Daredevil (2003) | REVIEW

I call Daredevil a complete mockery of comic books and an overall terrible film. Some of you may agree and some may not. To me, Daredevil has nothing to offer but boredom and corny scenes that you could sincerely laugh at.

A lawyer known as Matt Murdock was blinded as a child but his other four senses obtained superhuman sharpness, and he learned to perceive his surroundings by human echolocation. Now, isn't the mentioned kickass basis more than enough to spin an incredibly good film on screen? Yes? Unfortunately, Daredevil isn't an incredibly good film and quite frankly, it sucks major balls. The Director's Cut is slightly better than the theatrical release, but that doesn't justify a whole bunch of other mistakes the film had to 'offer'. When casting began, Ben Affleck seemed to be the perfect choice for Matt Murdock by day, and Daredevil by night. Oh, how wrong those casting directors were.

Daredevil starts out like any other mediocre Marvel movie back in the day; an origin story. It shows you how Matt developed his amazing ability and there's a whole boatload of corniness that tags along with it. And then on to the main course of the film blah blah blah. Now, how in the name of all that is holy did director Mark Steven Johnson and his crew pick Michael Clarke Duncan to play Kingpin? An African-American Kingpin? If this was the Green Lantern I'd understand because there are a number of Lanterns but alternate Kingpin(s), too? What's next, a Chinese Wolverine? A Mexican Batman, maybe? How about an Indian Tony Stark, fellas? I'm not being a racist, but why not try to stick to the source material just a lil' bit? This is a drastic change we're talking about! Now on to Bullseye. I, for one, was not all against Collin Farrell as Bulseye. He gave the character some realism and a nice edge, but it didn't last long. Soon you begin to wonder how much better Bullseye could have been and then Collin seems to reek as the character. Jeniffer Garner as Elektra isn't all that badass, either. She's too Alias for the role, if you know what I mean. You could pick her out of the TV series and put her in Daredevil and no one would be able to tell the difference in character. She's too soft in Daredevil and that's not who Elektra is at all. Elektra, in the comics, is a very tactful assassin and except for certain special situations, she hardly feels compassion or love for anyone or anything. Garner hardly fits the role or does the character any justice. And who can forget, Ben Affleck as the masked crimefighter himself. Other than the occasional brooding, Affleck does nothing to show the torment that his character is facing as a blind dude who has to battle injustice. It isn't easy. Not one bit. Affleck looks like he doesn't even give a sh*t about the character and probably just did it for the loads of cash since comic adaptations had already become the in-thing by 2003. I'm being brutally frank when I say he seems like a f*ckin' douchebag playing Daredevil! Stick to Hollywoodland-type stuff, you ruiner of good characters!

Some of you may label me as a person who rates a movie on an extreme level and you may say that Daredevil wasn't as bad as I condemn it to be. Hear me out when I say that Daredevil is an okay popcorn flick when it stands alone, but compare it to the source material or even imagine the endless possibilities that could have been achieved on screen and you'll see why I hate this movie. A weak Elektra, corny supervillains, and a very ordinary superhero. The movie does absolutely nothing to show-off Daredevil's athletic abilities, his speed, his agility, or even his uber-cool slickness when it comes to jumping rooftops at high velocity. I'm sorry to say this but Elektra should have been portrayed by someone like Angelina Jolie. Jeniffer Garner is hot in her own way but Elektra needs to be portrayed by a person who has an incredible sex appeal that's just overflowing, and you know what I mean when I say Angelina Jolie has a sex appeal of that magnitude.

Even when it comes to methods of filming there's nothing cool about Daredevil. I've read a whole series of the DD comics entitled Guardian Devil and you can just sense the immense potential radiating off the story arcs and the very pages of those books. The kind of shots that could have been taken and the sort of scenarios that were just begging to be let loose on the big screen were never even looked at let alone given a chance to take form. Imagine Daredevil crouched on a large crucifix atop an old church, looking down upon Hell's Kitchen (which is changed to downtown Manhattan in the movie just 'cause it had to be a f*ckin' PG-13) for evildoers. He spots one, and swings down as the camera takes a full 360degree turn around him. He uses his signature multi-purpose 'billy club' to grab onto a stone gargoyle and leaps from perch to wall to railing and then freefalls downwards, landing right beside the thief. Using just a single lash of the club, he injures the knee of the wrongdoer and, as corny as it sounds, saves the day. So maybe the scene is cliche', but the cinematography would have rocked! There was nothing of this sort in Daredevil the movie which left me extremely disappointed after the film was over. Plus, the costume looks f*ckin' retarded and is obviously too tight for Affleck, making him appear like a complete tool. If they took some time to refer to the comics they would know how to develop a costume that looked rugged and yet comfortable...not some tight spandex that looks like it belonged to a costume-party male stripper during Halloween month.

There's just one too many downsides in this flick to oversee / ignore. Sure, some nice parts here and there but overall it was (in my opinion) a disaster. Nothing feels right, the storyline is wasted beyond repair, and the character development is awful. I didn't care for the good guys, the bad guys, the dumb guys, or even the extras. It's a numb movie that leaves you wanting to see some really memorable scenes but instead there are none. Halfway through the movie you wish Ben Affleck would disappear and someone worthy of the role would step in and take it off from there. An explanation wouldn't even be necessary. Bad cinematography upon everything else and just a very bad movie. Not for the non-comic fan and an insult to people who have followed the Daredevil chronicles for oh, so long. If you haven't watched this then don't even bother. You're better off waiting for a remake which will probably be extraordinarily enjoyable since Marvel Studios seem to be doing a pretty decent job of late. Daredevil would have been a good film if it had come out in 1995 when movies like The Phantom were considered 'cool comic movies'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Daredevil gets a 2.0 out of 5.0 for offering a minimal amount of good scenes here and there and if it had not been for Bullseye, this movie would have ended up as a worse pile of whatever than it already is. Go remake this one, Marvel, it's in desperate need of a makeover!