Ok, I saw Daredevil

[joe_collector]

Well, I think I'll chime in with my impressions of the movie, and then go back to lurking.

 

I'm a big action/adventure movie fan and although I really liked Blade, like X-Men and loved Spider-man (never realized how well PP's character arc fits into a 2-hour movie), my overall impression of Daredevil was:

 

It Sucked!

 

There was absolutely no coherent story, no character arc, and nothing resembling a movie of any type. Just a bunch of connect-the-dot video segments that someone thought would somehow translate into a big-screen flick.

 

Although Affleck is laughable as DD (his lines made me physically cringe) the screenplay and direction (same guy natch) are horrible and the guy obviously has no idea on the "audience expectations" regarding an action-adventure movie, and lacks the ability to craft one.

 

Hint: Next time hire a guy whose claim to fame isn't directing Simon Birch.

 

And anyone who didn't notice the Matrix-overtones (which have become cliche and even boring) had better get their eyes checked. Bad, bad, bad. Tired, cliche action, rock music video senibilities and movie-making for the brain-dead.

 

Of all the characters in the movie, only Colin Farrell's Bullseye is even remotely watchable. He's got that glint in his eye, while everyone else look like drunks from a Halloween costume party.

 

The one ray of hope is that someone as talented and experienced as Ang Lee would never make the rookie mistakes found in DD, and I'm actually looking forward to The Hulk.

 

Nowhere to go but up from this red-leather turkey.

[uclapeterg]

No offense, but you haven't liked this movie even BEFORE you saw it.. the fact that you thought it sucked doesn't surprise me... I mean, c'mon, when someone is so determined not to like something, they are not going to like it.

[fantastic_four]

Yea, Daredevil was dark, and definitely in a different way from Batman. Batman was dark, but Burton did a lot to mix in dry, campy humor in with the seriousness of the character and the scenes. Daredevil was just plain dark with very little humor. However, the rapid pace and intensity gave it some life. At movies.com--where they compile together a bunch of reviews from different sources--it currently has 3 positives, 8 negatives, and 7 mixed reviews. Most of the negative comments referred to how dark the film was--I knew 8 months ago this would end up turning a lot of people off. The comic has been like this for a long, long time, even before Miller took it over, although he took it to new levels of dark seriousness.

 

Chances are, anybody who doesn't like this film also wouldn't like the comic. I can't imagine them staying more true to the comic! The nature of Matt Murdock's character never was going to appeal to most people. It has been a 2nd tier Marvel title for good reason; Matt's just not easy to identify with. Peter Parker never lost himself after the death of his uncle, but Matt Murdock did lose himself. There's an emptiness to him and his world in the comic that was translated into the movie, and just as in the comic, it turned people off. Ah well...there was PLENTY of great stuff if you didn't let the intentionally somber mood of DD bring you down!!!!

[joe_collector]

It wasn't the mood that bothered me, but the lack of a compelling story and a character arc.

 

IOW, what epic story took place on the screen that warranted $100 million? I saw a bunch of flipping, kicking and posing, but absolutely zero story.

[joe_collector]

>>No offense, but you haven't liked this movie even BEFORE you saw it.. the fact >>that you thought it sucked doesn't surprise me... I mean, c'mon, when someone >>is so determined not to like something, they are not going to like it.

 

Have you seen it yet?

 

I honestly can't understand anyone would find Daredevil to be a great movie (discounting the usual fanboy response - ie. some people loved Phantom Menace) worthy of owning on DVD and watching multiple times.

[COI]

I'm not saying I disagree with your assesment, because I haven't seen the movie yet. But when a person walks into a theatre expecting to hate something, they usually will.

[joe_collector]

Sure, but I was more praying that it wouldn't be bad more than anything else. I'm a big DD fan, and the negative reviews had me worried about the direction and story, but not with a mindset against the movie.

 

I felt like that guy who has to go into the dark barn, even though he knows the killer might be lurking there. :>

 

Seriously Andrew, no matter how you put it, Daredevil is not a very good movie. Watchable and enjoyable for some serious die-hard comic fans, but certainly not exceptional on any known chart.

