summercomfort (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
summercomfort) wrote2003-02-15 12:47 am
summercomfort) wrote2003-02-15 12:47 am
Daredevil
Daredevil..... was... well, entertaining. One shouldn't go in expecting Spiderman.
The director/writer had to deal with having a emotionally realistic hero in a marvel world and a PG-13 rating. Whereas Spiderman embraces his superhero duties with exuberance and self-righteousness, Daredevil doesn't. It's not a happy world. Nor is it a strange/freaky world like Batman-ish. With Spiderman, you can fully fall into the Marvel world and accept the bad script as it comes. With Daredevil, it tries to be serious and dark, but it doesn't work in the typical Marvel context (namely, people flying around in red leather costumes and "batcave"-ish apartment). I wish I could see more of the plot, more of the characters. I think I'd rent the DVD uncut version if it ever comes out, just to see what it could have been, what was its original vision. Then I can make a fair assessment.
More trivial Bad-ness:
- bad special effects in some cases (the Church scene, and the last scene). The vision thing was good. It didn't have as much of a budget as Spiderman, so understandable, but further detracted from the attempted realism of the movie.
- the Daredevil-Kingpin battle? eh. Like the rest of the movie, all this buildup and not much of a climax/conclusion.
- the original comic seems to have had lots of strong Catholic and general religious tones. Some people might think a little over-done
Good:
- Colin Farrel as Irish punk marksman Bullseye. (Stay after credits to see a little more of him).
- Jennifer Garner. Yay! And she does all her own stunts, too.
- slightly less corny dialogue than Spiderman. At least not as bungling teen.
- Foggy Nelson, Matt/Daredevil's lawyer buddy. Yes, alligators do exist in the sewers.
- His weapon stick thing is spiffy!
So overall decent as far as these things go.
(see? I tried hard to be unbiased!)
Add: Hey, ppl, remember RuroKen? Apparently, it will be on Toonami in a month. o.O
The director/writer had to deal with having a emotionally realistic hero in a marvel world and a PG-13 rating. Whereas Spiderman embraces his superhero duties with exuberance and self-righteousness, Daredevil doesn't. It's not a happy world. Nor is it a strange/freaky world like Batman-ish. With Spiderman, you can fully fall into the Marvel world and accept the bad script as it comes. With Daredevil, it tries to be serious and dark, but it doesn't work in the typical Marvel context (namely, people flying around in red leather costumes and "batcave"-ish apartment). I wish I could see more of the plot, more of the characters. I think I'd rent the DVD uncut version if it ever comes out, just to see what it could have been, what was its original vision. Then I can make a fair assessment.
More trivial Bad-ness:
- bad special effects in some cases (the Church scene, and the last scene). The vision thing was good. It didn't have as much of a budget as Spiderman, so understandable, but further detracted from the attempted realism of the movie.
- the Daredevil-Kingpin battle? eh. Like the rest of the movie, all this buildup and not much of a climax/conclusion.
- the original comic seems to have had lots of strong Catholic and general religious tones. Some people might think a little over-done
Good:
- Colin Farrel as Irish punk marksman Bullseye. (Stay after credits to see a little more of him).
- Jennifer Garner. Yay! And she does all her own stunts, too.
- slightly less corny dialogue than Spiderman. At least not as bungling teen.
- Foggy Nelson, Matt/Daredevil's lawyer buddy. Yes, alligators do exist in the sewers.
- His weapon stick thing is spiffy!
So overall decent as far as these things go.
(see? I tried hard to be unbiased!)
Add: Hey, ppl, remember RuroKen? Apparently, it will be on Toonami in a month. o.O
no subject
no subject