Daredevil - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Daredevil Reviews

Page 1 of 726
Super Reviewer
June 5, 2009
Jennifer Garner has big man-shoulders
Super Reviewer
July 29, 2013
Back before the superhero invasion we were given this semi gritty realistic take to the man in red, and boy did they take it seriously!. Although there had been a few serious Marvel flicks before this, this was the first 'Batman-like' film to come along before the enormous Nolan film 'Batman Begins'.

So what do we have? a blind man in a red leather outfit with little horns, super senses, martial arts and a custom designed billy club. To be honest I've never really been into this character and kinda though of him as a poor mans
Batman. He pretty much does everything Batman does like lurking in dark alleyways and being vigilant from the rooftops in that traditional comic book gothic manner, accept DD is in New York and Batman is in Gotham. Just guys in slick suits with weapons.

The plot includes the characters origins which is fine, of course its all quite predictable and similar to all superhero origins. As a kid 'Matt Murdoch' gets accidentally blinded by some radioactive liquid, his dad raises him whilst he boxes in the ring under 'Kingpin'. His dad refuses to throw a fight so he gets whacked, this causes the young Murdoch to seek revenge and become the 'Daredevil', fighting for justice, forever in darkness, a guardian devil blah blah blah...Must admit I did like the origins though, wasn't overly long and preachy, it was simple and straight forward, looked good too.

To be honest the film isn't too bad it just lacks any real punch. There are of course plenty of money shots with DD leaping through the air in slow motion, plenty of acrobatics, martial arts and dark cityscapes for our hero to pose against, but its all style and no substance really...or should I say action. The opening battle within a seedy bar is by far the best action in the film, the whole sequence feels very 'Blade-like' visually and is good fun, After that everything is pretty anti climatic frankly, even the finale fights aren't that impressive.

Don't get me wrong the film isn't bad, its well put together and looks quite good, its just rather dull for a superhero flick. Was this the first time we had a (sort of) crossover in a superhero flick? I think it might have been. The intro of female hero 'Elektra' is a nice add on in the film which does set up the spin-off nicely and future adventures, shame she is kinda useless here though. The bad guys are also kinda unadventurous here too, 'Bullseye' is performed amusingly at times by Colin Farrell but the character just seemed average. Apart from hurling paperclips at everyone with his deadly aim he has nothing else to offer...accept the obligatory martial arts. I just felt DD could beat this guy easily with all his super senses, body padded suit and amazing fighting skills.

Clarke as Kingpin felt underused really, all he does is stand around and pose with his cane. His finale fight against DD is quite good but over too quickly, although I guess that is more realistic seeing as he's pretty heavy and slow. Not much of a fight for DD really. As for the Daredevil himself...well the character is kind of a second rate hero really, in my opinion, he's not up there with the main superstar heroes. In that sense Affleck fit the role perfectly because at the time he was a second rate action hero (still is). He doesn't quite have the looks, or the physique, or the voice, or the hair, or the jawline, he's a poor mans action hero, harsh but true.

Funny to see a young Jon Favreau here, who'd have thought he would be so important in the future of comic book adaptations eh.

I don't really recall the original theatrical version but this director's cut does feel much better, tighter, better plotting. I did enjoy re watching this and the added violence does indeed help. The film was never really gritty and dark but it has its moments, the DC does enhance that in places with a bit of blood, swearing and less romance...I think. But this version definitely comes across much better as I'm sure this film was much crapper when I saw it in the cinema.

At the time of release this was probably one of the best Marvel flicks alongside 'Blade' and 'Blade II'. Believe it or not it was the darkest superhero flick seen ('Blade' aside as that's more horror) as 'Spider-Man' was very childish and 'X-Men' was clearly tamed for the kids. It still does hold up quite well despite cheesy billy club twirling moments, the iffy looking outfit, the hammy dialog with Elektra and typical dark goth shots on rooftops.

