Daredevil (5 Stars)

Stan Lee's cameo in the 2003 film "Daredevil" is the opposite of his cameos in the first two Spider-Man films. Instead of rescuing others from danger, his life is saved when the teenage Matt Murdock prevents him walking into the road. It's a medium length cameo. The scene lasts nine seconds, of which his face is visible for four.

While the character Daredevil was created by Stan Lee in 1964, the person we see in the film isn't Stan Lee's Daredevil. What I mean is, in the late 1970's and early 1980's the authors Roger McKenzie and Frank Miller developed Daredevil's character in new ways not envisioned by Stan Lee. They didn't actually deny the canon status of the early comics, but they added new characters into Daredevil's youth that had never been shown before, effectively re-inventing Daredevil. The light-hearted character created by Stan Lee became dark and brooding, with similarities to DC's Batman.

In my posts on Marvel comics, my "Marvel Years" posts, I differentiate between what I call the canon and the post-canon years. This isn't a fixed point where I can say that from a certain month onwards Marvel's comics were no longer canon. Some of the ongoing Marvel series ceased to be canon earlier than others. If I continue with my Marvel Years posts into the 1980's I'll make a decision where to draw the line with Daredevil when I get to it.

The film is usually mentioned in the same breath as "Spider-Man", made in the previous year. It's useful to compare the two.

Peter Parker is a teenager (probably about 18 in the film), whereas Matt Murdock is an adult, presumably in his early 30's.

Peter Parker is awkward in dealing with girls, whereas Matt Murdock is experienced and has slept with many women.

Peter Parker shows no interest in religion, whereas Matt Murdock is a believing Catholic.

As Spider-Man Peter Parker is light-hearted, always cracking jokes, whereas Daredevil remains serious.

Spider-Man is a hero who values human life, whereas Daredevil kills those who deserve to die.

The differences between the characters are most visible in the film's cinematography. "Spider-Man" looks mostly bright and cheerful, whereas "Daredevil" looks dark and gloomy.

There has been a lot of criticism of Ben Affleck's performance in the film's title role. He was even awarded a Golden Raspberry for "Daredevil". That's just ridiculous. Was he really the world's worst actor, or even America's worst actor in 2003? I suspect he has a few enemies on the panel of the nominations board. I can't think of anyone who could have played the part better. It's not just his appearance with the prominent chin dimple, his acting is also appropriate throughout. Imagine the difficulty of the role. He has to play a man who is blind but nevertheless aware of his surroundings due to his other heightened senses. He fully succeeds in portraying this dichotomy.

Jon Favreau is also perfect in the role of Foggy Nelson. He's awkward in the knowledge that as a lawyer his skills only a fraction of his legal partner's. He blusters his way through life, trying to pretend he's more than he is. Jon Favreau returned to play a similar character, Happy Hogan, in the Iron Man films.

I'm also very impressed by the performance of Colin Farrell as the hired assassin Bullseye. His representation of the character seems to come directly from the comics, so realistically that we hardly notice he isn't wearing a costume.

As for Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin, I have mixed feelings. To put it bluntly, he has the wrong skin colour. This was a big problem for me when I first saw the film in the cinema, but after watching the film many times over the years I've come to accept him. He might not have the right skin colour, but in all other respects he personifies the comic book villain.

The film's only big casting mistake was Jennifer Garner as Elektra. Neither her appearance nor her mannerisms are suitable for the role. So many other actresses could have played the role better. I suspect she was chosen because of her popularity in the action series "Alias". Yes, she can fight, with the assistance of invisible wires, but she's missing the sleek sexuality of the comic book character. In her subsequent solo film, "Elektra", she attempts to be sexier, but she still doesn't succeed in capturing the essence of the comic book character. A sequel to "Daredevil" was planned, but it was cancelled after "Elektra" flopped at the box office (a success rate of -0.7). That's unfair.

But all's well that ends well. There's now a Daredevil series on Netflix that has run for three seasons so far. The stories and the action are worth watching, if you haven't seen it already. All I wrote about it so far was to point out a sloppy newspaper shown on camera. Is the film better in that respect? Check out this screenshot:

This page from the New York Post has three articles. They're quite well written, but if you click on the image to enlarge it you'll see that all three articles are identical. That's sloppy. But it doesn't end there. If you look at the last two paragraphs of the first article you'll see that it's written in Latin. That's even sloppier. Didn't the director think anyone would notice?

Success Rate:  + 0.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de