Yeah, I actually somewhat enjoyed Daredevil, it wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination and there were some goofy or groanworthy moments, but I don't see why it's so roundly mocked/disliked...
Movie Defense Force: Daredevil
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
I enjoyed the movie, though I'm not sure if the DVD copy I bought was the original release or the much more highly praised Director's Cut.
Jim, I'm glad that you pointed out that the movie was a good super hero movie FOR IT'S TIME because I've been thinking the very same thing. Folks seem to forget that Hollywood was still getting the feel of super hero movies back when Daredevil was made.
Ben Affleck is a capable actor who's done some bad movies like practically every professional actor or actress in history. He's also a two time Oscar winner--one for writing and one for directing. If he has any influence on either in the new Batman/Superman movie then it should at least have a decent plot and story.
I, too, am big on giving Affleck a chance to play Batman without automatically denouncing him as the Antichrist. ^_^
Jim, I'm glad that you pointed out that the movie was a good super hero movie FOR IT'S TIME because I've been thinking the very same thing. Folks seem to forget that Hollywood was still getting the feel of super hero movies back when Daredevil was made.
Ben Affleck is a capable actor who's done some bad movies like practically every professional actor or actress in history. He's also a two time Oscar winner--one for writing and one for directing. If he has any influence on either in the new Batman/Superman movie then it should at least have a decent plot and story.
I, too, am big on giving Affleck a chance to play Batman without automatically denouncing him as the Antichrist. ^_^
Depends on the writer. Daredevil's current writer, Mark Waid, is big on continuity and character history, but doesn't punish you for not knowing it. For many writers (at Marvel, at least), it's a case of "Yeah, all that stuff still happened, but let's move on to the new stuff." For Waid and Daredevil's case (see what I did there?), they still acknowledge the events of Shadowland happened (DD became the leader of The Hand and killed Bullseye), but now DD is trying to be more positive and lighter and put the grimmer and scarier stuff (everything since Frank Miller, including the runs by Brian Michael Bendis and Ed Brubaker) behind him.Count_A said:
Thanks for this video, Jim! I was defending Daredevil up and down for a decade, saying it's the kind of comic book movie that captures the mood of its source material. I claimed that DD has a central character arc, too, which is more than could be said for Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, who kinda stopped at "great power, great responsibility." Now, Jim, you're not letting MovieBob's cynicism and hatred of Man of Steel get to you, are you?
I loved Daredevil and still like it. I didn't even know people didn't like it until a few years ago. I just assumed it was underrated but mostly well liked. Michael Clarke Duncan's Kingpin was awesome and I love it. Colin Farrell was also fun as hell. So it isn't Batman Begins, but neither is anything else. I want to see another Daredevil movie, whoever does it.
Daredevil was an odd choice at the time. The book hadn't really been popular beyond the recent Kevin Smith run despire being the age of the X-men. He just has far fewer stories people give a shit about. The film did a decent job of emulating the more basic Daredevil story where he's just a guy in red underwear beating up low rent bad guys. It isn't a bad film, just unimspired.
I saw Daredevil, I liked it. Never saw Electra though, didn't know there was one until I saw it in a Daredevil bundle that was being sold at the stores.
Sorry Jim, not this time. I've tagged along for most of these defenses, but this one is just saying nice things for the sake of saying nice things. Of course the fact of the matter is that ALL of these are just opinions - where one might see decent acting another might see absolute shit - and so I really don't feel like getting to far into this beyond simply stating that I disagree with you. To me this movie was, is, and always will be shit.
To be fair, though, a lot of my dislike for this movie probably comes from the fact that I don't like the character itself. I'm not a huge Affleck fan, but in general I'll still say he does a decent job. But this movie makes me sick to my ass.
To be fair, though, a lot of my dislike for this movie probably comes from the fact that I don't like the character itself. I'm not a huge Affleck fan, but in general I'll still say he does a decent job. But this movie makes me sick to my ass.
I remember seeing the theatrical release. It was horrid. However, I finally broke down and watched the Director's Cut.
That film was inspired. This is the movie we should have gotten. It was grittier, moodier, and paced better. The romance was more believable, actually understated even. It was a true "Director's Cut," in that the removed several minutes of film that were reshot for the theatrical, but added in over half an hour of footage that had been cut.
