DAREDEVIL (2003)

[jingjong 1]

Has anyone mentioned this gem? Why are the Double D's milky dead eyes crossed all the time? And that is just the tip of the turdburg. You will wish you were as blind as Aflac pretended to be. So bad.

[Johnny Unusual 525]

I wouldn't go that far, but it is a really weak movie. It also seems to have some tonal problems in trying to figure out if it's gritty or goofy (that weird-ass seesaw fight). Jennifer Garner is a very forgettable Elektra, Ben Affleck is forgettable as Daredevil, Jon Favreau is rather annoying as Foggy... Michael Clarke Duncan does OK as Kingpin though (a hard role to cast for many reasons) and Colin Ferril is enjoyable to watch as Bull's Eye (though very, very silly). I think it could make a good episode, but I remember it being more boring than crazy. That's just me though and it has been a while since I watched it.

[RyanSz 3140]

The only thing I remember from this, besides the horrible playground scene, was that when every character was first shown they had their own theme music as if they were a pro wrestler.

[sagebeast 4]

Ben Affleck, Colin Farrell, and a whole lot of skin-tight leather; you guys should watch Daredevil, and you know what that means...

[Wien 401]

The internet exploded into a wildfire of rage at the Ben Affleck Batman announcement. So obviously, Daredevil is now a must.

[PlanBFromOuterSpace 3138]

I don't think people getting upset about Affleck in 2013 even know what they're supposedly upset about! Are they seriously still holding 2003 against him? I know some people that do it that are too young to even know WHY they'd be anti-Affleck, and they're also the same Hot topic kids that worship at the altar of the Boondock Saints, so fuck 'em. Still, Daredevil wasn't great, and I loved all things Daredevil at that point. The tone's all out of whack as mentioned before and the laws of gravity are forgotten about halfway through. Some decent what-the-fuckery on display here. The follow-up, Elektra, was just a boring, generic piece of shit though, so no need to touch that one.

 

As far as any geek rage towards Affleck as Batman goes, I don't think there's anything to worry about. Geek rage is the most unreliable and hypocritical anger there is. They'll bitch about it, they'll still see it three times in the theater, and then they'll buy the Blu-Ray, but NOT the combo pack with the DVD and digital copy, because they're serious and they need to show Warner Brothers who's REALLY in charge! I'm a movie theater manager and a long time comic shop employee and who do you think I see pop up in both places? Hmmmmmm. Films like Jonah Hex, The Spirit (oooohhhh, another good HDTGM suggestion), and The Losers would have made even LESS money if not for these people that swore they'd never see them.

[thestray 361]

I think Affleck is a pretty decent actor, but the problem with him as Daredevil, or Batman, is those characters are supposed to be really tough intimidating guys, and I just don't get that from Affleck no matter how many muscles he has. Batman especially is supposed to be the badass of all badasses, so to cast Affleck that's a strange choice, who knows though, maybe he has it in him to pull a Heath Ledge and surprise the world.

 

The Daredevil movie weirdly has a lot of loyal defenders, a lot of whom cite the director's cut as a good movie (I don't think it's much better). Bullseye was definitely the best part of the movie.

[thestray 361]

I don't think people getting upset about Affleck in 2013 even know what they're supposedly upset about! Are they seriously still holding 2003 against him? I know some people that do it that are too young to even know WHY they'd be anti-Affleck, and they're also the same Hot topic kids that worship at the altar of the Boondock Saints, so fuck 'em.

 

I mean... they know who the actor Ben Affleck is, and they know who the character Batman is... isn't that enough reason to not like the fact that Ben Affleck is playing Batman?

[Wien 401]

Ben Affleck is a decent enough actor (and a much better director), his range is limited to a specific set of genres. Action/SuperHero is not in that wheelhouse,

 

Vin Diesel is also another one of those guys who is a decent enough actor at the particular craft he plies. But you would never cast Vin Diesel as King Lear, and you shouldn't cast Ben Affleck in any hero flick. I thought Daredevil (it IS a fucking awful movie, and fucking awful movies is the name of the game here) taught the world this lesson, but it appears we need a recourse from such amnesia. And who better to provide said recourse than the masterful visionary behind one of my favorite HDTGM episodes, Zach Snyder.

[Wien 401]

Bullseye was definitely the best part of the movie.

 

That is a very sad thing to see in writing.

[PlanBFromOuterSpace 3138]

 

I mean... they know who the actor Ben Affleck is, and they know who the character Batman is... isn't that enough reason to not like the fact that Ben Affleck is playing Batman?

The thing is though, particularly when it comes to the Hot Topic kids and other younger folks, is that I don't think they've ever seen anything with Ben Affleck in it that WASN'T a Kevin Smith movie if they've ever seen anything with him in it at all, and they certainly haven't bothered with anything in the last decade. It's like the people that say they liked "Avatar" better the first time they saw it when it was called "Dances With Wolves", but then they'd never seen THAT either. Haters just gotta hate, i guess.

