Saturday, 28 April 2012
Daredevil (5 Stars)
There are some films that I keep coming back to. This is one of them. Although it was one of the most successful box office films of 2003, it seems to have faded into obscurity fast. I'm surprised how many people I talk to who haven't seen it. It doesn't seem to have become a favourite for television repeats, which is the main factor in a film remaining popular over the long term.
It was made a year after "Spider-Man" and in many ways stands in its shadows. This is a case of history repeating itself. When Marvel Comics published the first issue of "Daredevil" in 1964 the cover openly compared the new hero with Spider-Man. Despite Daredevil being an adult, presumably 30-ish, his character and mannerisms in the early comics were very similar to those of Spider-Man, a hero half his age. They were both fighters who constantly used wisecracks and jokes during their fights. Daredevil was a very jovial character in the early days when his stories were written by Stan Lee. Artist Gene Colan played a large part in writing the stories, as was typical in the early days of Marvel. In my opinion Gene Colan's artwork was the best in Marvel comics in the mid 60's.
The man behind Daredevil's mask is the blind lawyer Matt Murdock. He was blinded at the age of 12 when a barrel of radioactive waste broke open and sprayed on his eyes. This removed his eyesight, but it also sharpened his remaining four senses to superhuman levels. His hearing is so acute that he can use sounds as a radar. He has no supernatural body strength or speed, but extensive martial arts training combined with his heightened senses give him remarkable agility.
In the 1960's and 1970's Daredevil was a light-hearted Spider-Man clone. This changed in 1980 when Frank Miller took over as the comic's writer. He turned Daredevil into a darker brooding character, in many ways like Batman. This is the basis for the film. The film also adds a gothic element not present in the comics.
The film shows how Daredevil gained his powers, then fast forwards to 20 years later when he has already become a hero. Although maybe "hero" is the wrong word. He is more of an avenging demon. If anyone is lucky enough to be found innocent in court after committing a crime, Matt Murdock puts on his Daredevil costume to become the criminal's executioner. Matt meets and falls in love with Elektra Nachios, daughter of a billionaire working for New York's crime boss, the Kingpin. She's also a trained fighter in her own right. When her father tries to leave the Kingpin's employment he's murdered by a hired killer called Bullseye. Elektra blames Daredevil for his death, not realising that it's Matt Murdock. This sets the scene for multiple high action battles.
The casting is perfect. After seeing the film I can't think of anyone more suitable than Ben Affleck to play Daredevil. Jennifer Garner, though not one of my favourite actresses, slots well into the role of Elektra. Jon Favreau is just the right person to play Franklin "Foggy" Nelson. Michael Clarke Duncan is surprisingly good as the Kingpin, despite having the wrong skin colour. And Colin Farrell is more Bullseye than Bullseye. I consider this film to be the peak of his acting career.
The director's cut is superior to the theatrical version, even though it slows down the second quarter of the film. In particular, it shows how reporter Ben Urich first gets to meet Matt Murdock. In many cases "director's cuts" are just ripoffs to get fans buy more than one copy of a film; they're bloated by stuffing in deleted scenes that the director had originally had good reasons to cut out. Not in this case. The director's cut is just perfect.
Click here to view the trailer.
Okay. I know I said this on Captain American but I figured it would be appropriate to put the appropriate comment in the right review but here goes: Daredevil was moderately entertaining at best even considering when it was made. I like me some Ben as much as the next gal but...meh. It's not one of those movies that I would keep going back to for the sheer enjoyment of watching it. It's one of those movies that I'd end up catching on cable and watching because I have nothing better to do and enjoying it - moderately. I'd give this a 3.5 stars (4 stars at best for those that haven't seen it).
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what you mean by "considering when it was made". I guess we have to agree to disagree on our judgement of this film. I'm aware that it's one of the less popular recent Marvel films. For me "recent" begins in 2000 with "X-Men", which started the new wave of Marvel films.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I just took another look at the film poster that I used for this review. Is that really Jennifer Garner? It looks nothing like her. She was probably photoshopped to make her look sexier for the poster, and her appearance was totally changed.
ReplyDeleteWell it's more on my personal feelings about the whole list of films released in 2003 that I noticed. Generally I was a bit disappointed although I will say that they weren't all bad but they didn't blow me away and it seemed there was a lot more hype around several movies that fell short of the promises bandied about in the previews.
ReplyDeleteI will say that Daredevil is a big step above Thor, Hulk (Not the Norton version), and Captain America. I would more readily elect to see Daredevil than any of those if given a choice. And yes it is Garner and you're right, it doesn't resemble her at all. They went a bit airbrush crazy there it seems.
The pre-2000 Marvel films are all poor quality. I could forgive them for having weaker special effects, but even the stories and the acting are shoddy. Daredevil was played by Rex Smith -- who's he? -- in 1989. David Hasselhoff was embarrassing as Nick Fury in 1998. There were four Captain America films (1944, two in 1979, 1990) but I've only seen the 1990 film, and it was dreadful.
ReplyDelete