Comments on: Daredevil

By: svava

svava — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:59:58 +0000

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)

By: Loki

Loki — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:40:53 +0000

Eragon is, what, 2/10? 2.5/10? DareDevil is an easy 4/10. That’s way.

By: Terje Phlegmont Mendoza

Terje Phlegmont Mendoza — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:01:32 +0000

Not waaaay, but I might concede that it is below. After all, DD has a minimumof consistency, something Eragon lacks.

By: Loki

Loki — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:42:32 +0000

Seriously?! Eragon is waaay below DD, even the cinematic version. In my opinion, anyway.

By: Terje Phlegmont Mendoza

Terje Phlegmont Mendoza — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:13:31 +0000

“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.

By: Loki

Loki — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:55:29 +0000

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.