Pretty, Fizzy Paradise

I'm back! And reading! And maybe even blogging! No promises!

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Daredevil Movie Musings

Over at Comic Facts, Loren posts a (very spoileriffic) review of the Daredevil director's cut.

And it sounds pretty good actually. There's actual law practiced for one.

I'll be honest though, I never thought the Daredevil movie was that bad. I even thought Ben Affleck, much to my surprise, seemed to be working out well in the role. (Now Jennifer Garner didn't work for me, which is odd, because between the two of them, I've always considered her the better actor.)

I admit, I've only read a few issues of the comic. But I liked their choice of Bullseye, and the reporter guy who's name I can't remember. Also Kingpin. Even though, to be honest, I had been initially thrown by the casting choice. I thought he was fantastic though when I saw the actual movie.

The plot was pretty mediocre, but I did like the plain-clothes fight in the playground. That was neat. I really like when heroes fight plain clothed.

Seriously, like Tim Drake fighting the mob guys at school? That saved War Games for me, man.

Anyway, I'm not sure the review's enough to get me to buy the director's cut movie, but it's seriously making me consider renting it.

posted by kalinara @ 5:24 AM  

18 Comments:

  • At August 02, 2006 6:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I actually thought the Daredevil movie was better than the first Batman movie. Blasphemy, I know, but...

     

  • At August 02, 2006 8:36 AM, Blogger Centurion said…

    Well, for a long time Batman '89 was the best Batman movie out there for a lot of people, and since Batman is one of the most popular superheroes people automatically think the movie is one of the greatest comic book movies.

    I personally like Batman Returns more, but both movies get a lot wrong as far as the characters go. I loved the atmosphere of the movies, but face it, Batman doesn't shoot his grapple gun into people's shoulders to make them hang so he doesn't have to deal with them...

    When I first saw Daredevil I was thrown off liking it becuase he seemed to have ankles of steel the way he was jumping and landing. I couldn't get over that, and still can't since that's the one thing that sticks out in my mind.

    It was better than Catwoman, but then everything is better than that *thing*.

     

  • At August 02, 2006 8:46 AM, Blogger Doc Hall said…

    Of all the problems I had with the Daredeil movie the two I couldn't overlook were:

    1) Ben Affleck can't run in any way that doesn make me think he looks like a fool.
    2) Jennifer Garner looks like a duck.

     

  • At August 02, 2006 10:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Oh, yeah, Batman Returns was better than either. Good, good stuff.

     

  • At August 02, 2006 10:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You could really tell that they'd taken the tire boot off Tim Burton's directoral style for "Returns", that's for sure. I was a hunormous Burton film fan at the time, and that, Danny Elfman's phantasmagoric score, and Michelle Pfeiffer kicking ass went a long way with me.

    Daredevil wasn't too bad. It wasn't the worst anyway. When you get a rash of superhero movies all at once, at least one or two have to be the pedestrian entries.

     

  • At August 02, 2006 12:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    As a Daredevil fan, I was pleased enough with the movie, even though it was terribly directed- I don't understand why Colin Farrell was directed to act like a full of blarney jackass, for one. That's not Bullseye, and Farrell's more than capable of playing the character straight. I wish they had actually tried to do the real Elektra instead of just... Jennifer Garner cries. AGAIN. Jesus, please someone, write a major role for this woman that doesn't involve her crying. PLEASE!!!!!

    I thought they did the powers very well, and the little details well. Affleck was great. He was. He was the DD in my head. "I'm not the bad guy." That works.

    Plus, Manolis says to that sniper who puts a hole through Bullseye's hands, "HEY COYLE!" Of course, it might be somehting else, and it's a million to one coincidence, but... "I" got to save DD. Sort of. ;-)

     

  • At August 02, 2006 12:57 PM, Blogger Rich said…

    I kind of liked DD, but I liked the extended edition more - an actual legal storyline, more Jon Favreau goodness as Foggy, 24's Mike Novak as a crooked cop and Coolio as a dense petty criminal - all gave Affleck's Murdock more depth.

    The only change I didn't like was Murdock choosing to go and fight crime instead of sleeping with Elektra; I guess I just see Murdock as a more selfish SOB than that.

    And am I the only person in the world who liked Garner as Elektra?

     

  • At August 02, 2006 1:07 PM, Blogger Jon said…

    And am I the only person in the world who liked Garner as Elektra?

    Probably.

    Daredevil would've been a better movie had they not made Kingpin Jack Murdock's killer. And not hung so much of the film on Affleck's dubious narration abilities.

