Daredevil

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.

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

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!

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.

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!!!