Okay, so I am a sucker for comic books adapted to film, but this is where I draw the line.
I don’t think there was one thing, really, which appealed to me in this movie, with the possible exceptions of the guy who played the Kingpin and the ending — i.e. how Daredevil decided to deal with him. Also, Joe Pantoliano is never bad, and Colin Farrell actually did quite well. Compared to Garner and Affleck, at least. Because the acting these to displayed was nothing short of abysmal. Sure, the script they had to work with wasn’t much to speak of, and the dialogue was absolutely horrendous, but it has been proved before that good actors can manage to bypass such problems as these, and make awful dialogue sound cool rather than just ridiculous.
Furthermore, the characters were… uninteresting, to say the least. Matthew Murdock was hardly what I’d refer to as sympathetic, and his lack of sympathetic traits were never made up for by anything cool. Elektra… well, let’s just say that I’m not looking forward to watching “Elektra” — which I naturally bought about a year ago, because I’d heard that “Daredevil” was kinda good (although I don’t blame Loki for giving me that impression; after all, he reviewed the Director’s Cut, while this was just a normal edition with a hell of a lot of special features), and because the “Elektra” DVD cost some 50 NOK.
The characters beyond that were very so-and-so. Bullseye was a little cool, but I felt he lacked depth; all we saw of his was psychotic violence, there was no background, no display of motives (other than “the Kingpin paid me to do it” and the general fondness of mayhem), just him showing up, throwing things at people, and flashing his coat — which I assume was supposed to be some kind of getaway technique, but if it was, I never got how he did it. Ben Urich was also not that bad, but I’ve seen it before. He was, to me, at least, basically the same character as the journalist in “Batman” who was chasing said man, although with less comic sidekickness. And speaking of comic sidekicks, the lawyer Murdock worked with… Least. Successful. Comic sidekick. Ever.
But again, Kingpin was also interesting, even though he, too could have benefitted from some more presentation.
When you into this mix throw unconvincing action scenes, a silly backstory (the everpresent chemicals), too much Evanescence, and some fifty tons of cheese, what you get is a nice, clean 2.5/10. Because if “Eragon” is the kind of movie which gives fantasy a bad rumour, this is the kind of crap that gives comics a bad rumour.

Posts
Matt’s “sidekick”, as you call him, is way more fleshed out and thus way more interesting and charming (and funny) in the DC. Or, really, the entire movie is. I quite like the DC.
But then again, I thought the cinematic version wasn’t all that bad either. Mediocre, absolutely, but I’d not go below 4/10, I think.
Elektra (the movie, not the character as such), however, sucks.
24. March 2007 @ 16:55 ( Permalink )
“Matt’s “sidekick”, as you call him, is way more fleshed out and thus way more interesting and charming (and funny) in the DC. Or, really, the entire movie is. I quite like the DC.”
Yeah, I remembered that from your review of it, and that’s one of the reasons I haven’t watched this movie before — I haven’t been able to find the DC. This time I though I did, but alas. Very, very, very much alas.
“But then again, I thought the cinematic version wasn’t all that bad either. Mediocre, absolutely, but I’d not go below 4/10, I think.”
I considered a 3.5 for it at first, but then I remembered that I rated “King Arthur” as a 3.5, and I liked KA more. Or rather, I disliked it less. Then there was “Eragon”, which I disliked about as much as “DD”. So basically everything between 3.5 and 2.0 was considered, but I decided to go for 2.5 because that’s what I seemed to remember giving “Eragon”.
“Elektra (the movie, not the character as such), however, sucks.”
I do not doubt that, although I disagree about the character, based on what little of her I’ve seen.
24. March 2007 @ 17:13 ( Permalink )
Seriously?! Eragon is waaay below DD, even the cinematic version. In my opinion, anyway.
24. March 2007 @ 17:42 ( Permalink )
Not waaaay, but I might concede that it is below. After all, DD has a minimumof consistency, something Eragon lacks.
24. March 2007 @ 18:01 ( Permalink )
Eragon is, what, 2/10? 2.5/10? DareDevil is an easy 4/10. That’s way.
24. March 2007 @ 19:40 ( Permalink )
Slo det deg også hvor mye verre såret til Devil-mannen virker med en gang han får det enn senere? Det virker som jo mer han går rundt med såret desto mindre virkning har det på ham, selv etter fallet fra katedraltårnet… Selv om han med en gang han fikk nevnte sår ble liggende rett ut lenge og knapt kom seg på bena (selvsagt hadde det en funksjon; drapet som skjedde kunne ikke skjedd dersom ikke mannen hadde ligget rett ut, men sett i denne sammenhengen er det nesten smålig at han etterpå klarte å bevege seg en lengre strekning og skade en tidligere bokser…) Ekle, inkonsekvente filmen!
“Bullseye was a little cool, but I felt he lacked depth; all we saw of his was psychotic violence”
Tro manglende dybde er litt poenget med den universelle drapsamannen i tegneserier… (Selv om det er de flerdimensjonale karakterene som er interessante)
24. March 2007 @ 20:59 ( Permalink )