     

  • At August 02, 2006 2:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think Garner might have made a decent Elektra. It's just that Johnson Xeroxed Sydney Bristow and called it a day.

     

  • At August 02, 2006 5:13 PM, Blogger Ferrous Buller said…

    I thought the Daredevil movie was mediocre yet entertaining: a well-meant sloppy fan-kiss from people with more enthusiasm than talent. There were a lot of nice touches throughout it which kept it moving along at a decent clip - and I liked the fact it played out more like a Hong Kong action movie than a standard superhero flick - but it never quite gelled together into a satisfying whole.

    I was kinda ambivalent to the added subplot in the extended cut: yeah, it was nice to see Matt & co. do something lawyer-y, but it was rather awkwardly tied into the main plot; felt more like an amusing diversion than anything else, which made the film drag even more than it already did.

    Plus Coolio annoyed me.

    As for the cast: Michael Clarke Duncan and Jon Favreau were both great; Ben Affleck made a good Matt Murdock but only a so-so Daredevil; I like Jenn Garner but not as Elektra (I envision someone more exotic and mysterious in the role, like a buff Monica Bellucci); and I'm not sure why Colin Farrell was told to ham it up as Bullseye.

     

  • At August 02, 2006 10:09 PM, Blogger kalinara said…

    ununnilium: I'm not a big fan of the first myself. Burton was finding his footing. And why did Alfred let Vicki Vale into the cave?

    centurion: Returns had Catwoman and Penguin though! It was neat!

    doc: Hehe

    chawunky: I agree. Daredevil was comfortably mediocre in my opinion...I actually liked F4 better. :-)

    dan: I got the impression that both Farrell and Garner could have been much better than they were. Poor things.

    And shoutouts are cool!

    rich: Yes, yes you are. :-P

    jon: Yeah, kind of like when they had the Joker kill the Waynes. It's too pat and neat. Main badguy happens to be the one who killed daddy...hmm

    ferrous: Good to get another opinion. :-) Favreau is probably the guy I was thinking about but couldn't remember the name. :-)

     

  • At August 03, 2006 12:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I actually enjoyed FF more myself. It was definitely more fun, anyhoo.

    (-:

     

  • At August 03, 2006 11:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I thought having Kingpin as the mob boss who did in Matt's dad fit better, though, since the character in the original story was almost the same guy.

     

  • At August 03, 2006 2:51 PM, Blogger Ferrous Buller said…

    Favreau was Foggy Nelson; Joe Pantoliano was Ben Urich ("reporter guy"). IMDB is your friend. :-)

     

  • At August 03, 2006 2:56 PM, Blogger kalinara said…

    chawunky: Me too. :-)

    ununnilium: I suppose, but it still seemed too pat to me.

    ferrous: :-) Except if you can't actually remember the character name. :-)

     

  • At August 04, 2006 12:03 AM, Blogger Your Obedient Serpent said…

    The Daredevil theatrical release alienated me in the opening scene.

    Affleck's Murdock presents pretty much NO case, focuses entirely on his hypersenses "telling" him that the defendant is guilty, and throws such a hissy fit that he pretty much undercuts what pathetic evidence he DOES present.

    Then he goes, hunts down the guy, and pretty much throws him in front of a train.

    It came off as if Murdock deliberately THREW the case, so HE could go and administer "justice" PERSONALLY.

    And it's pretty much stated that DD has done this more than once in the past. The cops aren't after him for tying perps up.

    Yes, I'm a creaky old Silver Age fart.

    But I don't think serial killers are heroes.

     

  • At August 04, 2006 12:52 PM, Blogger Ferrous Buller said…

    Kalinara: IMDB does have photos, y'know - you can just look to find the right character. C'mon, you haven't been outta college that long - so stop being lazy and do some research! 8-D

    Serpent: I think part of the point to the Daredevil movie is Matt making the transition from murderous vigilante to bona fide hero. Early on, he comes across as cavalier and overconfident; he expresses no remorse for killing that thug or beating the crap outta people. [That overconfidence also comes across in the extra scenes in the extended cut: he puts too much faith in his lie-detecting hearing.] By the end, however, he chooses to spare Kingpin's life: he puts his faith in justice and the law, not his vendettas.

    Granted, if you didn't want DD to be a killer in the first place, you still wouldn't like it. But it was actual character development, if somewhat weakly handled.

     

  • At August 05, 2006 1:30 AM, Blogger kalinara said…

    Doesn't help when you've seen the movie once and don't really remember what they all look like. :-)

    <--bad memory for faces.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home