Daredevil (2003) User Reviews

Criminally underrated

[konya-s · 6/10 · 10 January 2009]

This is one of my absolute favorite comic book movies ever made. It's dark, it's entertaining, it has great story. And I gotta tell that Ben Affleck is great too in the costume of Daredevil. He's great and that's that! I don't know why he was nominated Razzie Award, in my opinion he was awesome. The other actors in the movie are great too! There is Colin Farrell. Usually I not a fan of him, but here, he's gave us an awesome performance as the professional killer the Bullseye. He can kill you with nut. No joke. He's a great character. And there is Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin. Well, I know that in the original comic book, the Kingpin is white, but you know what? Doesn't matter. This Kingpin is similar to the comic book-Kingpin, except the color of they're skin. Both of them are big, both of them are brutal and Duncan has a voice that makes my skin crawl.

The direction is perfect I think. Dark and stylish, like a good Batman-movie. The story is good too, because it's not just a typical superhero-story, it is actually a tragedy if you think about that. It has drama and blood, not funny at all, but okay it has some funny moments, but not much.

So I don't understand why people hate that movie so much. It's great! Grow up people! See this movie with an open mind! Damn...

Excellent Superhero Film

[Lyriana · 6/10 · 14 February 2008]

This movie is an exciting and excellent movie. The special effects and lighting is amazing, and all in all, the picture is superb. Also, the theme is a good one - he is an underdog, being blind, and fights for the underdogs, considering his job as an attorney. But he proves that he is much better than that when he serves justice at night as Daredevil. I dearly love how he does several stunts and tricks.

It is exciting to watch him do insane stunts like jumping right off buildings and then regaining his balance. All the stunts are a piece of art! But maybe, next time, more criminals.

I applaud this movie and hope for a sequel!

Meh the director's cut was okay

[zacksnydersucksdick · 6/10 · 3 March 2019]

Not the worst Marvel movie ever, but not really a good movie either. At best it's a fun and entertaining guilty pleasure movie. It has that early 2000's edge and cheesiness. The director's cut really fixes a lot of the movies problems but not all of it. There are a couple dumb scenes that take you out of the movie and the cgi is pretty dated. However most of the cast does a pretty good job with the roles they are given and the movie does a quick and simple job at telling the origin story. Some of the visuals and art designs are also pretty great and the action sequences still hold up. Overall, only watch the director's cut and don't take it to seriously.

It's like a darker, more violent version of "Spider-Man". Grade: B

[practiced_bravado · 7 July 2004]

That's why I think most critics hated this thing. It's not lighthearted fun like "Spider-Man" was, it's more adult-themed. I actually found it a bit more effective than Sam Raimi's superhero epic. Why? Because it wasn't campy and it didn't have cartoony special effects. The CGI in "Daredevil" is more photorealistic. I also loved the "Matrix"-like martial-arts incorporated throughout the film.

In fact, as far as darker-themed comic book movies go, I think "Daredevil" is a much better film than either of the first two "Batman" pictures were. I recently watched "Spider-Man" again on DVD and I've always had mixed reactions of it. I do think it works on the level of campy fun and for that I gave it a B Minus. But I think "Daredevil" is a more solid picture and I'd grade it with a B.

I like the look of the film, the washed-out colors make the movie look very 70's in certain scenes. Like "The Crow", the movie has an MTV mentality with rock and rap songs, but also has a love story as well. The sound design is awesome, if you have a good theatre sound system, "Daredevil" will take full advantage of it. I don't think Ben Affleck got credit when it was deserved. Along with Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell and Michael Clarke Duncan, Affleck was perfect cast.

Anyhow, as much as I believe "Daredevil" is a much better film than "Spider-Man" was. I actually think "Spider-Man 2" is better than "Daredevil". The best comic book movie ever placed on film. It shows that a director can really improve on his work. I highly recommend that film to anyone. Well, the bottom line is: "Spider-Man" (B-), "Daredevil" (B) and "Spider-Man 2" (A). I hope you enjoyed my review.

It pained me to watch this garbage - Spoilers

[sbrobin · 1/10 · 21 February 2004]

Maybe not the worst ever, but definitely close. How they could have such a huge budget for this film and accept such a horrible story is beyond me.

I've been a pretty big comic book fan for 20 years. While I never got into Daredevil too much, he made numerous guest appearances in my favorite comics, and I was looking forward to this film. Yes, it's a comic book movie, but the level of camp in this film was unreal. There must have been hundreds of cheesy lines in almost every line of dialog during this film, you'd almost think Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote the screenplay. Add to that the ridiculous amount of blind jokes and it was painful to sit through. Okay, Daredevil is blind, and yet has insanely high perception in his other senses, we get it. No need to show endless shots of him doing amazing things with his other senses to hammer this into our skulls. Bullseye has perfect aim and can hit anything he wants to, we get it, no need to show 20 scenes of him using this skill either.

