Movie Defense Force: Daredevil

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Zachary Amaranth:

Baldry:

Oh good I'm not the only one who noticed Ben Affleck only plays Ben Affleck, in fairness he is the best at being Ben Affleck.
Also if they wanted to achieve that they should've shown me the film the were copying so I at least got the reference and enjoyed a better film for a bit.

I normally like Ben Affleck as Ben Affleck. Which is why he's so bad for a superhero movie. Or any specific character that's not Ben Affleck. He's enjoyable, but I think he'd be a terrible James Bond, a terrible Abe Lincoln, etc. Why? Because he's Ben Affleck. That's who he is and what he does.

Showing The Crow instead of Daredevil would have been a plus. The movie's not flawless, but it is much more worth it. And a better comic book adaptation, I might add.

Everyone keeps saying he's a good actor but since he's only ever played Ben Affleck I don't see it. Then again maybe I haven't watched enough Ben Affleck films. I just hope he can stop playing Ben Affleck long enough to pull off Batman well enough.
Well DD is a god awful adaptation as well as a terrible film.

People don't like the Daredevil movie because it spawned the Electra movie. I actually liked the Daredevil movie and I didn't see the director's cut.

RJ Dalton:

Drake666:
Yeah, that was a really REALLY weird part in the movie... worst, at that moment, she thinks he's a blind man... who the heck goes around beating blind person to show they're "capable of kicking asses" ? :|

In Hollywood terminology, "strong woman" is synonymous with "borderline psychopath."

That explains a lot of movies/games :|

Lara Croft, Hanna (ok, that's the point), Jane (Johnny Mnemonic), Sarah Conner!
Ripley wants to nuke everything because she's crazy! :P

... Ok, I think I need more caffeine :)

1:50 Something I really liked form this film. Micheal Clarke Duncan's performance. 3:22 Indeed. I liked his preformance as Daredevil. Maybe it was how it was shot,I don't know.3:36 I'm certainly curious. I also like Colin Farrel as Bullseye,and that hammy performance of his. XD

shephardjhon:
I will say sorry in advance if the things I said were not true.

You should watch the movie then. 'Willingly' isn't exactly the word I'd use to describe why Max took the drug.

Warachia:
That movie is the video game in name only, the characters are their characters in name only, on its own merits I don't think it's too bad, but it certainly has nothing to do with the game.

Besides I don't know what's the problem people have with movies not matching the game's plot completely. MP the game's plot is completely tailored for needs of a game: Tons of thugs as ammo fodder, dozens of characters that just appear and then disappear (bosses, 'plot twists') - works fine for the game, but a movie with such a plot would look like some of the worse Uwe Boll's creations.

I'm a fan of the first two MP games (didn't play the 3rd one). At one point I played the first MP game several times a day, when it was the only CD my CD-ROM could read. I tried to beat the New York Minute. What I mean is that I am a fan and I do think the movie makes uses the material very well. I can't imagine a MP movie being MUCH better.

Now, Hitman, for example, that could make a much better movie, but Max Payne, not really.

Sgt. Sykes:

Warachia:
That movie is the video game in name only, the characters are their characters in name only, on its own merits I don't think it's too bad, but it certainly has nothing to do with the game.

I don't know what's the problem people have with movies not matching the game's plot completely. MP the game's plot is completely tailored for needs of a game: Tons of thugs as ammo fodder, dozens of characters that just appear and then disappear (bosses, 'plot twists') - works fine for the game, but a movie with such a plot would look like some of the worse Uwe Boll's creations.

I'm a fan of the first two MP games (didn't play the 3rd one). At one point I played the first MP game several times a day, when it was the only CD my CD-ROM could read. I tried to beat the New York Minute. What I mean is that I am a fan and I do think the movie makes uses the material very well. I can't imagine a MP movie being MUCH better.

Now, Hitman, for example, that could make a much better movie, but Max Payne, not really.

