![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
khaosworksNon-spoiler review for Daredevil: it's okay. Not the travesty some made it out to be, but not a work of beauty either. If you're a fan, watch it - it's made for you. If you're not a fan, you may wonder on occasion where the plot is.
The quote that forms the title of this entry is from the "Born Again" storyline published in the Daredevil comic in the 1980s. It is from the Kingpin, who at that point having found out that Matt Murdock is Daredevil, has destroyed Murdock's professional and personal life. However, he realizes that by doing so, he has made Murdock a man without anything to lose anymore, and is thus afraid.
In the movie, a priest tells Matt, "A man without fear is a man without hope." The reference to the original line is obvious to the fan who remembers. However, here it makes no real sense because of the inversion. The movie "Daredevil" is peppered with little references like this that will please Daredevil junkies who have memorized or remember every classic Frank Miller line or image but it will go over the head of the non-fan.
In fact, there are many in-jokes, from names of writers liberally sprinkled through the script, to shots in the film that are immediately recognizable to me whose composition is taken from a particular panel or cover in some issue or other that it gets really distracting. While it is undoubtedly faithful to the spirit of the source material (except in one respect which I'll address later), the very fact that it is compressing what was originally a one to two year episodic storyline into a two hour movie means that (a) there are a lot of coincidences to swallow and (b) there is no plot, just a series of episodic vignettes strung together.
I may be starting to sound like the fan who is never satisfied, in the sense that if it wasn't faithful, I'd be bitching but if it is too faithful, I start moaning about it as well. But no - I'm of the opinion that comics when adapted to film need to be altered or stories re-written with a film in mind instead of a comic book. The flow and pacing are different, and should be different. Daredevil starts really slowly, with the origin, zaps forward years later to a present day, lags in the middle when introducing a love story, then picks up again with a few action sequences. It's almost schizo, the way the movie plays with the speed-up speed-down button. This works fine in a TV series, where each segment has its own pace, or a comic book, where the pace of the story is within its own enclosed issue or episode, but in a film, it has its problems.
One element I did not like (and this is the unfaithful bit I'm talking about) was that in the beginning, Daredevil practically kills a man. Granted, the guy was about to shoot him, but in the struggle, the crook is knocked onto a subway track and Daredevil lets him get sliced in half by an oncoming train, and even gloats while it happens. This did not endear the character to me, nor did it to best friend Logam who was watching. While I understand that this was to show a darker kind of "hero", and was to set him up for a "redemption" of sorts at the end of the film, I don't think that to start a movie by making the protagonist for which you are supposed to be rooting for a killer is wise. Even Batman would have dragged him off the tracks and strung him up. At its most extreme, I don't recall the comic book Daredevil ever being this cold-blooded.
In the Frank Miller "Daredevil: The Man Without Fear" storyline (and also the original Stan Lee penned origin) which this scene in the movie is very obviously based, the episode happens in Matt's youth - the crook in the subway is the man who killed Matt's father, and he dies from a heart attack induced by Matt's relentless chasing of him (and young Matt watches him die), not a train slicing him in half. If they had followed this storyline instead, it would have made the same point about Matt's darkness without making it seem as culpable or as cruel, because of the revenge element for his father and the lesser violence of a heart attack. Instead, the movie makes the more shocking choice - a bad one, in my opinion.
There are other plot choices which are strange or unexplained or just making no sense. Tying the Kingpin into the story by making him the killer of Murdock's father is also a bit on the cliched side - didn't I see this in the Batman movie? All that was lacking was for the Kingpin to ask Matt if he had ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight or for Matt to scream, "You made me!"
Another one: Nicholas Natchios is killed by the Kingpin because he wants to leave the partnership. But why doesn't the Kingpin just buy him out as Natchios offers? If the Kingpin had indicated something to the effect of "No one leaves the family except in a box," it might have made some sense, but no such explanation is offered. In the comic, Natchios is a rival crime lord which makes a hell of a lot more sense for him to be a target. And isn't it just coincidental that Elektra (a billionaire's daughter, mind you!) should wander into the same mid-budget Hell's Kitchen coffeshop that Matt frequents, completely randomly so the romance can begin?
None of this will trouble the fan. He or she's already made the adjustments in their head and the understanding of the backstory behind the characters will have filled in the blanks. But for the non-fan, the oddity of such story points is going to be significant. Sadly, the more gritty and realistic filming of the movie worked against it - I could forgive to a certain extent the comic bookishness of Spider-Man because that movie was shot in bright primary colors like the fictional universe it purports to reflect. Here, because of the noir-ish, gothic feel, one expects a bit more logic or realism, which is not often provided.
Notes on the actors: Ben Affleck's chin, as Kevin Smith pointed out, makes him instant and ideal super-hero material, to which I must say I agree. Originally I had preferred Matt Damon to play Murdock, but Affleck does a creditable job in the role of the hero, although the switch between grim avenger and flippant lawyer sometimes seems a bit too abrupt.