With all those super senses I feel this guy should be a member of the X-Men really. And how exactly does getting splashed with radioactive goo in your eyes enable you to leap from the tops of skyscrapers and from rooftop to rooftop as if you can fly?!. It enhanced his senses so I don't get that connection but never mind.
Super Reviewer
July 22, 2007
Altho referred to by some kinder folks as a poor man's Spider-Man, its clearer to say that ol' DD was originally intended as a direct reflection of Batman ... and has never left that admittedly very large shadow. The film tries, as the magazines did, but no. I added a star for the attempt.
Super Reviewer
June 12, 2006
One of Marvel's earlier and much more clumsy attempts of establishing their super heroes in the movie world. There are some great ideas in this, particularly the visualization of Daredevil's senses. The soundtrack is pretty cool too. Things already start to get messy with the casting. Affleck does not work as Murdock and Farrell is hopelessly overacting as opponent Bullseye. Some of the action scenes are good, others are so clearly computer generated that they take some of the illusion away. Jon Favreau brings some direly needed humor into the film that is otherwise taking itself way too seriously. So, they wanted to reboot this one, and they will, the only way from here would be up. Make it so.
Super Reviewer
May 30, 2011
Given the source material, I'm always surprised when these movies don't turn out good. This rendition of Daredevil is worthless. It feels less like a superhero movie, and more like a backdrop for the intolerable Nu-metal that was wiping it's rectum all over the music industry at the time. This was poorly written, executed, and stands as an embarrassing example of the characters involved. Avoid this garbage at all costs.
LorenzoVonMatterhorn
Super Reviewer
½ May 14, 2012
"When justice is blind, it knows no fear."

A man blinded by toxic waste which also enhanced his remaining senses fights crime as an acrobatic martial arts superhero.

REVIEW
Ben Affleck plays Matt Murdock, a struggling blind lawyer living and working around the dangerous streets of Hells Kitchen. On first appearances you'd be forgiven for thinking that he's like most other lawyers around today. For starters he's extremely committed to his job. He's also a man that takes the loss of a court case to heart. However, the similarities stop there. Why? Matt Murdock is Daredevil - The Man Without Fear, a powerful, masked vigilante that stalks the guilty and enacts his own form of justice. As a child he is accidentally blinded by toxic waste. To compensate for the loss of sight, he relies on his other four senses. His hearing becomes as sensitive as radar. He can form mental images from sound, which on film come out in a blue tint.

The comic book probably deserves a better adaptation than this. Despite a few great action sequences, the movie is fairly dull and should leave many viewers wanting something more, or something different all together. The film seems to lack any real direction and many holes exist in the plot, a problem which seems to plague these sorts of action features. The romance feels forced and is poorly paced, making all the time between action set pieces drag to an almost unbearable extent. Many other elements seem too contrived, too convenient, or too poorly explained. The lack of any real character development is my greatest issue. The film just has no heart.
Marc L.
Super Reviewer
January 24, 2011
This is my 2nd favorite comic book movie, mainly because I can't find anything bad to say about it. I don't care what other people say about it, it rocks.

First, let's begin with the cast. I loved Ben Affleck's subtleness as Matt Murdock, and you can tell he's had experience with similar roles. He even looks a lot like Murdock. Jennifer Garner did a good job too. Not amazing, but good. I'm guessing she did so well because of the chemistry that Affleck and Garner already had for each other, which was transferred when they played DD and Elecktra.

Jennifer Garner was nothing like comic book Elecktra, but she was alright. She showed a lot of emotion, but not too much. If she wasn't called "Elecktra" then I would have praised her more. She was about solid.

And of course, there was Michael Clarke Duncan, playing one of the best villain preformances I've ever seen. What makes him so good is that he doesn't have to confront the hero to make his life miserable, he's just there, and although he doesn't fight him head on until the end, he's as much a danger to Daredevil as any two of his other villain's combined.

The cast and acting wasn't the only top notch thing about the movie. The fight sequences make Lord of the Rings look like Batman and Robin. They are perfected to the point it looks like a synchrinzed dance, only hardcore. This was especially true in the confronation with Daredevil and Bullseye in the church, which happens to be one of my favorite fight scenes. It was actually taken from one of the scenes in the comic book!

That's not to say that the movie doesn't have it's emotional moments. The relationship between Murdock and Nachios is what keep's the movie together. It's a very complicated but intense relationship, and when Elecktra dies at the end, we feel Daredevil's loss.

The directing was spectacular. The lines were given perfectly and every scene was at least remotley interesting. Mark Steven Johnson should be proud of himself.

