Daredevil - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Daredevil Reviews

Page 1 of 727
July 26, 2016
Is it great? No! But it's a fun movie. You just have to adjust the contrast of your tv whenever it gets too dark.
½ July 26, 2016
The Charlie Cox tv show is better than this piece of crap??.
½ July 25, 2016
OK, I'm going to be honest, I watched the director's cut rather than the PG-13 theatrical cut and the rumours were true. It was good. We get to see more action and more Matt Murdock doing his job as lawyer and less romantic film with action elements. Sure Ben Affleck isn't exactly fitting for the role when compared with Charlie Cox in the Netflix series, but one of the other good things from this film are the effects (Matt's "vision"). While it's not one of the best Marvel films out there, it's not one of the worst either. Michael Clarke Duncan's performance as Wilson Fisk still remains questionable though especially when compared with the Vincent D'Onofrio incarnation.
July 9, 2016
Stylistically great, but the Netflix TV series is definitely the superior entity to this, and direct comparisons between them make it easy to understand why. While the movie's principal actors put in individually good performances, the text ties things together in a haphazard fashion that serves to alienate rather than sympathise with the characters. Murdock seems well off despite not being able to win cases against a corrupt system, and his plight doesn't seem as desperate as it could be. Garner is wasted in the role as she's dispensed with before she can be effective. Farrell plays Bullseye's insanity well but it seems out of balance with the rest of the text. All in all, fairly messy.
½ July 5, 2016
I don't know what the filmmakers were thinking during the filming/editing of this movie. Daredevil to me is more of a guilty pleasure, filled with hilarious, cheesy action scenes and characters that are so incredibly corny I couldn't stare at the screen without laughing. Definitely not your typical high end Marvel movie, although there were a couple laughs throughout.
July 4, 2016
Superheroes can be like your favourite band. When not portrayed correctly, the more hardcore fans can quickly become dismissive. A movie version of the cult classic episode of Daredevil (comic issue #181 by the legendary Frank Miller) was always going to be tough to live up to. I was expecting to be disappointed by Kingpin, and Bullseye, and especially Elektra, but surprisingly, these all held up. However, Affleck is the weakest link here, and as the main character, it's a pretty important link. As a fan, I'm glad it was made and I actually own the DVD (the extras alone are worth the purchase), but I nearly think Jim Carrey would have been more believable in the role. It just didn't feel like the team on this movie got to the essence of the character. I would not have kept buying the comic if the character was as one sided as the movie portrayal, and the Sai impalement scene (a historically devastating scene in comic history) does not carry the impact that it should, as the relationship between Elektra and DD was not built. It's hard to talk Daredevil without talking Spiderman, the more well known red crusader from the Marvel brand, and to be fair, there are some turkey Spider Man movies out there too. So the bottom line is, while it didn't live up to expectations, bear in mind this was the first decent shot somebody took at a very complicated character. Perhaps the next will be better?
Super Reviewer
½ June 20, 2016
Notorious as one of the worst comic book films of the last 20 years and this film does not disappoint in living up to that reputation. Colin Farrell as Bullseye is just awful. The visuals are entertaining and it was an interesting (and smart) turn to change the Kingpin to a black actor, played by Michael Clarke Duncan who is probably the best part of the film. Elektra in this film is also pretty terrible. I'd avoid this one but if you just HAVE to watch it, pick up the Director's Cut. It doesn't make the movie amazing, but it is better than the theatrical cut.
June 16, 2016
Daredevil decent and entertaining, but it is not enough to make the film great.
June 12, 2016
Not all that great. Okay at the time, but remakes have made this movie forgettable in recent years. Affleck and Garner make for a nice pair. Michael Clarke Duncan as kingpin--not the best decision.
½ June 8, 2016
before ben affleck was batman he was daredevil. hard to watch after netflix show was awesome
½ June 4, 2016
Daredevil makes you wish you were blind so you couldn't watch this film. Terrible on every level. Daredevil is a mix between Batman and Spider-Man. Fight choreography is a mess. Villains suck, just like everything else.
½ June 1, 2016
It was ok. Colin Farrell's over the top cockiness was very humorous at times. The action was little slow.
May 27, 2016
I like Marvel movies...but let's face it, I can't stand Ben Affleck and his terrible acting...Jennifer Garners neither...a pretty face and fake green eyes won't do it, girl. The score is tastefully terrible too...my god, it's like the director was an 80s fan...the actual tv series is superior in every single aspect.
½ May 14, 2016
The theatrical film is disappointing, however, the R-rated version is a major improvement, featuring better characterizations, a compelling court case plot-line and grislier action sequences.
½ May 11, 2016
Fuck Ben Affleck hes a terrible actor and this is such a shit movie why was it made it makes me wanna kms so badly
Super Reviewer
½ May 10, 2016
There are good comicbook movies and there are bad comicbook movies. This movie definitely has its place among the worst of the worst. There are multiple things to hate about this movie, and not so many things to like. You can say that the movie is saved somehow by Colin Farrell's somewhat good performance, but everyone else in the movie looks like they are suffering from some decease. Ben Affleck looks like he doesn't want to be there and Jennifer Garner is totally miscast as Elektra. The movie has no charisma and the story is really weak in many different ways. You can't really see where the original script got lost in horrible storytelling or if the script was just bad from the very first draft. The action in the movie fails on many different levels, because you never really knows what's going on with the characters in the scenes. This movie is a failure on many different levels!
½ May 7, 2016
Came out at a sad time for comic movies and just made things worse.
April 30, 2016
Eck!!! That is all I can say for this version of Daredevil.
I thank God that Marvel Movies have progressed since this horror of a movie came out.
Super Reviewer
April 20, 2016
Jennifer Garner has big man-shoulders
April 20, 2016
Oh my gosh! This move is the bomb! I know every word... and every fight scene... this film should have been more popular. All I have to say is four words... Ben Affleck in leather.

UPDATE: After seeing 'Batman v Superman' I think critics need to revisit 'Daredevil.' This film did not get a fair shake the first time around, granted its not on the level of 'Marvel's Avengers.' However, this was merely 2003. Prior to this film there had only been 4 real, serious attempts to bring the Comic Book Genre to film, the Reeves Superman films, Batman - Batman & Robin, X-Men, and Sam Rami's Spider-Man. This is a great Comic Hero film! Affleck and Garner are absolute superstars as Matt Murdock/Daredevil and Elecktra Notchious. Farrell as Bullseye and the late Michael Clark Duncan as Kingpin, equal the array of talent on the dark side of this filmed world.
The conflicts are emotional which makes the action make since and gives it meaning. The motives are also backed by a great story. Granted, the director's cut is the best version; the film is generally written and directed well. This film deserves some justice, as its gritty and emotionally dark. Without this film, in my opinion, Nolan would have never been able to touch 'The Dark Knight' trilogy as this is the predecessor to that brilliant trilogy in the genre.
Page 1 of 727