Daredevil? Anyone?

Anyone go out and see Daredevil today? Thoughts?

Well with reviews like

"It’s not Plan 9 from Outer Space, but in some ways, it is worse. "

“Affleck isn’t bad as Matt/Daredevil, but he’s not good, either” James Beradinelli

“Affleck isn’t done any favors by having to act blind; he’s an actor who needs all five of his senses.”

“As lawyer Matt, Affleck is breezy and sexy, a big, self-confident and irreverent guy who flirts with beautiful women and puts down pompous snobs and villains. As Daredevil, a tortured hero in a tight red rubbery-looking outfit, he seems a bit thick and lumbering.”

“Affleck doesn’t have sexual charisma. He can’t hold the screen — with or without the mask.”

"But am I the only one that notices Affleck’s acting instrument is his mouth? Slightly open is “concern,” barely open is “grief,” wide open is “lust,” somewhat open is “confusion,” and open is “intelligent.” Held tight shows “introspection.” "
ummmmm I think I’ll pass

Pass. Don’t care much about the character, look at the reviews, and have enough of a memory to realize that Spider-Man was a fluke and most comic book movies suck.


Didn’t see it. It looked stupid.

X-Men did indeed suck. But the original Batman wasn’t bad. Same with the Superman series. And Spider-man was pretty good.

Gotta disagree. The original Batman sucked way more than X-Men. Burton violated the one cardinal rule of Batman, the one that even Frank Miller, the one who kick-started (or revived, depending on your view) the dark & broody Batman, respected: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. A whole lotta people died when he blew up that factory. Add to that the fact that Burton clearly loved the Joker more than Batman to the point of making Batman uninteresting, and, well, you get a movie that looked nice, with an engaging villain, but I really won’t be sorry to see a remake.

X-Men stayed basically true to its characters, and the interest factor in the main hero (Wolverine) and the main villain (Magneto) was about equal.

X-men was good. And especially if you watch the movie and pay attention to the way it was directed, it had a very nice comic book style. I also thought Blade was a good movie (Blade 2 was not). I have no interest in seeing Daredevil.

I agree on the sucking of the original Batman. All style, no substance. Anyone who’d been paying attention to the comics before it came out had seen far more interesting stories. The worst thing about it are people who’ve never cracked open a comic book telling me how “true to the comics” it was and people telling me how I just have to admit it was phenomenal. I don’t, it wasn’t.

Im gonna see it. It doesnt look half bad, then again I’m into action and movie-fu :slight_smile:

X-men and Spider-Man, while visually nice, didn’t really do much for me. I agree with Gangster Octopus, Blade ruled.

X-Men may have stayed true to its characters, but it certainly did not stay true to the X-Men original story line. X-Men # 1 introduced us to:

  1. Cyclops
  2. Marvel Girl
  3. Beast
  4. Angel
  5. Ice Man
  6. And of course Professor X

Cyclops and Marvel Girl were the only ones who made it the the movie, although Ice Man did make a cameo appearence. I like the portrayal of Magneto, that was close to the original.

Yes, and Peter Parker’s uncle was also killed in a burglary, not a carjacking. And Peter didn’t stop the guy who later killed Uncle Ben because he thought it was the police’s problem, not because he had just been screwed by the wrestling promoter that the guy had just robbed. And Peter Parker had to build his own webshooters. Guess what? I liked the movie version better than the comic book.

The X-Men cast was already kind of bloated, and there was simply no way that Wolverine was NOT going to be in the first movie. Yeah, he’s not one of the original X-Men, but guess what, he’s one of the most popular, so having the film include (and, indeed, center) on him was a no-brainer.

X-Men and Spider-Man respected their source material, but did not slavishly revere it, and made changes when necessary to update things for the times (bioengineered spider vs. radioactive spider), to account for the fact that certain characters are more popular/ associated with the character or title now than they were at the debut (e.g., Mary Jane, Wolverine), or just because it plain works better (e.g. natural webs vs. webshooters- it NEVER made sense that this ability never transferred to Peter Parker).

Oh, yeah, and Toad in the movie was a vast improvement over Toad from the comics. Toad from the comics was like George Costanza with super-leaping abilities. Toad in the movie was a total badass and credible villain.

Nitpick: the Beast WAS in the X-Men movie. There’s a stocky blue-haired teenager running around the mansion; IIRC, that’s supposed to be him, albeit younger. (Yeah, yeah, I don’t have a cite.)

But wait, the original beast was not blue haired, that came later. At first, he was just very strong, could climb walls, and swin from trees, oh yeah, and quote Shakespear.

And yes, I liked the X-Men movie, I just wanted to show off how much I know about X-Men. Come on, I don’t know much about anything else.

I can’t stand any of the cartoon-into-life movies because I just can’t get over the fact that grown men are standing around in horrible costumes and capes.

I liked the t.v. version of Superman only because it made fun of the whole costume and cape thing.

How about NO

Have to go. Jr. Ranger II wants to see it. He’s nine. If things go boom he’ll like it.

Well http://www.aintitcool.com gives it a good review, I don’t always agree with Harry, he is sometimes just too much of a fanboy. His liking of it is good enough for me to catch a matinee.

The reporters (columnists, whatever) at Ain’t-it-Cool news liked it, and there is a pretty good review here http://www.herorealm.com/HotFish/daredevil.htm (minor spoilers)
And Ebert liked it.

So I think one’s reaction to the movie may depend on your geek factor.

Plus it Has Jennifer Garner in (and I think out of) hot outfits