[fantastic_four]

It wasn't the mood that bothered me, but the lack of a compelling story and a character arc.

Do you mean there was a lack of a compelling plot? The story in the film is a montage of the highlights from the Daredevil comic; I'm assuming you never liked the Daredevil comic, either, then? The character arc wasn't absent as you say. Perhaps not fresh and original development, but there was definitely character growth. That was the whole reason the director rushed forward to a later point in DD's life--to show a period in his life where he overcame his lust for vengeance.

 

IOW, what epic story took place on the screen that warranted $100 million? I saw a bunch of flipping, kicking and posing, but absolutely zero story.

Since when did $100 million ever buy a story? $100 million went into the flipping, kicking, and posing, which I thought stayed INCREDIBLY true to Daredevil himself. The money here went to the same place the budget in Terminator, X-Men, Matrix, Jurassic Park, etc, etc, etc went.

 

If you don't like action, a comic book movie probably wasn't the best place to spend almost 2 hours...there ain't gonna be any more literary originality or excellence there than you'd find in your average printed comic.

[ninanina]

Agreed.

[PovertyRow]

Gawd this place really sux when a comic movie comes out!

 

How can you tell when a comic film is released? Only two slots without my name are restricto!

 

 

[joe_collector]

>>>Since when did $100 million ever buy a story? $100 million went into the flipping, kicking, and posing, which I thought stayed INCREDIBLY true to Daredevil himself. The money here went to the same place the budget in Terminator, X-Men, Matrix, Jurassic Park, etc, etc, etc went.

 

You're obviously joking or have no idea what story really means. With the possible exception of X-Men, all of the above movies had a compelling story.

 

Jurassic Park was originally a 300+ page novel, and the movie had a definite story and character arc. The Matrix is the standard "hero's journey" where Neo is brought from the mundane world, into the Matrix, trained and forced into battle with the Agents. Terminator is a superb sci-fi base story, of a robot sent from the future to kill the mother of its era's savior.

 

Spider-man is the best comic book example, and Stan's story melded seamlessly into a very high-calibre movie story. It all took place in virtual real-time as well, with no flashbacks, leaps forward or backward through years of "screen time", and none of the usual crutches you see in crappy movies. Movie audiences recognized that Peter Parket turning into Spider-man and fighting the Green Goblin was indeed the most important and defining moment in his life. That's the key to any great movie.

 

What's Daredevil about? Where's the hook? What's the plot? A blind vigilante that kills crooks, while a bimbo spins kicks, a psycho-killer tosses things and a big fat guy glowers? That's not a movie plot, but more of a rock video.

 

Try and break the Daredevil movie into 3 Acts progressing according to the standard story structure, along with how each character changed (however slightly) from beginning to end. You'll come up with nothing, guaranteed, as there's nothing there to begin with.

 

Just because it's an action movie doesn't mean it shouldn't have a coherent story and structure. Check out Die Hard, Star Wars, The Matrix, or even Spider-man for great examples.

[Illiterati-migration]

Sounds like someone's been reading "STORY" by Robert McKee... and if you haven't been, you should. Sounds like something you might enjoy.

[joe_collector]

Good point, though I haven't read it, I have heard about McKee's seminars though.

 

Daredevil is (as FF stated) simply a montage of action scenes taken from a varying timeline of DD's exploits. It's got flashbacks, huge leaps through screen-time and virtually no cohesion from start to finish.

 

That may thrill some comic-addicts, but it's not a structured movie and it's definitely not what I plunk down money for at the theatre. It's also tough for non-comic fans to grasp (well other than the 6-9 year old boys - who lap this crepe up), since they don't have the history of the comics to fall back on.

 

It's also a huge black mark on upcoming comic movies, especially after Blade, X-Men and Spidey really had the ball rolling. That's what bothers me the most about the absence of any real story or plot in DD; that it'll kill some otherwise-promising comic flicks in the process.

 

I want MORE great super-hero movies, and releasing a lifeless, story-less rock video like Daredevil is not the way to do it.

[delekkerste]

Spider-man is the best comic book example, and Stan's story melded seamlessly into a very high-calibre movie story.

