February 18, 2003

Wonder of wonders, miracles of miracles…

After a very strong start, blizzard conditions in the northeast corridor may well end up leaving Daredevil opening to almost exactly the same amount as Fox’s spring hit last year, Ice Age.  That number was $46.3 over three-days, while Daredevil is estimating a $47.2 million four-day. 

The big question for Daredevil is whether it will have legs.  A 50 percent drop next weekend would mean, based on three-day estimates, about $21 million more dollars in the coffers, putting the total at about $75 million for the first 10 days.  That would put Daredevil in line with XXX, adjusted for non-summer weekdays.  The domestic total would end up somewhere around $120 million. 

The readers have been given control of the column a few times in recent weeks, so with no news worth writing about after this long weekend, here they come again…

READER OF THE DAY:  DAN THE FRAT MAN writes:  “I'm shocked that the American movie public has not embraced Daredevil as enthusiastically as they did the inferior Spider-Man.  The film isn't going to win any Oscars any time soon, but by God it's a great comic book movie. For my money, Daredevil is one of the best comic films to date.  I think Ebert and Roeper said everything in their reviews.  And I think your predictions are off.  Daredevil will gross 125-130 million, and the sequel will be out summer of 2005.”

SHE THE MOND writes:  “I thought Daredevil was fun and very well done... while it had similarities to Spider-Man [which I also liked], it reminded me much more of the first Batman -- probably my favorite superhero movie ever.  I didn't like the seemingly unending amount of screen time they gave to Matt Murdock's backstory, but at least it was affecting WITHOUT being overwrought.  Mr. Ben.Lo's performance was surprisingly good, although I've never had the problems with him that a lot of people seem to.  He was a little uneven in the fight scenes, but I thought that was realistic considering his super sonar doesn't always work perfectly. 

While the supporting cast -- including Joe Pantoliano, who I was surprised to see as a reporter instead of a thug, and the extremely bad-ass Michael Clarke Duncan -- was excellent, Jennifer Garner completely stole the show.  Her performance as Elektra was impressive, especially during the powerful sandbag target-practice scene.  It seemed like a natural progression from her work on Alias, and I think she'll have no problem carrying an Elektra movie if they decide to do one.  Hollywood needs a female action hero[ine], and I think they've found her.

What I liked best was Daredevil's struggle with his desire for vengeance and his continued assertion that he's "not the bad guy".  His internal conflict -- externalized beautifully, especially in the last big fight in the church -- was a refreshing change of pace from the usual white-hat black-hat routine.  The filmmakers struck a good balance between action scenes and character moments, and had just the right amount of comic relief courtesy of Jon Favreau -- whose character I've begun to think of as "George Costanza, Attorney At Law".  The romantic moments were also handled very well -- the playground fight was clever and fun and the rooftop scene in the rain, with the beautiful "sonar vision" effects, struck just the right note.  I guess this is what happens when the love interest is more than just a cardboard cutout in a wet t-shirt.

I must also say a word about the cinematography and set design -- this is a GOOD-looking movie.  Very colorful and rich, with interesting details like the Braille-patterned wallpaper in the courtroom scene.  The opening credits sequence is also very clever and doesn't last an eternity like the one for Spider-Man.  I'm glad Daredevil didn't have to fight it out in the saturated summer market with the rest of the superhero movies... I think it's going to do well and I'm looking forward to an eventual sequel.”

DOUBLE TYNE writes:  “This one didn't register with me until after the movie was over. The rush to the next cliche was too blinding.

Remember the courtroom scene? Where Matt Murdock is representing a rape victim, and even bellows, "My client's not the one on trial here!" as he's grilling the accused rapist?

What is Murdock doing in that courtroom?

He's a defense attorney. He's not a prosecutor. But he's clearly doing the prosecutor's job, representing the victim and trying to convict the accused.

The answer is he shouldn't be in there. It makes no sense. It's completely stupid. But our moron auteur couldn't be bothered to think about that -- he just wanted the cliched courtroom scene where the perp gets off on a technicality, engorging our hero's vigilante lust for justice. And if writer-director Mark Johnson was actually aware of this idiocy, it meant he was too hellbent for cliche to care.”

THE S&M JEW writes:  “Having seen Daredevil and despised it about as much as you did, I was bemused and a bit annoyed to find that the comic-fan contingent (being a hard-core Batman fan and a general fan of comics, I read lots of comic sites and frequent the bulliten boards) pretty much welcoming the movie with open arms.  It is one thing to ignore the flaws and accept them, but the odd thing is that they seem to think that the movie is actually good!  They don't seem to notice the bad writing, underdeveloped characters, and missing second act.  Really, there is no "middle".  X-Men had the same exact 96-minute running time but still felt like a complete film (it was too short, but only because we wanted more).  Now the director claims that the DVD will have 25 minutes more footage, as if to say only people who shell out an additional $20 in April or May deserve the whole movie. 