Jennifer Garner, however, is not as satisfying as Elektra. I can't fault her athletic powress, but somehow I pictured Electra as lankier, and more graceful, more easy in her movements - Garner is actually exerting herself in those scenes, as evidenced by her heaving leather-clad bosom. As attractive as that is, the contrast with Murdock's almost effortless leaps through the city mark her as merely mortal, and not a strong a foil as the character deserves to be.
Colin Farrell as Bullseye is a joy, because he plays the complete psycho to the hilt. The delivery of the line, "He... made me... m-m-miss!" is almost perfect. Michael Duncan Smith is also not bad as Kingpin, although the black Kingpin idea still disturbs me slightly. Joe Pantaliano is completely wasted as Ben Urich, whose story (and discovery of Matt Murdock's double identity) deserves a whole lot more than the short shrift it's given in the movie. Jon Favreau as Foggy Nelson gets some of the better comedy lines but is pretty much as he was originally in the comics, as comic relief.
I did like some of the new ideas in the movie. The way the radar sense is presented is well visualized and thought out, and I also like the idea that Murdock has to sleep each night in a sensory deprivation tank and is hopped up on painkillers. The climatic fight scene between him and Bullseye, where Daredevil's super-senses are used against him is also a nice twist - and in fact, throughout the movie the advantages and disadvantages of a "radar" (really a sonar) sense are neatly shown. As mentioned earlier, there is also Daredevil's effortless grace in leaping and swinging through the city.
In the end, though, Daredevil is only okay. It could have been written better, but it panders to the fans a bit too much for my liking. The fans will love it. Newcomers to the Daredevil mythos may enjoy the action, but would find it best not to examine the plot - as thin as it is - too closely. I'd rate Spider-Man above this in terms of successfully bringing the hero to the screen.
The quote that forms the title of this entry is from the "Born Again" storyline published in the Daredevil comic in the 1980s. It is from the Kingpin, who at that point having found out that Matt Murdock is Daredevil, has destroyed Murdock's professional and personal life. However, he realizes that by doing so, he has made Murdock a man without anything to lose anymore, and is thus afraid.
In the movie, a priest tells Matt, "A man without fear is a man without hope." The reference to the original line is obvious to the fan who remembers. However, here it makes no real sense because of the inversion. The movie "Daredevil" is peppered with little references like this that will please Daredevil junkies who have memorized or remember every classic Frank Miller line or image but it will go over the head of the non-fan.
In fact, there are many in-jokes, from names of writers liberally sprinkled through the script, to shots in the film that are immediately recognizable to me whose composition is taken from a particular panel or cover in some issue or other that it gets really distracting. While it is undoubtedly faithful to the spirit of the source material (except in one respect which I'll address later), the very fact that it is compressing what was originally a one to two year episodic storyline into a two hour movie means that (a) there are a lot of coincidences to swallow and (b) there is no plot, just a series of episodic vignettes strung together.
I may be starting to sound like the fan who is never satisfied, in the sense that if it wasn't faithful, I'd be bitching but if it is too faithful, I start moaning about it as well. But no - I'm of the opinion that comics when adapted to film need to be altered or stories re-written with a film in mind instead of a comic book. The flow and pacing are different, and should be different. Daredevil starts really slowly, with the origin, zaps forward years later to a present day, lags in the middle when introducing a love story, then picks up again with a few action sequences. It's almost schizo, the way the movie plays with the speed-up speed-down button. This works fine in a TV series, where each segment has its own pace, or a comic book, where the pace of the story is within its own enclosed issue or episode, but in a film, it has its problems.
One element I did not like (and this is the unfaithful bit I'm talking about) was that in the beginning, Daredevil practically kills a man. Granted, the guy was about to shoot him, but in the struggle, the crook is knocked onto a subway track and Daredevil lets him get sliced in half by an oncoming train, and even gloats while it happens. This did not endear the character to me, nor did it to best friend Logam who was watching. While I understand that this was to show a darker kind of "hero", and was to set him up for a "redemption" of sorts at the end of the film, I don't think that to start a movie by making the protagonist for which you are supposed to be rooting for a killer is wise. Even Batman would have dragged him off the tracks and strung him up. At its most extreme, I don't recall the comic book Daredevil ever being this cold-blooded.
In the Frank Miller "Daredevil: The Man Without Fear" storyline (and also the original Stan Lee penned origin) which this scene in the movie is very obviously based, the episode happens in Matt's youth - the crook in the subway is the man who killed Matt's father, and he dies from a heart attack induced by Matt's relentless chasing of him (and young Matt watches him die), not a train slicing him in half. If they had followed this storyline instead, it would have made the same point about Matt's darkness without making it seem as culpable or as cruel, because of the revenge element for his father and the lesser violence of a heart attack. Instead, the movie makes the more shocking choice - a bad one, in my opinion.