It might just have been a while since I've played the games, but I definitely don't remember any black winged hallucinogenic skinny Valkyries, or the plot being based entirely around a drug that eventually makes you calm and crazy. This isn't about a movie not matching the games plot, this is about the movie being completely different.
What I find really baffling was the almost complete lack of bullet time in the movie (there might have been some, if there was I don't remember it).

You could certainly have used the resources a lot better, and I think that's what disappointed me the most, and got me to decide it was Max Payne in name only, it had enough shootouts, characters and twists that they just had to pick their favourites of the bunch, instead of going with completely new ones.

Sgt. Sykes:

shephardjhon:
I will say sorry in advance if the things I said were not true.

You should watch the movie then. 'Willingly' isn't exactly the word I'd use to describe why Max took the drug.

Warachia:
That movie is the video game in name only, the characters are their characters in name only, on its own merits I don't think it's too bad, but it certainly has nothing to do with the game.

Besides I don't know what's the problem people have with movies not matching the game's plot completely. MP the game's plot is completely tailored for needs of a game: Tons of thugs as ammo fodder, dozens of characters that just appear and then disappear (bosses, 'plot twists') - works fine for the game, but a movie with such a plot would look like some of the worse Uwe Boll's creations.

I'm a fan of the first two MP games (didn't play the 3rd one). At one point I played the first MP game several times a day, when it was the only CD my CD-ROM could read. I tried to beat the New York Minute. What I mean is that I am a fan and I do think the movie makes uses the material very well. I can't imagine a MP movie being MUCH better.

Now, Hitman, for example, that could make a much better movie, but Max Payne, not really.

I might just see Max Payne then.
It's interesting that you bring up Hitman because this is something where following the plot of the game would not make sense at all and I actually liked the movie. The best part was that it focused on the guys trying to catch 47 and not 47 himself. It had missed opportunities because it showed action instead of stealth, like the arms dealer being shot instead of having his roof dropped on him after 47 excuses himself to go to the bathroom. It could also make for a good slasher type movie with 47 as the monster and the "protagonists" being some rich teenagers with several guards and servants who manage to piss off some mob boss who puts a hit on them.

Baldry:

Everyone keeps saying he's a good actor but since he's only ever played Ben Affleck I don't see it. Then again maybe I haven't watched enough Ben Affleck films. I just hope he can stop playing Ben Affleck long enough to pull off Batman well enough.
Well DD is a god awful adaptation as well as a terrible film.

Yeah, the "acting" chops of someone who doesn't really ever change character are kind of...Dubious.

I loved the Daredevil movie, and still do. I would't go out of my way to watch it again as I saw it countless times after getting the Director's Cut DVD but I wouldn't with any supposedly good film from the same year either.

If you haven't seen it; do. But make sure it isn't the version that was cut to make it more "appealing". I think Affleck will pull off a good alternative to Batman, mainly because I think he will make Bruce Wayne far more engaging.

I don't even like Batman, so I don't care. I saw Daredevil too and I can't say I was impressed. Perhaps superhero movies are just inherently bad.

I didn't like Daredevil as a movie, i felt it was too hamfisted, but then again i've never been especially fond of comic books. I didn't like Captain America, i didn't like Iron Man 2, and i didn't like Batman Begins or Dark Knight Rises.

But you know what? With a couple of ales and some popcorn and a quick finger to mute the music that plays during some of Elektra's scenes, Daredevil isn't anywhere near as bad as Green Lantern, Fantastic Four or some of Power Ranger's low points. Plus the Rifftrax for Daredevil is one of my favorites, and i agree, i kind of did like Michael Clark Duncan as the Kingpin.

you're wrong Jim... Daredevil was awful.

I can't believe I didn't know about this show till now, an anti-critic if you will is sorely need and I can't wait to see more. Any chance the Matrix squeals will get defended?

Nope.

