Review: Daredevil (2003)
Marvel's darkest film yet.
★★★
Ben Affleck as Daredevil.
The origin is frequently similar: a horrific experience in childhood, sometimes including the death of parents, leaves the future superhero wounded in some ways yet endowed with otherworldly abilities in others. "Daredevil" was published by Marvel Comics around the same time as Spider-Man, and both were affected by accidents that gave Peter Parker his spidey-sense, blinded Matt Murdock, and made his other four senses hypersensitive. They grew up together in Marvel comics, sometimes sharing the same adventures, but you won't see them get along in the movies because their rights are owned by different studios.
Ben Affleck plays Matt Murdock, also known as, Daredevil, who, prior to being cast as Daredevil, was a fan of the comics but felt that the film didn't live up to nature of the comics, as well as feeling uncomfortable in the suit. Affleck once told Playboy about the 2003 superhero misstep. “It just kills me. I love that story, that character, and the fact that it got f***ed up the way it did stays with me.” Even if the movie did fail or didn't live up to Affleck's expectations, I still think he did the best he could. His performance made like Daredevil a lot. Having read the comics myself, I could tell the man loved the character. But I do agree that the writers could've done better and given him justice.
The story of the film goes as the following: Attorney Matt Murdock (Ben Affleck) is blind, but his other four senses work with incredible precision. By day, Murdock represents the underprivileged. At night, he takes on the persona of Daredevil, a masked vigilante and unwavering defender of justice. When Wilson Fisk (Michael Clarke Duncan) employs Bullseye (Colin Farrell) to assassinate Daredevil, Murdock must rely on his instincts to track down the conspirators against justice, who may include his own lover, Elektra (Jennifer Garner).
It is a good movie. It's a good adapation of the "Daredevil" comics, with a good plot, good casting, good action, a great-looking suit, cinematography, and music. I liked the Daredevil/Matt Murdock stuff, and for the most part, the overall story, but I did feel like killing off Elektra felt rushed and unnecessary. I'll explain why. Elektra Natchios is presented to the audience as someone who is insecure, particularly around Matt, but after their brief "fight," she begins to like him. Elektra was the only woman Matt dated who understood his abilities and weaknesses, as well as his goals. When the two start "dating," their story point feels hurried. Each time they share the screen, they only spend about 5 minutes together before one of them says, "I have to go." When Bullseye uses Daredevil's weapon to kill Elektra's father at the party, she instantly begins firing at him, later fighting and injuring him. However, when she discovered who Daredevil is, she realized it was Bullseye who killed her father and framed Daredevil. When she confronts Bullseye, she dies. Why kill her off in such a rushed matter? I suppose Avi Arad likes killing off love interests, it seems, cause he does the same to Gwen Stacy in "The Amazing Spider-Man 2." Thanks, Avi Arad.
But going back to what I said earlier, the movie is actually rather good. Affleck and Garner search for the believable aspects of their characters, avoid overacting, are given semi-specific dialogue, and appear in a visually appealing film. The majority of the tension occurs between the characters, not the props. It's not the best superhero movie, but I say this is better than some of the MCU films, but that is debatable. Selling each character rights to a different studio was a mistake, Avi Arad. Hence why a lot of these films suffered because each studio, writer, director, and Marvel all couldn't agree on something. I hope you enjoyed your money, Avi Arad.
I'm aware that there is a director's cut of this film. Once I get a chance to watch it, I will update this review with my thoughts on the director's cut.