[thestray 361]

The thing is though, particularly when it comes to the Hot Topic kids and other younger folks, is that I don't think they've ever seen anything with Ben Affleck in it that WASN'T a Kevin Smith movie if they've ever seen anything with him in it at all, and they certainly haven't bothered with anything in the last decade. It's like the people that say they liked "Avatar" better the first time they saw it when it was called "Dances With Wolves", but then they'd never seen THAT either. Haters just gotta hate, i guess.

 

Do you work at Hot Topic or something? Why do you keep saying the "Hot Topic kids"?

 

I don't know man, I feel like you're just assuming a whole bunch of stuff here about a hypothetical group of people you "don't think" have seen such and such movie and thus have arbitrary opinions. But what's the point in inventing an imaginary group just to dismiss them? Why is it "haters just gotta hate" and "nerd rage"? Why can't it just be a bunch of people having a valid opinion?

[wakefresh 689]

 

Do you work at Hot Topic or something? Why do you keep saying the "Hot Topic kids"?

 

I don't know man, I feel like you're just assuming a whole bunch of stuff here about a hypothetical group of people you "don't think" have seen such and such movie and thus have arbitrary opinions. But what's the point in inventing an imaginary group just to dismiss them? Why is it "haters just gotta hate" and "nerd rage"? Why can't it just be a bunch of people having a valid opinion?

 

PlanB was the guy that wrote the second opinion for Leperchaun in the Hood. Ben Affleck makes EVERYTHING better.

[seanotron 2307]

I have to admit, I'm getting some seriously solid laughs from the Batman/Affleck ragebomb that has exploded on Twitter.

[PlanBFromOuterSpace 3138]

 

Do you work at Hot Topic or something? Why do you keep saying the "Hot Topic kids"?

 

I don't know man, I feel like you're just assuming a whole bunch of stuff here about a hypothetical group of people you "don't think" have seen such and such movie and thus have arbitrary opinions. But what's the point in inventing an imaginary group just to dismiss them? Why is it "haters just gotta hate" and "nerd rage"? Why can't it just be a bunch of people having a valid opinion?

Sorry, it's just that I worked at a comic shop that was right down the way from the Hot Topic, and I just recall a bunch of people that worked or went there that seem to be worked up about the same things they were worked up about ten years ago like nothing's allowed to change or get better, and a lot of the customers at my store were the same way. That's all well and good if you don't like something and want to discuss it, but at my OTHER job at the movie theater, I'd see the very same people regularly spend money on these movies they were "never" going to see. I'm all for being educated on an issue so that you can reply with more than "because it sucks!" when backing up your side of an argument, but when you go to the midnight show, come back 3 more times in the next 2 weeks to see it with different groups of friends, and then take your kids to it, I start to get the feeling that you MIGHT not hate something as much as you say you do after paying to see it for the fifth time. So like I said about the geek rage thing, it can be completely disregarded, because those people are money in the bank. Everything's the worst thing ever until it's the best thing ever, whether they come out and say it or not. To bring it back around to Affleck, I genuinely believe that most of these folks didn't see "Hollywoodland" (the best Superman movie of 2006!), "The Town", or "Argo", that his filmography begins with "Mallrats" and ends with "Daredevil". That's right, they didn't even give themselves a chance to hate "Paycheck"!

 

Did I really say "haters gotta hate"? Oh jeez, I did. I feel so...dirty.

[wakefresh 689]

Well, I do remember people being upset that Heath Ledger was going to play the Joker. There were alot of gay jokes going around as well, and now we all know how his performance was in the movie. People are getting too upset about this and in the end, they are going to go see it anyway, even if to look at it ironically.

[Blueman29X 72]

People are getting too upset about this and in the end, they are going to go see it anyway, even if to look at it ironically.

 

Perhaps that was their strategy. The hipster demographic can be very difficult to court.

[jarrycanada 2483]

I noticed this movie is doing it's rounds on cable tv. its on every other channel right now.. incase you're looking for it.

[AlexHope 0]

Not for nothing, but the Directors Cut of Daredevil is actually quite good. It's worth a second look for those who were on the fence about the movie like I was initially.

[thestray 361]

Sorry, it's just that I worked at a comic shop that was right down the way from the Hot Topic, and I just recall a bunch of people that worked or went there that seem to be worked up about the same things they were worked up about ten years ago like nothing's allowed to change or get better, and a lot of the customers at my store were the same way. That's all well and good if you don't like something and want to discuss it, but at my OTHER job at the movie theater, I'd see the very same people regularly spend money on these movies they were "never" going to see. I'm all for being educated on an issue so that you can reply with more than "because it sucks!" when backing up your side of an argument, but when you go to the midnight show, come back 3 more times in the next 2 weeks to see it with different groups of friends, and then take your kids to it, I start to get the feeling that you MIGHT not hate something as much as you say you do after paying to see it for the fifth time. So like I said about the geek rage thing, it can be completely disregarded, because those people are money in the bank. Everything's the worst thing ever until it's the best thing ever, whether they come out and say it or not. To bring it back around to Affleck, I genuinely believe that most of these folks didn't see "Hollywoodland" (the best Superman movie of 2006!), "The Town", or "Argo", that his filmography begins with "Mallrats" and ends with "Daredevil". That's right, they didn't even give themselves a chance to hate "Paycheck"!