This is still and always was, a terrible movie.
The only thing I agree with is that Michael Clarke Duncan was an awesome King Pin... which still doesn't save this movie.

The action scenes are contrived and poorly executed. Whilst Affleck is a decent actor he doesn't fit the role at all. The styling they've given him in his lawyer persona is unfitting.
Colin Farrell plays Bullseye too over the top to fit in with the rest of the movie. (and just on the side, just because one actor manages to pull off something which isn't "normal" for the role (Bane) doesn't automatically make another actors attempt good - ie. Just because it worked with Bane means it must be OK for Bullseye. Nied.) The costumes are all pretty damn weak. The movie drags on in places to the point of despair. The movie overall is totally inconsistent from the pacing, visual style to the story and acting.
The story is extremely boring and again poorly executed. The CG is just awful. Even for the time.
Think that's about it.

"Colleen Farrell"? Who's that? Did Colin Farrell undergo gender reassignment surgery recently?

Overall the movie isn't bad. The only complaint I have about it is that it moves way to fast. A typical problem in Hollywood movies. They try and squeeze too much into a hour and a half movie.

The movie had *terrible* use of CGI, Electra had hilariously bad motivations and the ending was really unclimactic.

But none of these problems are Ben's fault. So... yeah. Right on.

I saw a friend of mine the other day and said.
"Did you hear that Ben Affleck is going to be the new batman?"
(This was before I had heard all the rage on the internet)
And he said
"Yeah, it's going to suck, he ruined Daredevil"
Which puzzled me because I remembered Daredevil being below average, but watchable and that Ben Affleck's performance was one of the better parts of that show (If anything Jennifer Garner was the worst part of Daredevil)

I respond with
"Well he's a good actor, remember Argo?"
And he said... I kid you not
"He sucked in Argo"

The internet is a weird place
Will he suck as batman? I don't know, but a lot of people seem to think that. But suddenly because of that he was never good... What the fuck guys?

I couldn't agree with you more.

I just recently watched Daredevil (Director's Cut), and it isn't a bad movie at all. It has weak spots (specially the forced Elektra/Bullseye subplot, even if the characters themselves where fun to watch), but it is a very sit-throughable movie, and it has a lot of love for the character and setting (Heck, besides the obligatory Stan Lee cameo, there are cameos by Frank Miller and Kevin Smith!).

My experience with daredevil is brief (mostly the original comics through Excelsior re-prints), but the movie I feel captures the character correctly. And it is visually interesting, particularly the "sound vision" and how they play with it.

My main gripe? Elektra and Bullseye shouldn't have been in the movie. Bullseye is fun, and Elektra's flirting with Daredevil is fun too, but they are underdeveloped, and steal the focus away from what should be a Daredevil vs Kingping movie.

One thing I realized, though, is this: Ben Affleck will be awesome as Batman, because he has already played Batman.

No, seriously, this movie is a Batman movie. The visuals, the tone, the duality of DareDevil / Matt Murdock, him being a mostly normal human, the focus on fighting crime motivated by the murder of his relatives.

Just extend the scope (from Hell's Kitchen to the entirety of Gotham), change the costume, switch the sonar sense with Wayne's money... Heck, he even has a pseudo-gothic "bat cave" with his gadgets and costumes.

I had my doubts, but this movie convinced me, Affleck will be a great Batman, and now I have a reason to look up to the impending disaster that the Batman vs Superman movie is bound to be.

MonkeyPunch:
Nope.

This is still and always was, a terrible movie.
The only thing I agree with is that Michael Clarke Duncan was an awesome King Pin... which still doesn't save this movie.

