Daredevil
Grade:
|
 |
Plot Summary:
Adaptation of Marvel comic book of the same name, Daredevil uses his super-heightened senses to fight crime and take down crime boss Kingpin with the help of the mysterious Elektra
Opinion:
Daredevil, while possessing a small, but loyal fan base, isn't really among the 'upper echelon' of comic book super heroes. Thus, it's perhaps fitting that "Daredevil" the movie isn't among the upper echelon of comic book feature films either. (The studio probably sensed this early on, and thus set Daredevil to open in February--traditionally one of the 'dead' months of the year--instead of during the summer where the "Spidermans" and the "X-men"--the
real comic book movies--usually come out.)
The first half of Daredevil is pretty bad--insulting to the intelligence and offensive to boot--but gets better in the second half, not enough to give it a solid recommendation but enough so that it's tolerable and perhaps worth a rental if you're really into the comic book superhero kind of thing. (An analysis of all the bad scenes in the beginning is included in the In-Depth Analysis section...)
Daredevil gets better (somewhat) in the second half, which isn't quite as intellectually and morally offensive, and has some decent action scenes (although somewhat reminiscent of "Spiderman"). The film's biggest asset is Colin Ferrell as "Bull's Eye" who has fun being a truly comic, over-the-top villain. While I'm not as big a fan of Jennifer Garner's looks as many guys are (her features are a little too 'masculine' for my taste), she's a decent actress, and she makes a fine Elektra--full of personality and emotion. Michael Clarke-Duncan, as Kingpin, is also fine, although his character doesn't do much. Unfortunately the weakest character is Daredevil himself, who is written as a tormented, conflicted character, yet Ben Affleck is sort of bland. Affleck isn't a bad actor, but keeps getting A-list parts in Hollywood movies despite being inherently a B-list actor. (The ads for Daredevil and most of his other movies refer to him as "Oscar-winner" Ben Affleck, conveniently failing to mention that his Oscar wasn't for acting, but for his screenplay for "Good Will Hunting"...)
One of the biggest problems with Daredevil as a whole is that looking back at the end...nothing really happened. No major character died and no major crisis was resolved. Obviously, they don't want to take away the potential for a sequel (which ironically may not happen after all) but that reduces this movie to the level of a two-hour trailer for the next one--leading the audience to think they've just wasted their time.
In any case, there are better comic book superhero movies out there, but if you're really hard up for an action fix (or secretly lust after Jennifer Garner) then you might give "Daredevil" a try.
Content Analysis: (PG-13, 2-1-4-2 on the Baron's scale)
By PG-13 standards, "Daredevil" is a fairly violent movie. True, there's very little actual blood, but there's a lot of brutal hand-to-hand fighting, and a lot of people get impaled on various things. You get the sense the filmmakers were aiming for a darker R-rated comic book adaptation and ended up trimming it to a PG-13 level (barely) for the sake of a larger box-office draw.
Morally, there are a few issues that the filmmakers probably should have rethought before including. Matt Murdock sexual harasses a woman in one terrible scene near the beginning and in another beats up a bunch of innocent people. (Some hero...both of these issues are discussed more below) There's a brief scene where Daredevil tries to convince himself that 'I'm the good guy...", which could have been expanded upon more--showing his realization that in his quest for justice, innocent people have suffered. But the film drops the idea from that point on, and the opportunity to explore the moral ambiguity of Daredevil's actions is wasted.
In-depth Analysis:
Let's go over some of the many bad scenes in the first half of the movie:
Bad scene #1: One of the first scenes is Matt Murdock (DD's alter-ego) in a courtroom asking questions of a suspected rapist. Now...I'm not a lawyer--in fact, the sum total of my experience with courtroom law consists of watching the occasional rerun of
Law & Order--but even
I know this courtroom scene makes no sense whatsoever. What kind of trial is this? Is it the man's criminal rape trial? Murdock is a
defense attorney, so he wouldn't be prosecuting in a criminal trial. Murdock's one and only question to the man is "State what happened on [such and such a date]" which isn't a cross-examination question--it's a question only the man's own lawyer would be asking. Yet, obviously Murdock isn't the rapist's defense attorney because Matt only defends 'innocent' people (see below...), not to mention the fact that Daredevil kills him later (that would count as a...'breach of ethics' for an attorney, wouldn't it?) Is he defending the rape victim from some other crime? Then why would the rapist be testifying? Surely he wouldn't have been called as a defense witness... The filmmakers botching a courtroom scene so badly that it doesn't make sense even to non-lawyers doesn't bode well for the rest of the movie.
Bad scene #2: It gets worse... Later, the accused but not convicted rapist goes to a bar where he's followed by Daredevil. Daredevil then attacks him in the bar and proceeds to not only beat him up, but
everyone else in the bar as well. We can assume the rapist was guilty and thus 'deserved' some vigilante justice...but what were the 'crimes' of
everyone else in the bar? Being in the same building as a criminal? Helping a stranger out when some weird guy in a suit jumps down and attacks him? Or are we supposed to assume that since they were hanging out in a seedy bar, they're obviously criminals too, and thus 'deserve' to get beat up as well? My gosh...the film has some really off the wall ethics.
Bad scene #3: After the bar incident, Daredevil throws the presumed rapist in front of a train and then takes off...but (apparently) not before drawing a double D in flammable liquid (which he happened to be carrying on his costume somewhere) because he knows some policeman or reporter is going to notice it and throw a lighter on it (because, of course, people throw lighters on pools of strange liquid on the ground all the time just to see if they light up...)
Bad scene #4: After Matt meets Elektra for the first time, he chases after her and then forces himself upon her in a nearby playground despite her objections--seemingly forgetting that he just got through murdering a man who
forced himself upon a woman over her objections. (Apparently, it's okay if you're the 'hero' and you know the girl is going to end up liking you in the end...) Later, Elektra and Matt (out of costume) engage in a spirited 'wrestling match' in public view of many, many people. Hmmm...wouldn't you think a lot of people would be wondering how a blind man is able to do all these acrobatic things? Not very conducive to keeping your secret identity secret, is it, Matt?
Bad scene #5: Matt meets the Kingpin at a party, who jokes about hiring him as a defense attorney someday. Matt responds by stating that he "only defends innocent people". That sounds great, Matt...mind explaining how you know all the people you defend are innocent since
you're not telepathic?
Random Notes and Comments:
(1) After looking it up online, it turns out I was right--Daredevil was originally envisioned as a hard R-rated superhero movie with lots of violence and nudity--but toned down later for a larger audience.
(2) ...and where was the nudity going to come from? Jennifer Garner doesn't do nude scenes...
(3) I may have missed something, but why would Kingpin be going to jail? Daredevil didn't turn up any new evidence, and if you've ever read any stories about the police trying to jail any real-life drug lord, or mafia 'Godfather', the problem isn't that their crimes aren't unknown--the police already 'know' who the crime boss is--but that there isn't enough evidence to convict them in a court of law. Since crime bosses almost always have underlings commit the actual crimes, convicting a crime boss is highly reliant on testimonies--which is why real crime bosses can avoid being convicted by intimidating (and murdering) potential witnesses. What makes Daredevil think he can send Kingpin to jail now without any new witnesses or evidence?
