|
Directed by: Mark Steven Johnson Starring: Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farell Rented this one recently because I'm a fan of the comic book (why I didn't see it in the theatre, I don't honestly know). The first thought that came to my mind after watching it were, "Man. The CG action scenes were really horrid." Take for example, the fight scene between Daredevil and Elektra. When she jumps from one rooftop to another, she seriously appears to have no weight at all (i.e. the CG artists didn't add the appearance of weight to the model). Now while Jennifer Garner is certainly thin, it would be impossible to have NO mass whatsoever. Or the thought of Daredevil's baton penetrating someone's chest cavity is kinda ridiculous. I can buy the impact shattering a breastbone and collapsing one's lungs, but penetrating skin and into the cavity itself? No. Nit-picky action sequences aside, there's the concept of the story. Specifically, the love story between Daredevil and Elektra. When someone is going to write an adaptation of a previously created story, you only change something to improve upon the drama. In the comic book, Elektra is an assassin working for the Kingpin who falls for her employer's greatest enemy. The drama is significantly reduced by the idea of her being an innocent bystander. The combination with sub-par action sequences, coupled with bad acting (especially by Colin Farell), and reduced story-drama, makes for an overall "Meh," experience. I've seen much worse, but I've seen a lot better too. RATING: 2 PROS: Ben Affleck has a fun screen presence, starring at Jennifer Garner's rear end is always nice. CONS: Bad dialogue, mediocre acting, too many comic cliche's, CG action is sub-par. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
|
#
?
May 5, 2004 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
Daredevil is, was and forever shall be my favorite superhero. In many ways, I liked it when most people didn't know who he was. It annoys me that when most people think of him now they'll think of Ben Affleck. I wanted to hate this movie. I EXPECTED to hate this movie. Yes, the plot is a horribly watered-down version of Miller's classic story. Yes, the effects are a little hard to swallow. Yes, it starts to feel more like a commercial for an Evanescence album than an action film at times. Yes, Ben Affleck was in the movie. That being said, I cannot hate this movie. In fact, I found myself enjoying the entire production. The story NEEDED to be watered down simply to fit within the confines of a 90-minute Hollywood action film. In doing so, it managed to present the sort of story that Affleck actually doesn't suck in. He's most effective when the dialogue is kept short, the action is ridiculous and implausible and he gets the girl. As with all comic book films, Daredevil has to face the crushing scrutiny of its pre-existing fans. A character with decades worth of stories, personal development and other related baggage is always going to have to make serious sacrifices for the sake of reasonable film presentation. In doing so, purists will foam at the mouth, gnash their teeth and accuse those responsible of everything short of crimes against humanity. Such is life. As I mentioned above, I am one of those purists. As such, I fully expected to find myself nitpicking the entire affair - criticising every change to the Miller-dogma fans know and love and muttering under my breath about how my beloved blind lawyer has been butchered by Hollywood. Instead, I found myself just sitting back, ignoring the stuff that didn't make a whole lot of sense and enjoying the movie overall. Roger Ebert summed it up nicely: quote:The movie is, in short, your money's worth, better than we expect, more fun than we deserve. I am getting a little worn out describing the origin stories and powers of superheroes, and their relationships to archvillains, gnashing henchmen and brave, muscular female pals. Not as good as Spider-man, better than both Punishers. 4.0
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2004 02:41
|
|
|
quote:funtax came out of the closet to say: yeah, i totally agree with you on every point. The movie is a GREAT portrayal of a comic book. Sure it has it's flaws but the character introductions were short and sweet. enough not to annoy your average rabid comic fan boy, and enough to pretty much give the people, who don't even know daredevil was orginally a comic, background on each character. Sure some of the physics were out of whack, but what were you expecting, it's movie based off of a MARVEL comic book. as for nit picking the fight scenes. if your so comic book sauvvy you'd have known quite a few times has bullseye killed someone with daredevils baton karen page in the latest dd written by kevin smith (sorry for being a super nerd  .)and for the bad acting done by colin farrel. I can EASYILY dismiss bad acting in a movie based of a comic. it's what I love so much about comic book villians. Not only are they bad rear end doods, but they have cheesy punchlines and dialogue that aggrevate me to no ends during a fight with the protagonist. the only reason i don't give it a full 5 stars is because of the horrible horrible scoring. Come on guys, what happened to original orchestated music. Much better choice than hearing some linkin park song while DD is swinging around. RATING:4.0
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2004 05:20
|
|
|
