A Tale Of Two Movies: Daredevil

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

If you’re a real geek, you’ll giggle every time the name of a comics creator is dropped as the name of a character or place. You’ll smile knowingly at DD co-creator Stan Lee’s traditional cameo appearance. You’ll grip the arms of your chair as you wait for the inevitable outcome of the battle between Colin Farrell’s Bullseye and Jennifer Garner’s Elektra. And you’ll love the Braille motif that starts with the opening credits and continues throughout the entire film.

Indeed, if you’re a fan of the comics, you’re probably already out seeing Daredevil a second or third time. You’re probably already reserving your DVD.

But…
If you’re not a fan of the comic…I dunno.

As the movie unfolded, I tried to put out of my mind all I knew of the character and his world. I imagined just being a fan of action-adventure movies coming in cold to see this film. And when I channeled that person, I was pretty perplexed.

Maybe a person like that would go in thinking: “Hey, I liked the Spider-Man movie. After all, Danny Fingeroth gave it a rave review on AWN. And isn’t Daredevil also based on a Marvel comic? Maybe I’ll like this, too.”

But what you are given is a guy who is dressed in what looks like a Joel Schumacher Batman costume reject, who — despite apparent agility and enormous acrobatic skill — moves, in some shots, like Robocop. This Daredevil is a character who, despite thinking of himself as a hero, is really more of a sadistic vigilante who thinks nothing of meting out punishments that, even if you could argue don’t outweigh the crimes, certainly are not his business to be meting out.

What most people remember about super heroes is that they traditionally capture their adversaries and let the police sort out whether the evidence merits conviction of whatever degree. While comics have certainly darkened in tone over the years, and there are anti-heroes such as the aforementioned Punisher who regularly mete out punishment, capital and otherwise, Daredevil has not been such a hero. (Sorry — geeked out there for a second.) Nonetheless, as a civilian entering the theater, my feeling would be: “Here’s a really sick guy, a guy in some ways worse than the criminals he hunts. Why should I feel any sympathy for this devil?”

Yet, you’re supposed to. When he basically stalks Elektra, her response is to battle him (lucky thing she’s a martial arts expert), defeat him and later hunt him down to continue their tryst. Could be kinky and fun. Problem here, really, is the lack of much actual chemistry between the stunningly good-looking leads.

So we have a movie full of neat stuff and quirky characters — Joe Pantoliano’s outstanding Ben Urich is accessible to a civilian and also consistent with the comics version — that in the end just doesn’t jell. It’s one of those movies that (for a non-geek) is more fun to remember than it actually is to sit through. And the Favreau-Affleck scenes are simultaneously hilarious and moving — these two have the best chemistry in the movie.

Not that watching Daredevil was torture. But in the way that Spider-Man and X-Men managed to hit the comic geek notes and still retain enough thematic and story interest for a general audience, Daredevil seems to often miss the mark. There are stretches where your attention wanders.

If you go into the theater a DD fan, you’ll definitely leave wanting to go reread your collection, especially the Frank Miller runs. If you’re not a fan, you may well have forgotten the movie by the time you get home.

And for you comics geeks with girlfriends or boyfriends — yes, they actually do exist — you may get your significant other to go see Daredevil with you once. But I’m betting you’ll be at the second and third viewings on your own. Hey — at least it’ll save you a few bucks.

Danny Fingeroth, veteran Marvel Comics writer and editor, led the company's Spider-Man line, as Group Editor, during its highest-selling years. Danny has also created, developed and written comics and animation for AOL-Time Warner, Showtime Online, Visionary Media, Brilliant Digital Entertainment, and Byron Preiss Multimedia. Currently, he is the creator and editor of Danny Fingeroth’s Write Now! Magazine, a highly acclaimed publication about writing comics, animation and science fiction, published by TwoMorrows. Danny’s Backstage at an Animated Series, from Scholastic, is now on sale. He is also at work on Superman on the Couch: What Super Heroes Really Tell Us About Ourselves and Our Society, to be published in 2004 by Continuum.







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.