This film takes "ridiculousness" to a new level. Daredevil is human. Unlike Spider-Man, he has no genetic mutations. He simply has heightened senses from being blind. The story never proclaims he has anything other than human abilities either. However, there are literally hundreds of stunts that Daredevil does that are humanly impossible, I don't care how great he can here, there is no way he can jump 50 feet in the air, or vault off a 50 story building and land on a fire escape and not break his legs. This guy could give Spider-Man a run for his money for all the advantages they gave him.

By letting Daredevil achieve insane stunts, it creates no sense of weakness for him. You are never left feeling like there is a battle this guy can't win, which is a mistake in film making. Daredevil can scale a 20 foot wall, yet he gets stabbed in the shoulder and that knocks him out for half the film? He can't summon the energy to help out Elektra, his love, yet right after that he can make his way a couple miles across town and get involved in the fight of his life?! This film is FILLED with inconsistencies, mistakes, and just absurd events that would require a complete suspension of belief reality in order to enjoy this film. I expect comic book movies to take some license, but this film makes "Armageddon" look like it was taken straight from the film vaults at NASA. And with all of this absurdity, there is no way to enjoy this film as a campy popcorn movie. I would consider "Tomb-Raider" a masterpiece in comparison.

Perhaps the biggest flaw with this film is the CGI. For a recent movie, this is some of the worst CGI effects I have ever seen. None of it looked realistic. I can't think of a single special effect that I would believe. Remember that scene in Spider Man where Toby Maguire gets his new powers and starts jumping 50 feet in the air from roof to roof? Imagine an entire movie of that. They may as well have left the blue screens and wires in. At least Mark Steven Johnson admits on his commentary that the CGI is crap.

Did I mention that Bullseye (with a horrible performance by Colin Farrell) actually cuts someone's throat with a playing card in this film and kills a man by throwing a paper-clip into his neck?!

That being said, if you like this film, the DVD is loaded with bonus features. The audio and video come across very well, and the featurettes are fairly well done. This DVD has everything you could want if you're a fan of the film.

Directors cut so much better.

[p.greenwood · 7/10 · 23 January 2005]

When I heard about a directors cut to this movie I never imagined it would be so much better than the original release. Why must movie studios always feel they know better than the director. This film would have been much more successful had they left it alone, but by insisting on so many cuts and changes they shot themselves in the foot. All because they wanted a family friendly spider-man type film instead of the much more dark and violent world of daredevil. Every scene added to the film makes you wonder why they cut it in the first place. It isn't just about adding scenes though they have taken a couple out too. I can't imagine anyone who would miss the fireside love scene. I urge everyone who saw the theatrical cut to watch the directors cut. It isn't a perfect film but it's a more complete and enjoyable one. Also watch the documentary on the directors cut DVD and see one of the producers trying to defend the original release and then actually saying he thinks it is the better cut. I think he must be more blind than Matt Murdock!!!

One of the worst movies in history!

[rafajs77 · 1/10 · 3 June 2006]

I am a fan of the genre, made it a point to catch "Batman" movies, "X-Men," "Spiderman," etc. etc. This movie, however, is horrible. The plot is thin, the characters are ridiculous, the special effects are insulting (not in their execution, but in the way that special effects for "Chalie's Angels: Full Throttle" were insulting), and the acting is bad. Perhaps the only exception as far as acting is concerned is Ben Affleck. Yes, I can't believe that I am saying this either, but Ben Affleck is actually good, but not good enough to save this train-wreck of a film.

I read a fellow reviewer's comments, saying that one should watch the Director's Cut, because it adds 30 minutes which make the rest of the film "make more sense." No disrespect, but I can't imagine a more terrible fate than to watch 30 extra minutes of this movie. The movie didn't need to make sense, it made enough sense, it was just bad.

The part where Colin Farrell (Bullseye) faces off against Ben Afflleck (Daredevil) by breaking glass gymnast-style then catching the falling shards one by one and shooting them at the hero like ninja-stars...wow, what can one say about a scene like that without descending into inappropriate language? Perhaps only: "highly unlikely."

To top it off, the movie ends with the slaughter of a fly via a finger-flicked scalpel by a paralyzed and fully bandaged Bullseye. He then says "bullseye!" in self-appreciation of his kill...roll credits! I want my money back, I want my time back!

It's True About The 'Director's Cut'

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 15 November 2005]

First off, this was a more complete version of the DVD which came out earlier. In this edition, about a half-hour of new material was added to the disc (and what was shown at the theaters.) All reviews I read said it elevated this film from "fair at best" to "good." I agree. It made the movie much, much better.

