Daredevil - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Daredevil Reviews

Page 1 of 727
January 22, 2017
Back in the early days of the rising popularity of the superhero movie, long before cinematic universes and multi-film crossovers, there were a handful of films that brought these comic book characters to the big screen. From Spider-Man (2002) to X-Men (2000) to The Punisher (2004), one of these films was none other than Daredevil (2003). For many years, I had seen these films, even going so far as having seen Hulk (2003). The one I had not seen was Daredevil, mostly because I had heard it was so bad. I had seen Hulk, so I knew how bad they could be.

Now that a Director's Cut of Daredevil was available, I heard it improved on the original and decided to just skip the original cut entirely. With no understanding of what the film used to be, I can say that the Director's Cut isn't completely terrible. Sure, some of the lines are goofy, and the actors chosen for the roles might not have been the best choices, but it's a solid film. I did find it interesting how many actors who have had better success with directing were present in this film. From Ben Affleck (The Town (2010) and Argo (2012)) to Jon Favreau (Iron Man (2008) and The Jungle Book (2016)), and even a cameo appearance by Kevin Smith (Clerks (1994) and Chasing Amy (1997)), these actors definitely work better behind the camera.

Even with the Director's Cut being a supposed improvement on the film, there still seemed to be too many sub-plots all running at once, each one of which I felt didn't get nearly enough screen time to fully explore what was happening. Another problem with this film is that it has not aged well. From the soundtrack being clearly inspired by the music of the time, to the CGI showing the limitations of the computers at the time, all these things just scream "2003" to me.

Probably not as bad as it could have been, I give Daredevil (Director's Cut) 3.0 stars out of 5.
January 18, 2017
3 Stars to the Theatrical cut. The Director's cut 4 Stars.
½ January 17, 2017
Could have been much better, as the current TV series proved to be way superior than this Faux Pas of a superhero movie
December 22, 2016
commercial film where the actors seem drones to wand without putting passion, dispelling the representation where one could expect much more
December 15, 2016
The Charlie Cox tv show is better than this piece of crap??.
December 5, 2016
Complete and utter disappointment
December 1, 2016
So, the extended edition of Daredevil? Any better?

My answer to that would actually be "yes"

While the original Theatrical cut - remember, from back before the Marvel Cinematic Universe was a thing - failed to convince (who thought the playground fight between Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck was a good idea?), I actually felt that the longer running time of this version actually helps quite a bit, giving the movie more time to breathe (as it were).

It's also a substantially more violent film than I remember, and also has a previously-completely-excised sub-plot concerning Matt Murdock's daytime profession (lawyer) that helps to build up the threat behind the Kingpin somewhat.

Still not as good as the Netflix TV show, though!

(oh, and this is film which caused Ben Affleck to say in 2006 that he had "inoculated myself from ever playing anothe superhero. *Cough* Batfleck anyone? *cough*)



Early(ish) Superhero movie, released in the wake of Spiderman. Unlike Tobey Maguire, however, Ben Affleck fails to convince in the central role of Daredevil/Matt Murdock: the vigilante by night, blind lawyer by day central character.

Colin Farrell also goes completely OTT as Bullseye, while Jennifer Garner provides the love interest/sub-plot as Elektra - the only character to get a spin-off movie of their own.
November 26, 2016
Daredevil wasn't one of my favorite comic book characters from the Marvel line and also the movie got mixed reviews so I wasn't interested in seeing it. I've been watching the TV version on Netflix so I thought I watch the movie as a point of comparison. I was actually pleasantly surprised because I thought it was pretty good but then I saw the director's cut which wasn't shown in the theaters. Unlike the TV version it's a sexier and highly stylized. The Netflix version is harsher, grittier and has a more realistic feel. The story is pretty much the same with some differences. Ben Affleck plays the title role and I thought he was pretty good in it. Dark and brooding seems to fit his persona. I actually like this better than the version that's being shown on Netflix.
November 22, 2016
Great line of actors, awesome movie.
November 7, 2016
Director's Cut: It's not something that I would rewatch over and over again, but I have to say the first half of the film is pretty damn solid. I liked its darker tone, I liked its style, and I was actually interested in what was going on. The acting is also pretty damn solid and Affleck and Garner are adorable together. But then, the second half kicked in and everything became too dopey. Some of the scenes were too cartoonish and the visual effects were below-average. I also really hated the on-the-nose rock soundtrack that completely took me out of the story. It's not an awful film and I must say it has its moments. In the end, "Daredevil" is a decent, if not derivative, and sporadically entertaining superhero film that adds nothing new to the genre.
October 12, 2016
Daredevil bored me to death. Now Matt Murdock is my favourite Marvel character, but Ben Affleck didn't do well here. Thankfully he is now Batman and the character of Daredevil now has a kick-ass Netflix series.
September 30, 2016
recommended zero disgust
½ September 24, 2016
I actually love this movie, yes the tone change maybe jarring, but it brought Daredevil to life as I saw him in the comics. It's failing was trying to make it like Batman, when Daredevils strengths should be to make it different.
August 23, 2016
Okay superhero movie, at best. The score and dialogue are pretty unintelligent, but the added imparity of blindness to the protagonist adds for at least a little something extra.
½ August 13, 2016
A bland, post-matrix-cgi stuntdoubles and batflecks first batman impresion. Yeah, this movie is pretty bad. I won't lie: the first 15 minutes were actually fine. But the rest is bad: from overtop acting to bad cgi. Don't watch this movie. Please, thank you
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 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?
Page 1 of 727