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.

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.

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!

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!!!