Yeah, it's more far-fetched than the other superhero movies because here, the hero is a blind guy who, because of his blindness, has extraordinary hearing powers along with the rest of the usual Batman/Spiderman-type athletic skills.

As in most of the Batman films, this is a dark film. I think it would have been better had it lightened up a bit with a few jokes and a more wholesome female lead. Jennifer Garner is another one of these latter-day skinny chicks who is made to be tough-looking, tough-talking and tough-fighting. In other words: ridiculous. However, I will say she comes across a little more likable on the extended version. One more negative: the fight scenes go on a tad too long and are outlandish.

On the positive side, this may be the best-sounding DVD I own, at least up to ones I had heard up until this came out in January of 2005. Since the hero (Ben Affleck) has super hearing, this is emphasized in this movie and so you, if you have a 5.1 surround system, hear sounds from all speakers at almost times. It's awesome!

Affleck, meanwhile, is likable as the superhero and I liked the message he gives at the end about shunning revenge. Wow, you don't hear that much in movies. Kudos, too, to villains' Colin Farrell and Michael Clarke Duncan. They are fun to watch, especially Farrell.

So, if this superhero film interests you, make sure you get the "Director's Cut" edition. It's far better than the original, and, I believe, the same price.

Terrible, really bad fight choreography

[jake-179 · 1/10 · 23 February 2003]

This movie was severly flawed. I have noticed some very estute IMDB commentators who have remarked on the flaws of the script, and terrible acting, and how it seemed this movie was slopped together. So rather than be redundant, I want to get right to the point of the movie that bothered me the most: the fight choreography.

***SPOILERS***

Having Ben Afleck and Jen Garner performing Kung Fu style fight scenes was a HUGE mistake. It seems to me that the makers of this movie were trying to jump on THE MATRIX band wagon. They believe that with some slick editing, they do not have to have leads who are proficient in Martial Arts to pull off complex choreography. This was the nail in the coffin for this movie. It was very distracting to see these two actors lumbering through their moves. In particular, the fight scene in the park when Ben is trying to get Jen's name. Jen throws some really sloppy kicks at the beginning and she is so slow its just comical. Everybody keeps commenting on how Jen's experience on "ALIAS" has prepared her for a role like this...nothing could be further from the truth. She looked so pathetic up there, good looks aside. And Ben Afleck was INCREDIBLY AWKWARD! At one point, he dodges some sloppy move from Jen, and stands to the side with his arms out, and it looks so TERRIBLE! He really looks like he is staggering around trying to keep up with what is going on. This was really, really bad!

In "THE MATRIX," the cast worked with Yuen Woo Ping and his crew for over 4 months, perfecting only three major fight scenes: The Kung Fu School, The Bathroom, and The Subway. And even at that, they still looked a little stiff, but they pulled it off somewhat believably. Except, of course, for the part where Neo does a back flip out of the path of the oncoming subway train, and he is clearly hanging on to the wires. But in Daredevil, it was obvious the actors did not put in enough effort to learn the moves. It looked like they didn't practice the fight scenes until the day of shooting.

A lot of people have written reviews on the IMDB complimenting the fight scenes, which goes to show these people don't really have an appreciation of what a good fight scene is. For these people, I suggest they start out watching THE MATRIX, and then move on to the real classics, such as DRUNKEN MASTER 1 and 2, OPERATION CONDOR, FIRST STRIKE, SNAKE IN EAGLE'S SHADOW, BLADE, or even more recently SHANGHAI NIGHTS.

Some other complaints on the movie are: why does Matt Murdock possess the ability to jump from building to building with MATRIX-like ability? He gets squirted in the face with a chemical and that gives him super human jumping ability? The physics behind Bullseye's throwing ability were rediculous. The fight in the church...how high up is the ceiling of that stupid church? 500 feet? And the end when Daredevil defeats Kingpin...he kicked him in the back of the knees? Is there some special weakness Kingpin has behind his knees that I am not aware of?

Bullseye was way over the top. The first guy he kills by throwing a paper clip...yes, you read that right, a paper clip. The next person he kills is an old lady...yes, you read that right, an old lady. He kills her with a peanut! Yes, you read that right, a PEANUT! The third person he kills is a guard...he kills him by throwing pencils in to his neck...yes, you read that right, pencils. And then he kills NACHOS by throwing Daredevil's cane from about 100 yard away. The cane was not even sharp, but it impaled him anyway! This was just silly.

