Thursday, March 6, 2014

March Marvel Madness: DAREDEVIL

Greetings, True Believers! Welcome to March Marvel Madness! Every day this month, I'll be looking back on a theatrically-released movie based on the characters of Marvel Comics. It's all to commemorate the April 4th release of the next Marvel film adventure, Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

Crank the Evanescence! It's time to look back at...


Released by 20th Century Fox in 2003, Daredevil stars Ben Affleck as Matthew Murdock, who, as a kid, was blinded by radioactive materials. Even though he lost his sight, his other senses were enhanced to superhuman levels. After his boxer dad was murdered by gangsters, young Matt dedicates his life to fighting for justice, growing up to be a defense attorney in New York City's Hell's Kitchen by day. By night, though, he's a crimefighter known as Daredevil, The Man Without Fear. Matt, a devout Catholic, is unsure of his dual role, and occasionally expresses his conflict during weekly confession. He finds hope in a woman named Elektra (Jennifer Garner), but her and her father are targets of the Kingpin of crime (the late Michael Clarke Duncan) and his crazed assassin-for-hire, Bullseye (Colin Farrell). Soon, both Matt and his alter-ego are caught in the crossfire.

Now, if I had any good sense, I would fall in line with the rest of fandom and proclaim that "Daredevil sucks" or "Ben Affleck ruined Daredevil" or "Fuck Affleck" with no elaboration, just blind compliance. However, I am a man not know for having good sense. So, I say Daredevil is not that bad.

I'll admit, I was not impressed with the film upon its initial release, either.  The CGI effects were cartoony, the wire work was obvious, the costumes looked like they were made for a 90s comic book movie. I didn't care what was going on in the film. Everybody was doing things only for the sake of looking cool while doing them. Jennifer Garner was completely miscast as Elektra. I didn't think Affleck was a problem, though. In fact, I thought he was alright. Still, unlike contemporaries such as X-Men, Fox didn't cast the best actors for the roles; they recruited stars. It was the 90s Batman way of casting a superhero picture. To me, Daredevil was living in a time-warp, so it got the Obershaw DUD stamp.

Five years went by. I had known about a "director's cut" of Daredevil on DVD for awhile. I read that it was the original version before Fox demanded it be cut down to get a PG-13 rating, and from what I heard it was a harder,darker, much better movie. I finally took a chance on it, and I was sucker-punched by the difference! Wouldn't you know, there's an actual movie here! OMG, characters! Plot! The superhero stuff were parts of the attraction, not the attraction itself. This version felt more in tune with Frank Miller's famous run in the comics. Unlike the theatrical cut, it was a film I could invest in. I mean, there were aspects of the 2003 version I disliked still present (i.e. Jennifer Garner as Elektra), but I was too busy enjoying the things I did like to care. As far as I was concerned, the Director's Cut of Daredevil was Daredevil.

Since then, the theatrical version didn't exist for me. However, I knew when I started this project that I was going to have to go back to the 2003 cut. We're looking at theatrically-released films, so it makes sense to look at these films as they were first exhibited. Looking at it now, the theatrical cut of Daredevil is still nowhere near Spider-Man quality, but it's not a complete loss. While the editing feels awkward and some of the sequences are brought down by goofy effects, and Jennifer Garner is still in it, Ben Affleck is the heart of the movie, and Matt Murdock's arc is what made it worthwhile this time around. I greatly prefer the Director's Cut, but Daredevil 2003 can still exist for me, too. I'll throw that one on if I'm short on time or attention span.

- JDO

Daredevil (Theatrical Cut)
2 1/2 out of 5 Cap shields

Daredevil (Director's Cut)
3 1/2 out of 5 Cap shields


No comments:

Post a Comment