 

I think that the DD movie's shortcomings are very evident when you compare it to Spider-Man. The Spidey movie had a great story and terrific character development, so that even non-fans could sit back and enjoy the film.

 

I think I would have enjoyed the DD film even less if I *wasn't* such a hard-core DD fan and already knew the storyline and characters, because they did a HORRIBLE job of developing the characters in the movie. The film was so short (96 minutes) that Elektra didn't get enough screentime once she "turns to the dark side", the Kingpin wasn't developed into anything more than a generic thug, the Murdock-Ben Urich relationship was hastily thrown together and the portrayal of DD as a Punisher-Batman hybrid was way off the mark.

 

Can anybody out there tell me, with a straight face, that this was as good as, or better a film than X-Men, Spider-Man, Batman or Blade I or II?

 

Gene

[Illiterati-migration]

Good point, though I haven't read it, I have heard about McKee's seminars though.

 

Woo, I highly recommend it! It's a very interesting book! You'll never be able to watch a movie the same way ever again! BTW, I said that originally because one of his favorite examples in the book is "Die Hard"... not the first movie that jumps into MY mind when thinking of "classic story arc" or anything like that... but it really does have excellent structure. Go figure. harharhar

[joe_collector]

I just looked it up on Amazon and the dang thing's only in hardcover. Guess I'll have to lay down the bucks...

 

So what did you think of the Daredevil movie, as per the McKee philosophy?

[Illiterati-migration]

I just looked it up on Amazon and the dang thing's only in hardcover. Guess I'll have to lay down the bucks...

 

Yeah, it's quite pricey... but well worth it if you're into writing of any kind! (And it's good for moviewatchers too... )

 

So what did you think of the Daredevil movie, as per the McKee philosophy?

 

I haven't gotten to see it yet! I'm considering a matinee this afternoon... I'm most intrigued after all the mixed (and boy have they been mixed) reviews I've been seeing! I'll be sure to leave word once I get back.

[joe_collector]

You be sure to come back here and spill the beans.

 

BTW, is McKee the guy who stated that a movie need a certain amount of "moments" (like Spidey standing on the building getting ready to swing into action for the first time, Neo dodging the bullets, Han Solo swooping in to blast the TIEs, etc.) or was that Goldman?

 

Regardless, I can't think of one single "moment" in Daredevil, not one scene that will remain with me for years to come and will be etched into permanent memory.

[ninanina]

I am surprised by your statement that there's not one single scene in the movie that will be etched in your memory. Personally, I had two.

As soon as I saw...oops wrong post. This is for the one's that have not already seen it. :

[fantastic_four]

What's Daredevil about? Where's the hook? What's the plot? A blind vigilante that kills crooks, while a bimbo spins kicks, a psycho-killer tosses things and a big fat guy glowers? That's not a movie plot, but more of a rock video.

 

Try and break the Daredevil movie into 3 Acts progressing according to the standard story structure, along with how each character changed (however slightly) from beginning to end. You'll come up with nothing, guaranteed, as there's nothing there to begin with.

OK, I got ya now...you had "plot" mixed up with "story". Plot is the progression of the story through time. If you swap the words "plot" and "story" in the above quote, then you're using them right. Let's not turn this into a class on narrative fiction, but I didn't know what you meant when you said Daredevil had no story--pretty much everybody here knew what the story would be before we went to the film. The plot was definitely nothing special, but it was competant.

 

The story is a blind vigilante that kills crooks, while a bimbo spins kicks, and a psycho-killer tosses things and a big fat guy glowers. Yah, that's a cynically simplistic way to describe it, but it's not innaccurate and that's pretty much what the comic is like. Welcome to Daredevil; some of us like it. I'm particularly compelled by the original part of the story, which is how he experiences the world with his powers.

 

The character development wasn't anything new to me since I've already read the comics, but I enjoyed him reflecting on "I'm not the bad guy" after he beat that guy up in front of the kid. I wouldn't be surprised if another movie had explored a character like Murdock who crosses the vigilante line into criminality and feels guilty about it, but it has been a while since I've seen it so I found it enjoyable.