One other particularly bothersom scene was when "Electra" was practicing with her swords with those sand bags. First of all, what a messy way to practice! I would not want to have to clean up all that sand. Second of all, once again Jen Garner shows how inept she is with Martial Arts, She needs to seek out some SERIOUS Martial Arts training if she is going to continue making these movies. She looked just ridiculous clauding around up there.

Finally, a note to Ben Afleck and Jen Garner: Two days of Kung Fu lessons is NOT enough. Kung Fu takes PRACTICE and dedication. It takes a lot to be an action star, and those two just don't have it.

"How do you kill a man without fear?"

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 14 January 2015]

After considering all the haters for the movie out there I have to wonder about the fuss - this really wasn't that bad. Granted, no great marks for originality or creativity but the story and action was acceptable given the parameters for a blind super-hero. What probably mattered to me more, since I look for these touches in comic book movies, were the multiple references to the medium that your average movie goer wouldn't be in tune to. A number of Marvel/Daredevil names were referenced by characters in the picture, including that of acquitted rapist Quesada (for Joe Quesada, a Marvel editor and one time Daredevil artist), John Romita (boxing opponent for Jack Murdock), and the morgue attendant Kirby (for Sixties cover artist Jack Kirby). That last one was a bonus because the character of Kirby was portrayed by comic book writer as well as actor Kevin Smith. And adding to all that fun was the ubiquitous cameo of legendary Marvel creator Stan Lee; he was the man young Matt Murdock stopped from crossing the street. So with all that I didn't mind the over the top action so much or the somewhat inconsequential conclusion against the major villains. And say what you will about Ben Affleck, but when all is said and done, he'll have been the only actor when the next Batman film comes out to have portrayed both Marvel and DC Comic super-heroes. A pretty cool feat I would say.

Addendum: *** I just reread my review and would note that Ben Affleck is not the only actor now who portrayed two super-heroes. In 2016, Ryan Reynolds appeared as Deadpool, following his 2011 casting as Green Lantern.

"If it looks like The Phantom, and smells like The Phantom... "

[bonnynklyd · 1/10 · 17 October 2003]

Daredevil is a hero movie. Unfortunately, the hero happens to be James Acheson. I looked his name up on the credits and he is the costume designer. When the makers of the film paid him to make a very camp Daredevil suit he did as they asked. Everyone else involved should be ashamed of this sorry mess of a film. I could go on, and I will.

In your average blockbuster you'll see action, follow a storyline, perhaps witness a little love interest. This will build up to a grand finale, a showdown. And would just a small amount of good acting be too much to ask? Apparently so, because on all counts this movie fails.

When a comic-book action movie contains only a handful of minutes of said action, you know there's a problem. That isn't even the bad news regarding action in this film. As if by accident Daredevil battles Bullseye for a second time. At this point the CGI characters (yes, i think Colin and Ben were in a bar drinking when this scene was made) move in. Did I mention that they move in like drunken idiots, unconvincingly lurching up and down, all over the screen. Didn't the CGI guys see The Matrix (original or :Reloaded), or Blade?

As for the storyline, don't get me started. Because I won't know where to. Was there a story? I saw this film an hour ago and I can't tell you what happened apart from people fighting, crying, kissing and dying. the scriptwriters should never be allowed out of the unemployment line again.

A big deal was made of Jennifer Garner taking on the part of Elektra. I think she read the script and thought she was playing Carmen Electra, because that's how much of an acting range she shows in this film (and I'm a big fan of Carmen.) Garner and Ben had no chemistry at all. A stink bomb has more chemistry, and would have done the job (i.e stunk to high heaven) better than this film for a lot less money. Ben has no excuse, as I'm fairly sure J-Lo made him sit down and watch all her movies. Did he watch Out Of Sight? (Imagine J-Lo being better than you at acting...)

And on the subject of acting the usually dependable Colin Farrell manages to play a very unconvincing Irishman, which is no mean feat for an actual Irishman. Yet another illustration of just how poor this film is.

You've still managed to make it to the end of the movie instead of a) destroying your TV, or b) plain old falling asleep? I won't spoil the ending but you are rewarded (and I use the word 'rewarded' loosely) by a total lack of a spectacular showdown. Instead Daredevil gets really angry to all the naughty men who've stayed up past their bedtimes. You can almost hear Daredevil say "Hey, don't make me come up there!" as he wanders into the night one last time (hopefully, anyway.)

This film gets 0 out of 10, with perhaps an extra 1 for costume design.

Affleck Is Good As Daredevil!!!

