Man without depth (Daredevil (DVD))

Member Name: thehud

Product:	Daredevil (DVD)
Date:	29/07/04 (49 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Few good bits

Disadvantages: Shallow

Graceless, shapeless, badly clothed lumps of human flesh, wandering inanely up any high street the length and breadth of this sceptred isle ? a far cry indeed from the male and female model, androgynous, flawless perfection of film, television and magazine ? I was particularly struck by that horrific juxtaposition today as I sat in a shopping mall simply watching this disgusting world going by.

Of course, the superhero film genre is just that little bit different ? Batman, Spiderman, the X-Men, the Hulk ? why, all of them apart from Superman have human (or superhuman) flaws, even if it is merely split personality with a darker side, even if they still exhibit all the perfect beauty of the catwalk in visual and physical attributes ? Daredevil is slightly different, because although Ben Affleck is as wonderfully gorgeous as all the rest of his kind, his character suffers one extraordinary failing in that he is blind.

As with all these things, however, there is some significant compensation, and our Ben, when he was involved in the car accident which took away his visual senses, found all of his other faculties wonderfully improved, such that they more than make up for the fact that he can no longer see ? I mean, when it?s raining, Ben?s senses allow him to detect the drops of rain on the face in front of him and create a sort of sonar picture ? what a lucky chap.

Lippy preamble over ?

Daredevil is one in a long line of films based on American comic book super heroes, and certainly while Daredevil wasn?t one of the most popular, and stayed mainly in the side alley, it did attain cult status and I remember when I were a lad (lapses into faux Yorkshire accent and talks about living in a shoe box without even an outside lavvie) quite enjoying the tales of the blind lawyer Matt Murdoch (or Murdock here) and his superhuman alter ego
Daredevil.

He was one of the darker characters offered by the Marvel Comics empire and offered some middle ground between Spiderman and Batman, battling some fairly odd villains and guest starring in some other strips from time to time.

In Mark Steven Johnson?s cinematic adaptation from 2003, we have the standard exchange of lycra for leather, and certainly the big screen version of the Man Without Fear is quite lovingly recreated for our enjoyment. It?s not absolutely faithful, for example, the Kingpin is no longer a white, boorish, fat giant of a man ? he?s rendered a sleek black hoodlum, who is nevertheless still gigantic, and adeptly played by Michael Clarke Duncan. I don?t remember anyone called Bullseye in the strip, but here we get a manic, Irish, hired assassin with a tattoo on his forehead, played with relish by Colin Farrell, and they come close (well, there?s a thing) to wiping out our hero.

There?s some quite reasonable performances on display here from the assembled cast (as follows):
Ben Affleck - Matt Murdock/Daredevil
Jennifer Garner - Elektra Natchios
Colin Farrell - Bullseye
Michael Clarke Duncan- The Kingpin/Wilson Fisk
Jon Favreau - Franklin 'Foggy' Nelson
Scott Terra - Young Matt
Ellen Pompeo - Karen Page
Joe Pantoliano - Ben Urich
Leland Orser- Wesley Owen Welch
Lennie Loftin - Manolis
Erick Avari - Nikolas Natchios
Derrick O'Connor - Father Everett
Paul Ben-Victor - Jose Quesada
David Keith - Jack Murdock

Also, the staging is quite suitably and stylishly dark, and expertly done, and you even get a c
ameo appearance by Marvel main man Stan Lee, and Marvel house artist John Romita is the name of a boxer.

But there I?m afraid my opinion of Daredevil starts becoming a little less favourable.

Movies about superheroes have a lot going against them once they?ve basked in the reflected glory of their heritage ? they have to cope with a pretty standard approach, with the first episode in any franchise having to kick off with the origin of their character and then spending the rest of the time trying to put together something interesting enough to retain the attention. It?s always a bit of a challenge, especially within the confines of the standard 90 minutes of 2 hours, but the best succeed in that aim, which was the case (to my mind) with Batman, Spiderman and X-Men, but I?m afraid that Daredevil isn?t quite as successful and really the lasting impression is of anticipation undelivered.

The whole thing is a bit tepid and shallow and never really gets going. There isn?t enough action, humour, melodrama or depth, and it?s all on a bit of a small scale. Ben Affleck as the title character is okay, but a little too sure of himself as the blind lawyer. He?s not vulnerable enough and comes across as terribly self obsessed and smug. You really can?t believe him as a blind man, and it?s no surprise that a number of the other characters suss out who he really is long before the end. Many of those characters have only minor and pretty irrelevant contributions to make and some judicious and sharp editing might have brought more pace and drama to the event.

Daredevil probably had every bit as much going for it as Spiderman, with the added benefit of lack of expectation, but sadly fails to pull off the trick. I was VERY disappointed, and left feeling quite empty and disappointed. The film takes an awfully long time to get
going, meanders around for a bit and then tries to pick up the pace but fails dismally, leaving a lasting feeling of what might have been.

This is one case where comic book is so much better than cinema and I?d suggest you check out the pretty gorgeous site at http://www.manwithoutfear.com/daredevil.shtml to really find out what Daredevil is all about.

Alternatively, you could also go to http://www.marvel.com/publishing/

I bet Ben wishes he had visited the site, stayed there and hadn?t bothered with all this filming rubbish ? if only he could find a decent movie to make ?

Summary: