New York Times
"...Mr. Farrell finally gets a chance to uncork the charisma that magazines have been proclaiming....Here, he makes a showpiece of a role with almost no dialogue..." 02/14/2003 p.E1Los Angeles Times
"...Affleck is a vision in maroon leather....Jennifer Garner looks equally fetching in a stretchy vinyl ensemble..." 02/14/2003 p.C1 Sight and Sound
"...An efficient and entertaining adaptation of Marvel Comics' DAREDEVIL...Well crafted..." 04/01/2003 p.35 Chicago Sun-Times
"...The movie is, in short, your money's worth, better than we expect, more fun than we deserve..." 02/14/2003 p.29 Total Film
"...This is a noirish, faithful conversion that shares a spot-on comics sensibility with its superhero stablemates..." 08/01/2003 p.112 ReelViews 7 of 10
Sometimes, you can tell when parts of a movie have been left on the cutting room floor, and that's the case with Daredevil. The trade-off for a short running length (only 100 minutes) is a herky-jerky narrative that rarely moves smoothly. There are times when important nuggets of information are missing -- not because they have been intentionally withheld but because the scene(s) in which they were revealed are not in the final cut. Coherent exposition is not Daredevil's strong suit...As befits a comic book-turned-motion picture, there are plenty of action scenes featuring moves that defy logic, gravity, and the laws of physics. The best of the fights, however, isn't the duel between Daredevil and Bullseye, nor is it the anticlimactic showdown between our hero and Kingpin. Instead, it's what passes for foreplay between Daredevil and Elektra. Instead of kissing and cuddling like most normal couples, they do their best to knock each other on their butts...Fans of the comic book will probably have some nits to pick, but, overall, Daredevil does about one would expect from a movie of that name -- present about 90 minutes of disposable, action-oriented entertainment. It's not as good as either of its recent Marvel cinematic siblings (Spider-Man and X-Men), in large part because the proceedings lose far too much momentum in the last act and the desire to set up a sequel results in things ending with a whimper. - James Berardinelli
Chicago Sun-Times 8 of 10
"Daredevil" stars Ben Affleck as the superhero, wearing one of those molded body suits that defines his six-pack abs but, unlike Batman's, doesn't give him dime-sized nipples...The movie is actually pretty good. Affleck and Garner probe for the believable corners of their characters, do not overact, are given semi-particular dialogue, and are in a very good-looking movie...Affleck is at home in plots of this size, having recently just tried to save Baltimore from nuclear annihilation and the world from "Armageddon," but Garner, Farrell and Duncan are relatively newer to action epics, although Garner did see Affleck off at the station when he took the train from Pearl Harbor to New York, and Duncan was Balthazar in "The Scorpion King"...The movie is, in short, your money's worth, better than we expect, more fun than we deserve. I am getting a little worn out describing the origin stories and powers of superheroes, and their relationships to archvillains, gnashing henchmen and brave, muscular female pals...They weep, they grow, they astonish, they overcome, they remain vulnerable, and their enemies spend inordinate time on wardrobe, grooming and props, and behaving as if their milk of human kindness has turned to cottage cheese. Some of their movies, like this one, are better than others. - Roger Ebert
|