[zardoz-13 · 8/10 · 16 May 2015]

"Daredevil" is another action hero in the Marvel Universe. Although the theatrical version of "Daredevil" lacked punch, the director's cut more than makes up it with its added thirty minutes. Matt Murdock is an unfortunate child who is blinded by chemicals and can no longer see. Ironically, when he is blinded, the other senses increase in power so although he has lost the power of sight, he can still navigate the terrain where he lives. When he grows up, he begins a lawyer but he is also Daredevil, a masked vigilante who tangles with the city's worst villains. Matt almost meets his match when he encounters Bulls Eye (Colin Farrell) who knows how to sling things like darts as well as a wide variety of other weapons. Matt is up against his toughest adversary when he takes on Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan of "The Green Mile") who rules New York City with an iron fist. Along the way, Matt meets the love of his life, Elektra (Jennifer Garner of "Elektra") who matches wits and blows with him in a school recess yard. Ben Affleck is very charismatic as the nimble, agile Daredevil, and his scene with Stan Lee is very amusing. The director's cut of "Daredevil" is required watching if you're a hardcore Marvel Comics fanatic.

N.B. This review is of the Director's Cut of Daredevil.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 28 December 2014]

Blinded by bio-hazardous waste as a child, Matt Murdock finds that his other senses have developed to the point where they afford him almost supernatural physical abilities. Years later, Murdock (Ben Affleck), now a pro-bono lawyer, takes on the guise of night-time vigilante Daredevil, using his powers to ensure that justice is always served. In doing so, he finds himself pitted against crime boss Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan), his hired hit-man Bullseye (Colin Farrell, who hams it up wonderfully in every scene), and kick-ass babe Elektra (Jennifer Garner), who mistakenly holds Daredevil responsible for the death of her father.

The recent casting of Ben Affleck as Batman has been the cause of much controversy amongst comic book fans, but judging by Daredevil, the star's previous foray into comicdom, I'm not all that concerned, this fun movie proving the actor to be more than capable in the role of superhero. Affleck acquits himself surprisingly well as both the laudable lawyer and his leather-clad alter-ego, providing the character with the necessary depth and the required physicality.

If this longer version still proves less than perfect, it is not down to Affleck, but once again due to the script and the directorial style (I guess some things just can't be fixed). With an extra thirty minutes, The Director's Cut fleshes out the characters and makes more sense of the narrative, but at the expense of the pacing; in addition, the poorly lit visuals makes some of the action hard to follow (I understand that the look and feel is intended to emulate the style of Frank Miller's comic book artwork, which makes great use of heavy shadow, but director Mark Steven Johnson takes things a step too far).

Over the last decade, Marvel have gradually honed their product to meet maximum audience approval, boosting their budgets and throwing the best special effects available onto the screen, but as one of the earliest postmillenial attempts to bring their characters to the big screen (yes… Daredevil is already well over a decade old) this is still a serviceable effort, with only the occasional iffy CGI shot belying its age.

Crummy!

[themarina1 · 1/10 · 29 November 2003]

This entire movie was bad, all that is, but the cast. However, even they couldn't help this movie out. I've never read a Daredevil comic but it HAS to be better than this movie. It was slow, pathetic and that death scene on the roof...what the HECK was THAT?????? Bad, bad bad. Truly bad.

1/10 Even Bullseye sucked

Director's Cut Version = Remarkable!

[DUKEJBM · 9 December 2004]

The director's cut is masterfully done. I really like fact that Matt/DD was more a tortured loner (no Priest confidant, no Elektra screw). The fight sequences are much better and much more complete. These two facts are what make the DC a better film. I do agree that having Matt walk with Elektra after that bizarre fight would've been a better idea. It would make the impact of her "death" more believable. In the DC, Matt only bonds with Elektra on two shallow occasions. He "plays" with her for three minutes in that silly sparing match and then walks her up to the roof and leaves her standing in the rain. So, why does she "wish you could see me tonight" at the ball? There is no depth or connection at all. The DC works well for most things but it really hurts the relationship aspect between Matt & Elektra.

Besides the relationship factor, this version is better. The fight scenes are vastly supperior. A must own on DVD.

Such Sweet Sorrow

[daveisit · 1/10 · 16 May 2005]

Daredevil achieved nothing as a movie. There was no enjoyment from watching, no interest in the acting, and certainly no belief in the story, whether it be comic super hero or not. For every new scene, and every second I watched, I simply hoped there would be a big turn around and something would spark some interest. This never eventuated and I found myself slipping deeper and deeper into a state of painful shock.

As for Ben Affleck, he was simply terrible. Nothing about his performance enhanced his profile as an employable actor. He ripped the shine out of his and all the other performances and spat on the leftovers.

