Daredevil Review
by Ronald O. Christian (ronc AT europa DOT com)February 19th, 2003
Daredevil (2003)
2 stars of 4
Ok, I have to disagree with (apparently) the majority of reviewers. Daredevil wasn't that bad. Perhaps it's because it's been a long time since I read the graphic novels, or perhaps it's because I haven't seen a single episode of whatever-the-name-is-of Jennifer Garner's tv series, and haven't gotten burned out on her yet, or maybe it's because my expectations for movies in general have sunk to a new low, but I actually enjoyed Daredevil.
Look, I've seen terrible movies. I can rage along with the best of them when the projector sprays stinking diarrhea across the silver screen. I've seen bad. This wasn't that.
At one time I could claim close familiarity with the source material, and whatever age-corroded memories remain match fairly decently with the material on the screen. Oh, as Dawn said, it's a flip-book of the story, but don't movies tend towards that anyway? If it earns franchise status, the details can be filled out on the way. If not, no big deal, we can still look forward to X2.
Daredevil isn't a "blockbuster" or a "surprise hit" or even a "must see", but it doesn't offend, it doesn't corrupt the source material too badly, and it is reasonably entertaining.
I think the point is, it is not necessary for every new comic-book-movie to be Spider-Man (2002). It's just necessary that every new comic book movie NOT be Captain America (1991).
Parenthetically, I'm not fond of Affleck. I felt that many films would
be better were he not in them. But I found I could forget who he was for a couple hours and get immersed in the character, and that's good enough.
Ron
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