Although we don;t often, if ever, here the name "Daredevil" with titles like "Batman Begins", "Spider-Man" or "X-Men", we really should. Hands down, the greatest movie I've ever seen.
DreamExtractor
Super Reviewer
½ June 11, 2011
I am surprised by the low reviews, it actually was an okay superhero film. The plot was a tale of revenge, which i actually really got into and the start of the movie makes it feel like this will be an intense story, and sure enough, it was pretty good. Ben Afflek and Jennifer Garner suck, they did not catch my attention at all and I pityed the fools who casted them. The effects are cool and I really loved Bullseye and how they kept to Daredevils look and powers very well. I have to say the ending was pretty stupid, it really had no point and was a dissappointment. Overall just an okay superhero film, one ill watch if on TV.
TheGame90
Super Reviewer
August 16, 2011
The movie itself wasn't a slobberknocker...But I knew nothing of daredevil before I saw it...Robin told me he was blind...but that's about it (I didn't even think it was true...what does he know). But I thought his story was a little interesting. So it was okay...Nothing more.
Super Reviewer
January 22, 2011
Ben Affleck delivers as the blind superhero, but the director made a fatal mistake not releasing the R-rated directors cut in theaters, but instead we got a hard PG-13. Kudos to Colin for delivering his Bullsye performance straight from the comics.
Super Reviewer
½ July 31, 2011
Ben Affleck you such. Cheesy.
Super Reviewer
July 20, 2011
It's a rocky ride from the start when an overuse of monotone voice over is used to narrate DD's contrive "dark childhood" but as the film carries on things just start bordering on "so bad it's good".

I mean, when he first meets Elektra? Or just introducing Bullseye and Fisk? Freakin' hilarious. Such over-the-top-cartoonesque nonsense is rarely achieved on the big screen with so little shame.

Unfortunately for us, it slowly rocks back and fourth between that and a certain degree of seriousness that warrants some credibility from Murdocks time spent on the case.

In the end, it's a series of poor decisions that ultimately bring this film down to an all-time low. Bad music, pandering dialogue, ridiculously staged direction etc. All really disappointing, what with there being so much to play with in complex morality from the whole "lawyer" premise.
cancercapricorn2002
Super Reviewer
June 4, 2011
Daredevil has to be one of my favourite comic book characters so I was very disappointed by how tame the theatrical version of film that was 1st released and its attempt to pander to small children in the audience. It was as if the producers didn't understand that 'Daredevil' could not have the broad audience age range that 'Spider-Man' enjoys since it is a much darker story. So, I was delighted to get the director's cut DVD produced in a manner that was exactly how 'Daredevil' should be and left me, and I presume many others, feeling this version should have been the only version.

'Daredevil' follows the story of Matt Murdock, who when dosed by hazardous chemicals at the age of twelve, is left blinded. But in return for losing his sight, his other four senses are radically enhanced to the point where his hearing provides him with sonar-like vision. By day, Murdock goes on to become a lawyer who will only defend those who he believes are innocent. But by night, he assumes his alter-ego Daredevil to prowl the streets of New York, hunting for criminals who have evaded justice. But with the city under the grip of criminal crime lord Kingpin, it's no easy task for the Man Without Fear.

Ben Affleck might be a rather bland actor in his other roles but in this film he was excellent in bringing the reserved, brooding Murdock to life, depicting the burden carried by the character. It was also a nice touch in the director's cut to see more of Jon Favreau's Foggy Nelson, Matt's colleague and only real friend, and establish more of a rapport between the two men. Jennifer Garner made a good Elektra but it made for a better film to see a few of her scenes cut in the DC version in order to spend more time developing Matt. Michael Clarke Duncan, as the Kingpin, and Colin Farrell, as Bullseye, both filled roles of psychotic villains well although Duncan's character could have had a few more scenes to properly explore why he was so feared.

The director's cut also depicted the character more accurately as a man deeply troubled by his past, haunted by his abilities (he doesn't have Superman strength, he can be hurt and does tire, but he does have the hearing that captures every cry for help and every scream of victims' pain) and very alone in the world. It also shows there is this slightly manic side to Murdock when he is determined, which not only makes him very dangerous but also isolates him from others. Further more, the director's cut both offers up superior fight scenes (finally, it's easy to see why criminals fear Daredevil) and explores on a deeper level the connection between Matt and Elecktra and Matt and his friend Foggy.

I'd recommend the theatrical version to comic book fans wishing to introduce the character to the under twelves but everyone else should stick with the first-rate director's cut, which quite simply is the Marvel version of 'Batman Begins'. It's not afraid to explore the darker side to Daredevil or what he does.
Movie Monster
Super Reviewer
½ March 29, 2011
Ughhh, so dissapointing. This is a movie that has so much potential but then ends up falling flat. First off, Ben Affleck. I didn't buy him as the role of Matt Murdock. And I thought the film got cornier as it progressed.