The action scenes are contrived and poorly executed. Whilst Affleck is a decent actor he doesn't fit the role at all. The styling they've given him in his lawyer persona is unfitting.
Colin Farrell plays Bullseye too over the top to fit in with the rest of the movie. (and just on the side, just because one actor manages to pull off something which isn't "normal" for the role (Bane) doesn't automatically make another actors attempt good - ie. Just because it worked with Bane means it must be OK for Bullseye. Nied.) The costumes are all pretty damn weak. The movie drags on in places to the point of despair. The movie overall is totally inconsistent from the pacing, visual style to the story and acting.
The story is extremely boring and again poorly executed. The CG is just awful. Even for the time.
Think that's about it.

And don't forget all the fun inconsistencies.

Ignoring the part where he jumps off a building, falls about 20 stories, and lands on a flat surface with absolutely no rolling or any attempt to break the fall, he gets out of "bed" (a sensory deprivation tank) and immediately turns up his stereo full blast. Fine, he's trying to get ready for being surrounded by the real world. But then Bullseye practically paralyzes him by banging metal on metal. Really.

Colin Farrell was one that I gave latitude to and, unlike some people that I saw the movie with, I didn't have a problem with the Kingpin being black.

And then there was Jennifer Garner whose only redeeming feature for this film is that this is the movie that these two met, fell in love, and got married....without being tagged as Bennifer 2.0. She started to get into the role of Elektra near the end (even though she obviously had no training at all in even making her look convincing with the sai) but too little, too late.

Maybe the director's cut is better. Oddly enough, I don't buy movies on (then) DVD that I didn't like in the theater so I wouldn't know but I suspect that the people who bought the Director's Cut already liked the movie.

Sidenote: As for him being Batman, my G+ post:

----------------------------------------------------------

I discussed this with [name removed] back when it was first announced (thusly my post) and there are really two things to consider with this.

1) Supposedly, Ben Affleck has been hard at work since the days of Armageddon/Daredevil revamping his "BenAffleckishness" (as MST3K) put it. I figure that, if Leonardo DiCaprio can go from "Smarmy pretty boy who craps up every movie he's in" to "serious dramatic actor", I figure Ben Affleck can make the shot.

2) As I've said before, Batman (and Joker) actors have to accurately portray their time period and set pieces. We have been fortunate to get actors such as Adam West, Michael Keaton, and Christian Bale (On the Joker side: Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, and Heath Ledger) who understood that.

But the Christian Bale/Christopher Nolan Batman would be an absolute [poop] match for Justice League. He would be the Tower of Babel/OMAC Batman and that just won't work for Justice League. Justice League is already badly hampered by it's timetable. Using Bale's gravelly-voiced Batman would kneecap the movie right out of the gate.

I like the Dark Knight trilogy but, for Justice League to work, we have to have a Batman who would believably join a group and not be the team jackass that Batman often is in the comics.

Can a supposedly reformed Ben Affleck do it? Shrug Maybe. We'll see. If Robert Downey Jr. could go from drug-addled circling-the-drain actor to the A-lister that he currently is, I'm willing to say Ben Affleck has, at least, a chance of pulling off Batman.

Honestly, at this point, I'm more worried about the new Batman debuting in a Man of Steel movie than Ben Affleck doing it.

One last thing:

Heath Ledger was originally considered to be a pretty-boy actor whose only notable achievement was playing a gay cowboy (sans pudding) when he was tapped to play the Joker. Look how that turned out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Jimothy Sterling:
Daredevil

With Ben Affleck enduring scorn for the crime of accepting a Batman role, Movie Defense Force takes pity and offers some praise for his last superhero outing, the ever-mocked Daredevil. This is a show without fear, after all.

Watch Video

I can say this movie wasn't bad, but I don't remember it fondly and wouldn't watch it again.

I did enjoy your review of a Waterworld, and thought I was the only one in the world that liked it. Glad to know I am not alone.

"John Carter of Mars" is another "over the top" movie that I think deserves redemption. I really liked it.

Any plans on doing a review of that one?

I love what you are doing jim and hey May I ask that you please give the movie Van helsing some defending serously I love that movie but my friends think I'm nuts for liking it..

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here