Criminally underrated

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 2 June 2016]

This surprisingly dark and moody superhero yarn is a great and unexpected surprise – probably the most genuinely entertaining comic-book film to come out of Hollywood in the early surge of such movies. It certainly walks all over the likes of HULK and SPIDER-MAN. The fun aspect of the movie comes from a pleasingly witty script, which serves up crisp dialogue throughout; some surprising plot developments (coming from somebody who never reads any comics); memorable acting performances and a freshness which is more than worthwhile. The backstory of the main character is run through pleasingly fast, in about fifteen minutes (compared to HULK's forty-five). I don't want to spoil any of the plot, other than to say that this film takes a more adult, mature approach to the material – both in the depth of emotion of the characters, in the handling of death, and in the rather violent action sequences.

Said action – invariably incorporating martial arts, which is of course currently in vogue in Hollywood – is highly entertaining and the film as a whole is packed with special effects, which add to the impact rather than being really noticeable. The entire cast put in good performances, from Ben Affleck's subdued turn as the lead to the solid support of Jon Favreau, Joe Pantoliano and Leland Orser. Yet the most noticeable characters are Jennifer Garner as the truly electrifying Elektra, Michael Clarke Duncan as the impossibly imposing Kingpin, and best of all, Colin Farrell as mad henchman Bullseye. Farrell bags the best role in the film and really makes a meal of it, bringing humour to his psycho-schtick and enlivening the proceedings no end. The combination of the above factors serve to highlight DAREDEVIL as one of the triumphs of the Hollywood year!

Unbelivable bad

[tindfoting · 3/10 · 28 May 2022]

I see the 1st review says this is "underrated". I guess he skipped the parts were a very CGI Daredevil jumped like Sonic The Hedgehog trough the city? Seeing Netflix spot on show with Charlie Cox does nothing to improve this terrible movie, were the creators clearly have no idea who Daredevil is. They got the part that he is blind, at least. The rest is utter crap. Ben Affleck is terrible, and I guess Jennifer Garner got the Elektra part for being his girlfriend. You would think the chemistry between a real couple would show on screen, but alas, the stupid "flirting" in the playpark shows both actors hardly can act. I was frankly upset seeing this in cinema. My own, favorite superhero with inner demons, reduced to a cardboard character. And the music is rubbish, full of nu metal. I know Evanecence got a #1 out of "Bring Me Back To Life", but you don't have to be a genious to understand the makers tried to riff of the much better soundtrack of The Crow. Man I'm glad Netflix did ol'DareDevil a real character again.

An Honest Review

[generationofswine · 7/10 · 16 November 2016]

The problem here is that it wasn't exactly dark enough and Daredevil wasn't exactly street enough.

But that is without seeing the director's cut.

The fact is, they tried for the darkness that people would expect from Daredevil, but still attempted to make it relatively child friendly. It made for an epic fail that only came half-way to what it needed to be.

And then there is the street aspect of Daredevil. He isn't the Avengers, he takes on problems in Hell's Kitchen, he operates close to the community and you sort of only got a taste of it.

They tried to show that street-wise hero, but ended up making things still a little larger than life. A little too much in that regard. The Kingpin, and Duncan was perfect for the role, seemed like a villain a little too big for Daredevil, a little too removed from the mafia thug that he actually is.

As a result, the movie sort of fails, but only just. A little push further in the right direction would have taken it from a failure to a success.

It can still be enjoyed, for what it is, but feels hallow.

Daredevil is blinded by an overstuffed plot that feels more suited to an Evanescence music video.

[TheMovieDiorama · 3/10 · 5 September 2019]

"Devil card, never leave the church without it". Honest to God, was fully expecting that line, that's the level of cringe we're dealing with here. Prior to this wonderful superhero blockbuster, I had no knowledge of Daredevil aside from his sonar ability. No, I've not seen the Netflix series, and no I hadn't read the comics. I simply just don't care enough. And after watching this, I really really don't care anymore. My refusal to summarise the plot in one sentence is justified, reason being is that the narrative is overstuffed with segregated sub-plots that it feels respectable to tackle them individually. So, here we go!

Unequivocally the basis of Sin Cit..., I mean, Daredevil is revolving around a blind wealthy lawyer who takes it upon himself to become a masked vigilante at night and nunchuck civilians to death (*cough* Batman *cough*). It's a tight, cheaply woven PVC gimp suit that provides no protection or added traits whatsoever, and due to the helmet covering up his eyes, Affleck's butt chin is more noticeable than the shoddy CGI. Thank the lord his eyes were covered up though, because Affleck's blind acting was more "derpy" than me trying to work out basic mathematics whilst heavily influenced by gin (hint: I look like Affleck).