"Daredevil" gets props for being gritty and ominous. The Braille opening credits were pretty cool and then we cut to a computer-generated rat roaming through a spooky, nighttime New York City. This is when the movie jumped the shark for me. A computer-generated rat??? Ooooh, so scary! Then it picks up again and we see Matt Murdock bleeding of his wounds on top of a church. Okay, gritty again. We then get to see Matt's emotional backstory for the next thirty minutes of the movie. I thought the backstory was too long because by the time it ended, there was like an hour left in the film. "Daredevil" moves at a dissapointing and odd pace.

So Matt Murdock gets toxic chemicals in his eyes, goes blind, develops a radar sense, and dons a red suit and mask and dubs himself as Daredevil: the man without fear. Okay, thats cool. We then see Spider-Man villain, The Kingpin, being played by Michael Clarke Duncan who wastes his talent with this role. We are then introduced the hitman known as Bullseye who is played by the pestering Colin Farrel.

Matt Murdock meets Elecktra Natchios (Say "Natchios" 10x fast!), falls in love with her, gets freaky with her, and then Elecktra's father passes. She then avenges his death by becoming a superheroine who has a pair of sais as a weapon.

Notice that I just summarized the entire movie for you? Why? Because this movie is so dumb that you'll just feel weird when you view it and ask yourself, "Why did I just watch that?". The acting isn't the best, the dialogue is so cheesy, the use CGI was odd, jumped the shark many times, etc. "Daredevil" adds nothing new to the superhero genre. The direction was not amazing as well. Chris Nolan, the Wachowski Brothers, Zack Snyder, John Woo, and even Francis Ford Coppola could've made a better "Daredevil" movie.

Its a hit-and-miss film but its mostly a miss. I need to watch the Director's Cut version someday because I've heard its quite an improvement over this.

A ho-hum superhero film. I have high hopes for the upcoming sequel/reboot.
Super Reviewer
November 18, 2009
I will at least say that the director's cut makes this a little bit better, especially since Matt Murdock is actually working on a court case instead of just sulking in his office with no purpose. It also contains blind-man driving, something so outrageous it needs to be seen. This tries, but fails miserably, to bring Frank Miller's Daredevil run to the screen. It's redeeming qualities were Colin Farrell's tour de force performance as Bullseye and an almost equal performance by Michael Clarke Duncan as the large and in charge Kingpin. Now since Daredevil is one of my favorite superheroes of all time, I had some standards for this. However, I feel like this movie is generally seen for what it is, Ben Affleck having a jolly old time wearing sunglasses and playing on jungle gyms with Elektra. There's a really funny attempt at a gritty style here, but it just ends up looking like a Limp Bizkit music video.
jamers2011
Super Reviewer
August 5, 2010
I personally do not think this film is as bad as it is said to be. It's not the best superhero movie, but it's enjoyable and entertaining.
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
½ July 15, 2010
This is one of the worst superhero films out there. A great example of how not to cast Ben Afleck in a superhero film. What do you get when this happens you get a tired, boring action film that tries too hard to be a credible and serious film. I sometimes support the idea of a remake or reboot of a series, and in the case of Daredevil, they truly need to make a fresh film with this superhero. Most of the cast, I found to be be miscast, including Colin Farrell in the role of bullseye, for me he's a so-so actor talented but can do so much more with his abilities as an actor. The rest of the film was too cartoonish and silly almost for my taste. A real shame, cause it did have some potential, Ben Affleck should just do films with Kevin Smith as he did with Mallrats and so forth, he wasn't as bad as when he tried to attempt a serious role such as Daredevil and Pearl Harbor, both films suck.
Super Reviewer
½ July 28, 2010
i liked this. not the best comic book movie but not the worse. B
ScoopOnline
Super Reviewer
December 13, 2009
One of the greatest Marvel comics brought up to life. I have always my doubts with Marvel comics filmed, it is just sometimes some comics are not supposed to be filmed so I am always skeptical and it pays off sometimes and it is sometimes nice to think "oh wow I was wrong I should give Movies based upon Comics" a chance. It just takes me a tiny bit time and sometimes my friends have to push me to watch a Movie which I think it might be "yawny" The other reason why I actually watched the Movie was Joe Pantoliano. He might be not a "super mega star" but he does his job in side roles very great.
Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner were absolute Brilliant in this Movie.
Page 1 of 726