Affleck is like DiCaprio in my eyes. At one time, neither could act. However, they've both grown into capable actors!
I'll finish with this video (which is making the youtube rounds), a fan trailer that looks pretty darn awesome. The only thing that could make it better is Braniac!
BAH! I can't tell if I posted the thing properly...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4U4he3GgC4
That film was inspired. This is the movie we should have gotten. It was grittier, moodier, and paced better. The romance was more believable, actually understated even. It was a true "Director's Cut," in that the removed several minutes of film that were reshot for the theatrical, but added in over half an hour of footage that had been cut.
Affleck is like DiCaprio in my eyes. At one time, neither could act. However, they've both grown into capable actors!
I'll finish with this video (which is making the youtube rounds), a fan trailer that looks pretty darn awesome. The only thing that could make it better is Braniac!
BAH! I can't tell if I posted the thing properly...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4U4he3GgC4
DD was fine, is fine and I bought it on DVD when that came out.
Like you said, all the actors are good and cast properly.
AND this movie propelled Evanescence to the forefront, so we should be forever grateful if just for that!!!
So yeah, it also has AWESOME music in it
Like you said, all the actors are good and cast properly.
AND this movie propelled Evanescence to the forefront, so we should be forever grateful if just for that!!!
So yeah, it also has AWESOME music in it
At least 1/2 the problem with the movie.jmarquiso said:
Does DD develop a sense of morality or not? He won't kill the Kingpin. Good on him. Developed a code against killing. But, he throws a wounded and helpless Bullseye out a window. That Bullseye lived had nothing to do with a new moral code.
Second worst thing for me? Daredevil does not just "beat up" the Kingpin. Daredevil's strength is normal human. Kingpin goes toe to toe with Spiderman (strength on par with the Thing). He is an epic foe that should have been used as a teaser for an epic trilogy. Heck, Daredevil wins when he should be mortally wounded and bleeding out.
Second worst thing for me? Daredevil does not just "beat up" the Kingpin. Daredevil's strength is normal human. Kingpin goes toe to toe with Spiderman (strength on par with the Thing). He is an epic foe that should have been used as a teaser for an epic trilogy. Heck, Daredevil wins when he should be mortally wounded and bleeding out.
Yeah, movie is 10 years old, but, thought I'd better spoiler warn.
Ever read the comic when DD fights KP after DD opens the Kingpin's safe?
It does have the two major problems listed above.Magog1 said:
Also, there's a playground scene and the portrayal of Bullseye a lot of people hate. I loved both, or at least was ticked by the playground scene. In its own way, Bullseye is on par with Heath Ledger's Joker. As another poster wrote, he has exactly the right attitude and snickering humor mixed with menace. He is worth the price of admission by itself.
I really like it, but later discovered almost no-one else did.
I thought they used Super-hero physics (you know, when gravity isn't quite the same, and people are more durable than you would expect) really well, the echo-vision was iconic and the cast was great. (What, Jim, no love for a non-evil Joey Pants?) The technical side was also perfectly solid, although the story was a little by-the-numbers.
A genuinely good film, just not great.
I thought they used Super-hero physics (you know, when gravity isn't quite the same, and people are more durable than you would expect) really well, the echo-vision was iconic and the cast was great. (What, Jim, no love for a non-evil Joey Pants?) The technical side was also perfectly solid, although the story was a little by-the-numbers.
A genuinely good film, just not great.
He is a very good actor, he was fantastic in Hollywoodland, The Town and Argo, he was certainly a better Superman than Henry Cavill.Strazdas said:
More than that though, he is a fucking great director, until he proves differently anyway. Gone Baby Gone, The Town, and Argo are superb. He has also stopped making bad decisions about what projects to take on. I am very interested to see his take on The Stand. I think it could work as a three parter like Lord of the Rings, but I don't know how you can condense it into one feature film. M-O-O-N, that spells feature film. Can't wait to see who is being cast, especially Trashcan Man, Matt Frewer is pretty close to perfect from the mini-series.
EDIT: Shit. It appears Affleck is off The Stand...so it goes...
I havent seen hollywoodland. The Town was pretty bad but with some good ideas and Argo was that kind of movie thats so average you dont remember much of it. And i completely disagree about the superman comment.octafish said:
He is better as a director, ill give you that, and thats the chair he should stay in.
