film: review

> DAREDEVIL (2003)
What's good is good, but the bad parts are really bad.

By John C. Lyons
Film Critic

Starring: Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Michael Clarke Duncan, Colin Farrell

Directed by: Mark Steven Johnson

Written by: Bill Everett (II) (characters) Brian Helgeland (screenplay)

Genre: Action/Comic Book

Our Rating: 5.5/10

Like it or not, films based on comic books are all the rage again. I grew up reading Batman and X-Men comics, and therefore have for the most part been impressed with their movie adaptations. While this new wave has been entertaining, and oftentimes impressive up to this point, (even the Blade movies haven't been bad) Daredevil is the first sign of the genre becoming oversaturated once again. In Hollywood, once something works and catches on, everyone wants to jump onboard and cash-in. While I liked many parts of Daredevil, the blind leather-clad man with no fear, overall the film's problems carried the heaviest weight.

I was impressed and a little surprised with how well Ben Affleck portrayed Matt Murdock by day and Daredevil by night. I have read other reviews where he has been harshly criticized, but I disagree. His character is very dark, depressed, and angry and I felt that Affleck conveyed these feelings very well to the audience. This guy has been through a lot of hard times, and you can feel that here. Jennifer Garner, as Elektra, was underused and oftentimes there for just eye-candy, but she did well with what time was given her character. I find myself liking Colin Farrell more and more with each movie I see him in (check out Tigerland and Minority Report) and his personality glows in this role. Michael Clarke Duncan, Joe Pantoliano, and Jon Favreau (co-starring as the bad guy, the reporter, and the clueless pal) were barely given enough screen time for me to say much about their cookie-cutter roles.

Daredevil moved quickly, but perhaps too quickly. I would have liked to see the relationship between Matt and Elektra built a little more, it just fell together way too easily. But little time was given to character development except for the title character. The action scenes were good, but the cinematography was horrendous at times. Most of the action takes place in the rain, or in very dark buildings and alleyways. This is fine, it fits the tone of the film, (which should be stated is very dark, and I am surprised that even after several re-edits it managed to pull off a PG-13) but during these scenes severe close-ups are cut into the action. I don't know if they did this because they didn't have enough regular footage and they wanted to lengthen the fights, but it was a poor choice, you can't see anything, you only hear the moans and grunts and occasionally can make out individual characters. The real trouble with the film lies in three or four scenes that were overflowing with cheese. If these scenes were chopped completely or trimmed this film would have received a much higher mark from me. They are laughable (see below for more on that).

I saw this film at the Tinseltown theaters on upper Peach Street in Erie.

GOOD: Dark characters and the action. Matt Murdock was about as well developed as a comic book character can be.

BAD: The biggest scenes I wish were cut follow…

• Young Matt fighting in the alley - he goes blind and all of the sudden knows kung-fu. They could have easily jumped to Matt all grown up and learning those tricks overtime, and everyone would have accepted that, but played out like this (and seeing little kids pulling off these wire fights anyhow) is a joke.
• Elektra and Matt's fight in the playground - where did that come from?! It seems like it is only in here for laughs, but the exaggerated wire work, the lack of physics, and the 'humor" did not fit the rest of the movie at all.

(03-0224)

related links:

Daredevil - official site