A Tale Of Two Movies: Daredevil

Jerry Beck muses about 2002’s slate of animated feature films.
Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld, VFXWorld

Fighting for justice both inside and outside of the courtroom – Matt Murdock is Daredevil. All images ™ and © 2003 Twentieth Century Fox and Regency Enterprises. All rights reserved.

This is a review of two movies. Or maybe it’s two reviews, for two different audiences, of one movie.

As A Fan…
If you are now, or have ever been, a fan of Marvel's Daredevil as portrayed through various comics incarnations at the hands of a multitude of creators over the past 40 years, you’ll probably find this movie extremely enjoyable.

With small variations, the authentic origin of Daredevil is here. There’s Matt Murdock, the kid with the widowed pug-fighter dad who wants his son to be a doctor or lawyer. There’s the kid shocked at seeing his dad at work as a thumb breaker like Stallone’s Rocky. There’s Matt’s loss of his sight through a radioactive chemical accident and the intense magnification of his remaining senses and the development of a “radar sense.” It’s all there. So is the violent loss that changes Matt’s life forever, leading him to devote his life to seeing justice done, in and out of the courtrooms, where the grown up Matt practices law.

As a fan, you may take issue with the ultra violent and vengeful nature of DD, acting at times more like the Charles Bronsonesque Punisher than the wisecracking Daredevil of the '60s or even the grim and brooding DD of the '80s and '90s. But since you know in your heart that Daredevil, in his heart, is a good guy, you can sort of let it go. (I’m sure a lot of you won’t, but the movie does carry you along, most of the time.)

You’ll love the pitch-perfect Foggy Nelson as played by John Favreau, and his easy and hilarious banter with best pal and law partner Matt. You’ll love the introduction of Elektra Natchios, including Favreau’s wisecrack about her name. You’ll thrill as Matt and Elektra engage in combat-choreography like a Kung Fu Astaire and Rodgers.

You’ll smile as Michael Clarke Duncan’s elegantly menacing Kingpin tells Matt that “nobody’s innocent.” (Of course, you might also be a little disappointed at how the Kingpin winds up this movie.)

New Yorker or not, you’ll get a big kick out of the generous and glorious use made of the city (much of it actually shot on location!), especially the Hell’s Kitchen locales that are so key to the film. And the special effects point-of-view shots of Daredevil traversing the city’s concrete canyons are really spectacular.







Comments


As a 42 year-old nearly lifelong comics fan, I take exception to Fingeroth's review from the start. I did not love this movie, and felt that they not only got more things wrong than they did right, but that it doesn't even hold together as its own creature. The overlay by later writers of making Matt's father into muscle for the mob (as opposed to simply agreeing to participate in fixed fights) is something I've never appreciated nor accepted as part of the character. Still, one can say that it's become canon now, so tough luck for me. We move on. The Matt Murdock/Daredevil of the film is a lousy lawyer (the court scene were he essentially threatens the defendent with only the thinnest of veils covering his meaning -- and the defense and judge don't even object!) and appears to be fine both with killing and with allowing people to be beaten if he's having some important quality moments with his girlfriend. I started to think someone had written sections of this just after watching THE CROW - which was a fine movie, but it's not about Daredevil. It was a hideous mishmash. It was plain that all one person (the director?) wanted to do was get that Frank Miller scene between Elektra and Bullseye up on the screen, and he did that well. Everything else was allowed to be shaped by others. Joe Quesada and Kevin Smith were on hand, so their horribly flawed (but sales successful) relaunch take on the character guided much of the interpretation. IMHO, all Smith ever really saw in the character were the tiny elements of Roman Catholicism that Frank Miller injected during his second run at the character, which nauseatingly became a central focus for the character once he was allowed to have his way with it. I could go on, but why bother? My view is that any comics fan who was truly pleased with this interpretation only thinks he knows much about Daredevil. And, yes, I do know he's a fictional character, but if he's treated as being as malleable as this, why should a reader care? ===MJN
Mike N (not verified) | Thu, 05/08/2003 - 00:00 | Permalink
Being a 28 year old male comic book reader, I naturally dug the movie and went to see it again, this time bringing my mother with me to see what she thought. What she said surprised the hell out of me, she enjoyed it more than Spider-Man! She loved Spidey, she stressed, but the Daredevil movie was "unpredictable" for her, and the characters were more "gritty and real" she felt. She even liked how he changed his stance on killing (or allowing guys to get run over by subway cars) because of his encounter with the crying child, and his doubts about him being "not the bad guy." All in all, everyone I've spoken to seems to like the movie. I'm just glad it's not a nail in the coffin much like Batman & Robin! (shudder)
Eddie Vertigo (not verified) | Tue, 02/25/2003 - 01:00 | Permalink
Dare devil.. hmmm. I found it a bit strange but very cool. This is going to sound twited but it was refreshing when the girl died and din't come back, but then where did the luck pendant come from? i think this movie may fail, but its supporters will never forget it
A girl (not verified) | Mon, 02/24/2003 - 01:00 | Permalink
Well, Danny, many comics fans laud the day Frank Miller came on the scene and introduced heroes as dark and warped as the forces of evil they fight, grim, neurotic figures who are barely distinguishable in their morality from villians. Living by concrete moral codes that allow little joy and minimal psychological flexibility, these heroes are no longer fun to read (or watch when transferred to screen), and at $3.00 and up per comic book, too boring and expensive to follow. "Spiderman" was a terrific film because the hero was a basically well-adjusted young man who truly marvelled at his powers and the way in which they expanded his humanity. This is infinitely more preferable than heroes whose mental world actually shrinks until it encompasses little but brooding vigilantism. To hell with them! You want to see a good Daredevil flick, Danny? Let's dig up Stilt-Man, Mr. Hyde, The Cobra, the Matador, Electro and the Leap-Frog and let 'em all rip against DD in a brilliant battle royale in front of Rockefeller Center. Let's go back to the brilliant days of Marvel when what heroes DID was much more balanced with what they THOUGHT.
Martin Goodman (not verified) | Mon, 02/17/2003 - 01:00 | Permalink

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.