quote:LimeGreenNinja came out of the closet to say: Apparently I should have specified in my initial review that I'm not much of a Daredevil Comic fan. I read and loved Kevin Smith's "Visionaries" story line, and I enjoyed his first issue of "The Target." The only other Daredevil comic I've read was Jeph Loeb & Tim Sale's "Yellow" series, and also found myself loving that too. I certainly don't know enough about the comic to be considered a "rabid fan-boy." However, like I said, I know enough to know that the complications of a love story between the hero and the main villain's prime assassin is one that you don't just throw away. quote:Sure some of the physics were out of whack, but what were you expecting, it's movie based off of a MARVEL comic book. I think it has something to do with the quality in the way that things are done, or the way that stories are told. X2: X-Men United for example is also an example of a movie based on a Marvel comic. X2 however, was told so well that it wraps up the audience in the story to the point that physics impossibilites are ignored. But also, the special effects are done with such quality, they are easily believable (this can NOT be said about some of the truly horrid CG scenes with Mystique in the original X-Men). quote:as for nit picking the fight scenes. if your so comic book sauvvy you'd have known quite a few times has bullseye killed someone with daredevils baton karen page in the latest dd written by kevin smith I actually meant to mention that fact in my initial review but forgot. Even when I read it in the comic I thought it was kind of a dumb idea. A blunt object without any point simply has very little chance of penetrating skin unless it's thrown with absolutely colossal force. Much of that momentum would be lost during the (what looked like) a half block traveling distance (not to mention that it would be blown off course from the explosion that made grabbing it impossible). quote:and for the bad acting done by colin farrel. I can EASILY dismiss bad acting in a movie based off a comic. Acceptance of bad acting in comic book movies makes for further bad comic book movies. Under your rationale that bad acting in comic book movies is acceptable, it's not too much of a stretch to say that Haydn Christiansen's acting in Star Wars: Ep 2 was acceptable. Over-the-top performances when it fits the character and bad performances are two VERY different things. quote:Come on guys, what happened to original orchestated music. Much better choice than hearing some linkin park song while DD is swinging around. As much as I despise Evanescence's primary song in that flick (can anybody whine "Wake me up!"), I actually can't fault them too much for the music. I too, would have preferred an orchestrial score, but unfortunately, orchestrial scores don't sell soundtracks that have become vital to the bottom-lines of big-budget action flicks. And with this particular movie, at least the used most (if not all) of the tracks on the soundtrack instead of a "Music Inspired By" release (something that I think should be made illegal). I should note, that there were many more nit-picks that I didn't bring up for fear that I would be seen as disliking the movie for a bunch of minor special effects goofs, when this simply isn't true. True, there was an element of that in my rating, but I primarily just thought the story was pretty bad (and for the life of me, I can't see any reason that Joe Pantoliano's character needed to be in this - so he figures out who Daredevil is. Big loving deal. So does half the cast).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2004 05:43
|
|
|
Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to your review specifically. Most of your criticisms are certainly valid as they are matters of aesthetic and they really can't be faulted as a result. I will say, however, that Daredevil was a "mid-budget" film that didn't have the option of absolutely top-notch effects like X2 did. Marvel's films seem to be done on a "tier" system, with properties like Spider-man and the Hulk getting oodles of cash out of the chute while Daredevil and the Punisher get by on more moderate budgets. The initial X-men film suffered from this as well, as it sort of acted as the "test" project for Marvel properties overall. The budget shortfalls show in a number of ways - many of which the director openly criticises in his commentary - but were easily remedied in the subsequent release by simply throwing more money at the problem areas. In the event that we ever see a Daredevil II, two things are certain: 1) The effects will be better because the budget will be decent. 2) Ninja. LOTS AND LOTS of ninja. As for Joey Pants finding out about DD's identity, ol' Red's always had a bit of a hard time keeping his "secret" identity under wraps. Various writers have gone so far as to have his identity be public knowledge, which has actually made for some very cool stories.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2004 06:08
|
|
|
quote:funtax came out of the closet to say: I can accept your clarifications. That's fair enough. I wouldn't count on Daredevil 2 though. Affleck has said that the only way he'd participate is if Kevin Smith directs and to my knowledge, Smith has no interest in such a project (though I suppose that could change after the Green Hornet).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2004 09:29
|
|
|
Best part about the movie- kevin smith Watched it with my father the other night. I hated it. But he brought up a good point-- I have to consider it as a comic book coming to life on screen. I still liked spiderman better, but I think this is has a cool way of making a comic book come alive on screen.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2004 05:07
|
|
|
quote:Crazy Newbie came out of the closet to say: Yeah.. but GAWD was it cliche'ed.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2004 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
I fail to find one single redeemer for this train-wreck of a movie. Acting, direction, script, characters and music are all terrible. Re-read a couple of comics instead of wasting 90 mins on this garbage. 0.5
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2004 17:04
|
|