So Matt Murdock, the eponymous character, yearns to annihilate the crime lord Kingpin for committing a crime that had influenced Matt's fight against criminals. Y'know, "justice is blind" and all that obvious rubbish that makes you want to heave. Ingenious casting of Clarke Duncan, I must say, just a shame Johnson never flippin' utilised him at all. Same can be said about the assassin Bullseye, with Farrell having a target etched onto his forehead in case we forgot who he was playing, who "never misses". The cruel irony is, that he missed atleast fifty seven times. Should've been called the "Inaccurate Irishman". Anyway, he's in it for no apparent reason, but Farrell did good with his cocaine fuelled acting.

But we're not done yet. Oh no. Half of the film focused on a blossoming romance between Matt and Elektra "Nachos", because she wanted guacamole instead of salsa dip if you catch my cold. Yet despite Matt thinking "hey, I am nacho boyfriend", his resistance proved futile. And so, as soon as they meet, they battle it out whilst precariously balancing on some seesaws in front of some kids in public. Oh, super basic choreography by the way, was slower than my nan (she can't walk sooo...). But before any of this excitement ensues, Johnson tackles the origin story of Daredevil in the most uninspired fashion by simply doing nothing with it. All of this is just the narrative, I haven't even touched upon the court ruling with Coolio that apparently is exclusively available in the Director's Cut. So much stuff, yet no actual substance. Amazing, really.

The action set pieces are plagued with Dutch angles, flashing lighting that will induce epileptics into seizure mode and grungy aesthetics to capitalise on Miller's style. The soundtrack though, oh God the soundtrack! Who knew that playing Evanescence's 'My Immortal' at a funeral would evoke my nostalgic emo phase. And then 'Bring Me To Life' during a training montage? I can't. It's too much.

As an album, Daredevil rocks. As a film, it's both blind and deaf. That's narratively blind and emotionally tone deaf. The film wouldn't end and all I wanted was a bowl of nachos whilst I fall asleep watching this snooze-fest.

very underrated

[The_Amazing_Spy_Rises · 7/10 · 15 October 2005]

I personally thought this film portrayed the darkness of the comic books very, very well. Ben Affleck's performance as the Daredevil Matt Murdock is believable, but he does get too dramatic in scenes where it really isn't required. As much as people don't want to believe it, this movie works with the pretty boys Affleck and Colin Farrell as the secondary villain, a sharpshooting hit-man named Bullseye. They really hate each other (laughs). Jennifer Garner as the very sexy heiress Elektra Nachios saves this movie from being a 5/10 instead of an 8/10. She is such a likable character and does an excellent job of playing the powerful yet vulnerable Elektra. She is great at being a woman who wants to be with her man, yet has her priorities. The main villain is the very evil Kingpin, headed by a great Michael Clarke Duncan. Duncan shows his brute force near the end of the movie. All throughout, these 4 A and B list actors are flanked by a great supporting cast including Joe Pantoliano as an investigative reporter who later becomes of aid to the Daredevil, Leland Orser as the Kingpin's right hand man Wesley, and Jon Favreau as Murdock's best friend and colleague. Favreau is mostly comic relief, but the first two characters played by Pantoliano and Orser are serious characters. All in all this is a good movie, not great, good. The cast does a much better job than most people believed they would, and Jennifer Garner owns the film. It's a shame no sequel has been announced, because it would be a great film as well. The darkness of this movie can be felt all throughout, with the great villainous work of Duncan and Farrell, and the mood of Affleck and Garner. 7/10

A YAWN WOULD BE A COMPLIMENT TO THIS. "DAREDEVIL" IS PURE CRAP.

[nutsy · 1/10 · 29 October 2003]

Why the hell did anybody like this? Ben Affleck is a terrible actor. DAREDEVIL is yet another bad comic-book-movie in a long line of bad comic-book-movies. The story isn't strong, and it's poorly told. The film uses montages to pop music to convey emotion. The "dark" edge to this movie has such high gloss that viewers might need contacts after a sitting. The visual effects are all highly unconvincing CGI, and the hero's point of view effect is over-used. The direction is unimaginative and I've seen better scripts in Saturday morning cartoons.

As if anyone should care, SPOILERS follow.

