
Review: Having already detested Spiderman, my hopes for Daredevil, seemingly a lesser relation and a complete cash-in, were not high. I hated it just as much as Spiderman, but for entirely different reasons. Daredevil features a blind lawyer who takes the law into his own hands by murdering criminals who haven't been brought to justice within the judicial system. Were this not a superhero film, that could be a fascinating study of a flawed character. However, because it is a superhero film, he has to be presenting as the hero whose actions are right and are helping to save the city. I find that kind of idea absolutely appalling. Where Spiderman was overly see-through in its aims and jarringly imprinted American family values onto every scene, Daredevil is tremendously under-ethical, promoting the idea of taking the law into your own hands and acting as a justification for murder. In other words, the "hero" administers the death penalty. Now, I'm not in favour of the death penalty even within the judicial system, let alone for individuals to make up their own minds about when its necessary and to take it into their own hands to kill. If the title character was really on a mission to truly help people, there'd still be no reason to dress up in that kind of costume. Because he's played as such a real person he just isn't right as a superhero - why does he want to dress up in a cape like that? Anyone who did in real life would be seen as a nutcase still playing out their childhood games. I just dislike the whole superhero ethic which promotes violence and suggests its justified this way. When Matt does take off the costume, there are some touching and enjoyable scenes (otherwise I'd have given it 1 star) but the superhero sections are atrocious, immoral gore-fests which niggle so much that I can't possibly endorse this film.
Rating:
Summary: 3.5
Review: ...the movie is kinda cool. bulls eye is tight and that one chick is fine...too bad she died. so its an okmovie but some cool action scenes but not one i wanna c again!
|
