Daredevil

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

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.

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!!!

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.