And i wont speculate what he may or may not do with The Stand, about which i got a complex opinion to begin with.
I have loved Daredevil since I was a child. This love was based on access to only a few comics - Daredevil was not as common as other superhero stories in the shops where I grew up.
Revisiting the original source material is painful because of how dated much of the morality and social attitudes seem today. Also I seem to consistently forget how unlikable Matt Murdoch is. He is smug and arrogant - sexist - deceitful - chronically insecure about his blindness. The comics seem to be written as if being blind is sufficient substitute for needing to build sympathy for the character. In the early comics the romance/angst angle is thick, the character's powers slide all over the place - sometimes so powerful they break suspension of disbelief (silver age nonsense) - sometimes very fragile.
I really didn't like the film, probably because they were faithful to the source material to a degree - heavy and unrealistic romance and awkward pacing and characterisation. I would prefer DD's non-sensory powers to be definitively human-scale - and his decision to face super-powered villains and throw himself off buildings one which underlines why he is known as the "man without fear". Origin stories are always awkward and the tone feels choppy and inconsistent. It doesn't know whether it wants to be superhero - or gritty urban. It could have been an early kick-ass - instead it ends up very confused.
However Afleck nailed the smart-mouthed and unlikable Matt Murdock from the comics. Unfortunately I was reminded, again, how much my love of Daredevil was about something I had made up in my head using images and ideas from the comics - rather than what was actually in the comics.
Revisiting the original source material is painful because of how dated much of the morality and social attitudes seem today. Also I seem to consistently forget how unlikable Matt Murdoch is. He is smug and arrogant - sexist - deceitful - chronically insecure about his blindness. The comics seem to be written as if being blind is sufficient substitute for needing to build sympathy for the character. In the early comics the romance/angst angle is thick, the character's powers slide all over the place - sometimes so powerful they break suspension of disbelief (silver age nonsense) - sometimes very fragile.
I really didn't like the film, probably because they were faithful to the source material to a degree - heavy and unrealistic romance and awkward pacing and characterisation. I would prefer DD's non-sensory powers to be definitively human-scale - and his decision to face super-powered villains and throw himself off buildings one which underlines why he is known as the "man without fear". Origin stories are always awkward and the tone feels choppy and inconsistent. It doesn't know whether it wants to be superhero - or gritty urban. It could have been an early kick-ass - instead it ends up very confused.
However Afleck nailed the smart-mouthed and unlikable Matt Murdock from the comics. Unfortunately I was reminded, again, how much my love of Daredevil was about something I had made up in my head using images and ideas from the comics - rather than what was actually in the comics.
Good defense. This is not a bad movie, it is pretty okay. And that is the only thing I really have against it - it is just an okay movie, not good. But it's certainly not the abomination some people make it out to be.
Speaking of the Director's Cut here, I never have seen the release version.
Now try defending the Punisher movies. Any of them.
Speaking of the Director's Cut here, I never have seen the release version.
Now try defending the Punisher movies. Any of them.
I will admit to liking this movie a fair bit. To me the good comes mostly from MCD and Colin Ferrell. The sets were also very well put-together and it was a well-shot movie to boot. My problem was with Jennifer Garner's Elektra. Forgiving for a moment that I don't think Garner's a very good actress, she was just not the right pick for the role, in personality or in believability as an ass-kicking assassin.
As for Ben Affleck, I thought he turned in a decent performance too, though I definitely think he did better as Matt Murdock than as Daredevil. DD's not an easy hero to pull off, and I thought Affleck did a decent job at it, or at least as decent as anyone could. Maybe it's me, but I believe certain people play superheroes better than their secret identities and vice versa. Example, Christian Bale definitely did his Bruce Wayne scenes better than his Batman scenes. Heck, you could probably make a game out of "this actor played this superhero better as the superhero identity or the civilian identity."
As for Ben Affleck, I thought he turned in a decent performance too, though I definitely think he did better as Matt Murdock than as Daredevil. DD's not an easy hero to pull off, and I thought Affleck did a decent job at it, or at least as decent as anyone could. Maybe it's me, but I believe certain people play superheroes better than their secret identities and vice versa. Example, Christian Bale definitely did his Bruce Wayne scenes better than his Batman scenes. Heck, you could probably make a game out of "this actor played this superhero better as the superhero identity or the civilian identity."