 

Did I really say "haters gotta hate"? Oh jeez, I did. I feel so...dirty.

 

I mean, I feel like people always throw that "you're still going to see it anyway" thing out there too much. So what? I don't think it's that crazy to think a casting choice sucks but still be interested in seeing the movie. Is a person's opinion not valid if they're still willing to give it a try? I personally don't see it as "hypocritical".

 

I'm just saying when you jump to a bunch of conclusions about what some hypothetical kids may or may not have seen, it just seems like you're reaching just to dismiss an opinion. In general I feel like people have this condescending dismissive attitude towards nerds for having a strong opinion about things that most people couldn't care less about. I've never seen people saying "jock rage" when sports fans are bad about what team LeBron gets traded to, nobody's like "You'll still watch the games, so shut up." People are just extra quick to paint all nerds with the same brush and scrutinize their opinions. Personally I feel like people criticizing nerdom are getting just as kneejerk as they perceive the nerds they're criticizing to be.

 

But seriously, I don't see what's so weird about an internet backlash to a super weird casting choice for a widely beloved character. It would be way weirder if the internet was like "Ben Affleck as Batman? Perfect!"

[thestray 361]

To bring it back around to Affleck, I genuinely believe that most of these folks didn't see "Hollywoodland" (the best Superman movie of 2006!), "The Town", or "Argo", that his filmography begins with "Mallrats" and ends with "Daredevil". That's right, they didn't even give themselves a chance to hate "Paycheck"!

 

 

Why do you genuinely believe some random stuff you imagined? There's nothing behind that opinion. And why do you think any of those movies would change their opinion? I don't see what Hollywoodland, The Town and Argo have to do with being able to play a good Batman.

[inactiveuser501 168]

How about this, we DO the movie, but NOT because of Ben Affleck.

 

I decided to check it out last night because of all of the Batman hysterics. And this is basically a male version of Catwoman; The lead is the LEAST of the problems here (More so in this movie because Affleck has, what, maybe 20 minutes of dialogue)

 

But, yeah, this movie is BAD. Laughably, Upsettingly bad. This felt like a combination of Batman Begins, Spider-Man, and Catwoman. The CGI'd New York was horrible, Jennifer Garner is HORRIBLE (Is it just a written rule that Affleck can't have chemistry with his wives?) The costume was...weird (Maybe just the source material?) Jon Favreau's comic relief was mystifying, the reporter was garbage, and most of all, COLIN FARRELL IS THE WORST VILLAIN EVER! I couldn't tell if he was trying to be comedic or dark, and then you have scenes like when he killed that grandma on a plane and it was just SO upsetting.

 

Affleck or not, this film is ripe for HDTGM.

[Darian 19]

Films like Jonah Hex, The Spirit (oooohhhh, another good HDTGM suggestion), and The Losers would have made even LESS money if not for these people that swore they'd never see them.

 

Thank you! I've been begging for them to do jonah hex!

[PlanBFromOuterSpace 3138]

OK, I'm sorry for starting all this business, as it's a discussion probably better suited for a different forum and not a place where we all get together to watch bad stuff and bag on it for fun. I've been chatting it up with some friends of mine today that have worked in similar environments and dealt with similar people, and we've had a lot of fun with it, so I'll keep it away from here. However, there may be a time or two in the future where I bring up "Star Trek Satin Jacket Guy"...

 

ANYWAY, I'm happy to get back to dogging on the ridiculousness that was the "Daredevil" movie! I think I may re-watch it tonight. It's funny how in recent years, it's retroactively become less of a starring vehicle for Affleck and become more notable for co-starring the director of "Iron Man". Seriously, I think that's the blurb they stick on the Blu-Ray cover. Also, does anyone else find it weird that even though the same guy wrote and directed both films, "Daredevil" is so much more entertainingly bad than "Ghost Rider"? While there's not enough in "Ghost Rider" to really warrant a full episode, I do find it strange that that Marvel movie, more than even "Spider-Man" or any of the "X-Men" flicks, feels more like an all-ages movie along the lines of "Fantastic Four", which is kind of weird to say about a movie where the main character was given his powers by Satan.

[Cam Bert 8145]

Yes! I thought of this as soon as the Batman news broke. However, if anybody in charge reads these comments I want to make one thing clear, make sure Paul, June, Jason and guest watch the theatrical release and not the directors cut. Overall all, it's not that bad and it doesn't make me wonder "how did this get made?" The directors cut, while still suffers from of same problems it actually tries to make a Daredevil movie and not a super hero romcom... romaction... whatever that the theatrical release ended up being. It actually has plot lines with Matt Murdock being a lawyer and being a catholic two big hallmarks of the comic series.

 

Actually, this would be a good candidate for an episode with a sit down with the creators. You guys should try really hard to get writer director Marc Steven Johnson on. If you watch the directors cut he clearly knew about the character and had passion for him, but the studio must have forced a lot upon him. I think he might have interesting stories to tell about what could have been. Also, keep him around and do Ghost Rider as well!