Affleck's character starts the film as a poor kid (who looks like he's fresh from the pages of Tiger Beat) living with his father who is mixed up with criminals. This soon leads us to our superhero's origin. He sees something he shouldn't, drops his A+ report card (spare me!), and winds up with toxic waste in his face. He wakes up in the hospital blind, but with all his other senses heightened enough to completely compensate for it (that's why Stevie Wonder is such a bad-ass). Through the first part we have to hear Affleck's lame narration. When grows up he's a lawyer by day and DAREDEVIL the rest of the time. Naturally, he meets an attractive girl, whom he fights for some reason (think the scene in BASIC, except dumber and without gravity). She is the stuff of centerfolds, Elektra King, whose father is in trouble with the evil Kingpin, who killed Daredevil's dad, which makes him his arch nemesis. A romance blooms and the villain does villain stuff. Daredevil becomes a problem for Kingpin, so he sends in Bullseye to frame him for Elektra's daddy's murder. The frame-up scene is so incredibly dumb that Paul Verhoven probably had a laugh on it. Elektra thinks DAREDEVIL killed her daddy, so she must become a costumed freak in order to take revenge. Costumed freak Elektra really only has time to spill some sand, misuse Eastern weapons, and die. Daredevil and Bullseye fight in a cathedral. During the epic battle, scale disappears, and the pipe-organ (which they fight on) changes size and hight several times, particularly when they are falling past it. Then comes the real showdown, between Daredevil and Kingpin (the ever misused Michael Clark Duncan). Rather than do the logical thing and kill his enemy, Daredevil leaves him alive (minus his knees). Yeah, injuring a major crime lord, identifying yourself, and leaving him alive is not the smartest thing a person can do. But superheros seem pretty dumb these days anyway.

Let's face it, people, BATMAN (1989) is the yardstick to which all superhero movies and comic book adaptations must be measured. Nothing has ever measured up (except maybe DICK TRACY). X-MEN, X2, HULK, SPIDERMAN, and DAREDEVIL are all crap, both by comparison and by their value as films. Anyone who thinks DAREDEVIL is good is either plain stupid, or an obsessed fan who shouldn't be listened to anyway. To yawn at this movie would be a compliment.

Very underrated, I also agree that the Director's Cut is infinitely superior to the theatrical release

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 25 January 2012]

I have to admit when I saw Daredevil in its theatrical release, I found myself underwhelmed by it. I loved the visuals, but I found the love story soppy and couldn't always make sense of the story. However, hearing so much about the Director's Cut being superior I got the DVD off my brother, and actually I really liked it. Daredevil is not what I call a perfect movie, I still did find the love story soppy and becoming dangerously close to flagging down the film and the soundtrack is rather dated and heavy for my liking. On the other hand, I loved the stylish visuals, the fresh, funny dialogue, that I could make much more sense of the story and could be more entertained by it and the characterisation of the titular character with him being vulnerable and flawed I found him very interesting. The other characters are not as well developed, but are enthusiastically performed. Colin Farrell especially is lots of fun, Jennifer Garner is decent and Michael Clarke Duncan is great as is Joe Pantoliano. The editing is good if occasionally rushed, and the action sequences are clear if not always very subtle. Overall, a good movie that fared much better on re-watch. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

One of the best Marvel movies to date

[yodaschoda · 7/10 · 25 January 2005]

Despite the low ratings this movie has gotten from the masses, I honestly can say that this is probably the best Marvel movie to come out in the recent barrage of comic based movies to hit the big screen. I'm guessing the reason for the lack of high ratings is that most people were looking for a super hero along the lines of Spiderman who saves people and is always doing "the right thing". Well this obviously isn't the case here, as one can clearly see from how Daredevil does away with the baddies. I personally think that the concept of an avenging lawyer who serves up street justice to those that manipulate the system is a great concept. I also think that everybody did a great job of playing their characters as they should be played, yes… I know, even Ben. The only person I thought did a mediocre job was Colin, who only helped to make the already stupid looking Bullseye look even dumber then the character deserves. As you can no doubt guess from reading this, I'm a huge fan of the series. What you probably wouldn't guess is that choosing Michael Clarke Duncan to play the Kingpin is by far the best "improvisational" casting choice I've ever seen. For those of you who don't know, the Kingpin is "supposed" to be a big white guy… we're talking sumo style big. While Michael isn't quite that big, his size and look are by far better then anybody else they could have ever gotten to play this role. So, in conclusion, if you like your hero's on the darker side, a la Batman, then this should be a good choice for you. The effects and story line are great; I can only hope that the only "acceptable" attendance at the theaters won't stop them from making a sequel to this movie… I know, don't hate me… but with Ben playing Daredevil again as well… don't worry, I hate myself too!!! And P.S. Elektra isn't a sequel… it's a separate plot line all together, although they try to link the two at some point in the movie, but that's another comment for another movie.

Not even entertainingly bad...

[Mikey_Walsh · 1/10 · 23 February 2003]

This movie has nothing going for it. The action sequences weren't spectacular, the story was uninspired, and the acting was atrocious (on all accounts). Trying to cash in on another profitable Hollywood trend, the Marvel Superhero, this movie brought nothing to the table. While the film was more frustratingly bad than entertaining I did find myself laughing aloud at Colin Farrell's ridiculous and over the top "pyscho" antics. I gave this movie a 1 out of 10.