There are other plot choices which are strange or unexplained or just making no sense. Tying the Kingpin into the story by making him the killer of Murdock's father is also a bit on the cliched side - didn't I see this in the Batman movie? All that was lacking was for the Kingpin to ask Matt if he had ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight or for Matt to scream, "You made me!"
Another one: Nicholas Natchios is killed by the Kingpin because he wants to leave the partnership. But why doesn't the Kingpin just buy him out as Natchios offers? If the Kingpin had indicated something to the effect of "No one leaves the family except in a box," it might have made some sense, but no such explanation is offered. In the comic, Natchios is a rival crime lord which makes a hell of a lot more sense for him to be a target. And isn't it just coincidental that Elektra (a billionaire's daughter, mind you!) should wander into the same mid-budget Hell's Kitchen coffeshop that Matt frequents, completely randomly so the romance can begin?
None of this will trouble the fan. He or she's already made the adjustments in their head and the understanding of the backstory behind the characters will have filled in the blanks. But for the non-fan, the oddity of such story points is going to be significant. Sadly, the more gritty and realistic filming of the movie worked against it - I could forgive to a certain extent the comic bookishness of Spider-Man because that movie was shot in bright primary colors like the fictional universe it purports to reflect. Here, because of the noir-ish, gothic feel, one expects a bit more logic or realism, which is not often provided.
Notes on the actors: Ben Affleck's chin, as Kevin Smith pointed out, makes him instant and ideal super-hero material, to which I must say I agree. Originally I had preferred Matt Damon to play Murdock, but Affleck does a creditable job in the role of the hero, although the switch between grim avenger and flippant lawyer sometimes seems a bit too abrupt.
Jennifer Garner, however, is not as satisfying as Elektra. I can't fault her athletic powress, but somehow I pictured Electra as lankier, and more graceful, more easy in her movements - Garner is actually exerting herself in those scenes, as evidenced by her heaving leather-clad bosom. As attractive as that is, the contrast with Murdock's almost effortless leaps through the city mark her as merely mortal, and not a strong a foil as the character deserves to be.
Colin Farrell as Bullseye is a joy, because he plays the complete psycho to the hilt. The delivery of the line, "He... made me... m-m-miss!" is almost perfect. Michael Duncan Smith is also not bad as Kingpin, although the black Kingpin idea still disturbs me slightly. Joe Pantaliano is completely wasted as Ben Urich, whose story (and discovery of Matt Murdock's double identity) deserves a whole lot more than the short shrift it's given in the movie. Jon Favreau as Foggy Nelson gets some of the better comedy lines but is pretty much as he was originally in the comics, as comic relief.
I did like some of the new ideas in the movie. The way the radar sense is presented is well visualized and thought out, and I also like the idea that Murdock has to sleep each night in a sensory deprivation tank and is hopped up on painkillers. The climatic fight scene between him and Bullseye, where Daredevil's super-senses are used against him is also a nice twist - and in fact, throughout the movie the advantages and disadvantages of a "radar" (really a sonar) sense are neatly shown. As mentioned earlier, there is also Daredevil's effortless grace in leaping and swinging through the city.
In the end, though, Daredevil is only okay. It could have been written better, but it panders to the fans a bit too much for my liking. The fans will love it. Newcomers to the Daredevil mythos may enjoy the action, but would find it best not to examine the plot - as thin as it is - too closely. I'd rate Spider-Man above this in terms of successfully bringing the hero to the screen.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
A man without fear is a man without hope...
Date: 2003-03-03 05:14 pm (UTC)Just wanna comment that the "a man without fear is a man without hope" that the priest says did make sense in the context of the movie, for me. The priest was trying to warn Matt that his approach to superhero-ing is fueled by vengeance, hatred and bitterness - Matt, at that early point in the movie, has no 'hope' for goodness in the world, and hence goes out beyond the edge every night as an avenging (rather than guardian) devil. It isn't until he meets Elektra and finds love that he finds a new motivation.
Cliched? Definitely, but then many of the classic comic stories are.
Reading too much into the movie? Probably - I'd agree that the film itself is rushed and doesn't develop the characters enough. But as I've said in my own blog-thread on DD, the advantage of being a fan is that I was filling in the blanks myself.
So yeah, as a fan this film worked wonderfully for me. But it does worry me that the film won't connect with the average filmgoer, 'cuz that will have an impact on the sequels - fortunately, 20th Century Fox have already greenlit a sequel and an Elektra spinoff, so I've got at least two more chances.
Re: A man without fear is a man without hope...
Date: 2003-03-03 09:36 pm (UTC)The line in the movie is clumsy if it needs to be explained and is not apparent on the face of it and is only there, really, to remind fans of the original line - which, sadly, is not enough reason for it to exist.
Your interpretation of the line only works if it equates "man without fear" as meaning "crime-fighter" or "avenger", and that, it's humbly submitted, is not what the ordinary meaning of the phrase "man without fear" means.