But the oddest thing is that even the comic fans who acknowledge the flaws either choose to ignore them (fair enough I suppose, we all ignore the flaws in the movies we love), or they admit that the film was terrible and STILL plan to see it again!!  Yes, they hated the movie, felt let down by it, but still plan to pay money to those who obviously have no respect for their or our intelligence. 

Yet, in a way I sympathize.  I'm lucky to be a Batman fan.  We've had four movies... two of them were near-masterpieces (the first one was an accurate representation of Batman in 1939-1942, with the second one being Batman in the 1990s), with a third being a decent enough movie with a couple of big problems (in reality, it was a fairly accurate representation of the 1970s Batman books, save for the Joker-ization of Two-Face), and only the fourth being a true horror (which would make sense, since it represented the low-water point of the 1950s and 1960s).  And, if you hate the Batman movies, you still have 180 episodes of the three animated series, most of which range from good to wonderful.  Oh, and if you can accept the fact that it was in fact an honest representation of comics at that time, you can enjoy the 120 groundbreaking (in terms of tv art direction and use of color) episodes of the Batman tv show (love it or hate it, the Batman show is truly one of a kind).  Those who love Daredevil have only this movie.  Perhaps they were just excited to see their favorite characters on the screen in a big budget movie.  And, while it is a failure in cinematic terms, it won't embarrass fans of the comic by misrepresenting the tone of the comic.  It is dark, glum, and gloomy, just like the original books (although, of course, the original books are much better written).  Perhaps in this case, the desert wanderers were happy enough to drink the old, dirty water, just so long as it was actual water.”

SS TWO TIMES writes:  “Did I hear a call for a defense of Daredevil?   I guess I'll step up to the plate.  Mind you, I didn't love the movie-- and I'm someone who loved Spider-man last year, and might have loved X-Men in 2000 even more.  In a way, though, part of me is relieved to see that a movie like Daredevil can be partially screwed up, as I was a little nervous that Marvel films, in the proliferation, might start to resemble each other a little too closely, in terms of style and content.

Wait, wasn't this supposed to be a defense? Okay, here goes: I had a good time at Daredevil.  It was exceedingly well-cast, even beyond the four poster-leads-- I especially enjoyed Jon Favreau as Foggy Nelson, and I think Affleck's got a real strong sense of unforced chumminess with fellow, similar-aged actors which paid off well here.  And Colin Farrell, man, it was good to see him just have a ball as a lunatic after the movie-star motions of The Recruit.   Mark Steven Johnson definitely tilted his camera too much-- a few times, I was reminded of Battlefield Earth, never a good thing-- but in other places he really nailed the framing of a comic book, like in the opening, NYC being reflected in a puddle, crossed by a rat.  That seemed straight out of a comic (and maybe it is; I have passing comic book knowledge, but I'm not too up on the Marvel characters).  I also liked that the action sequences were primarily fights, and relatively low-key fights at that, rather than big conceptual things.  Not as well-integrated as Minority Report, but it felt right.  I also liked the decision to show real weakness in both Affleck's Daredevil and Garner's Elektra. They get bruised, stabbed, scarred.   I even dug the Catholic angle, because the scenes with the priest were funny and/or striking.

Of course, there were a lot of things that were really disappointing about this movie-- disappointing because I think it could've been great.  My biggest annoyance was that soundtrack, full of the worst possible pop songs from most of the worst rock bands out there.  I appreciated the N.E.R.D track, but that was it.  The movie almost got turned into Daredevil's Creek-- I half-expected to see promos for these artists' individual, crappy albums over the end credits.  What hath that godawful Spider-man "Hero" song wrought?  It was one of the worst things about that movie, and now it's twenty of the worst things about this one.  There was also a major pacing issue.  I really liked the flashback structure-- again, it felt straight out of a comic book-- but the time given to his origin story was just awkward.  I understand not wanting it to take up half the movie, a la Spiderman, but twenty minutes out of a 95-minute movie is still too much, especially if the writing is that cornball.  Either make the movie longer, or cut the origin stuff down, or both.   I guess the movie should've been longer, actually, because I didn't see nearly enough of, well, anyone except Daredevil.  I wanted more Bullseye (I loved his credit cookie at the end), more Kingpin (he had one cool fight, but ... needed more!), more

Elektra  (I liked the hokey playground fight, but the entire middle of the Elektra-Daredevil relationship is utterly missing)... basically, an extra twenty minutes to really flesh these characters out.   I really hope they make a sequel, not because this movie was so wonderful, but because I'm eager to see these characters in a movie not saddled by an origin story.  And, yeah, I wanted a lot more Elektra in costume, dammit.

I didn't hate Daredevil because it was entertaining, and it had so many moments I really treasured.  But I hope, if they do the inevitable sequel, that it gets better next time

And David... "I didn't catch your name"/"I didn't drop it"?  That exchange does not occur in this movie.  A similar one does, but it doesn't have the cute pun, which I feel is an important distinction.  I'm 90% sure she says "I didn't give it"-- because watching the movie, I was expecting the cornball line after reading your review.

(DAVID COMMENTS:  “I didn’t get your name.”  “I didn’t give it.”  Pretty much the same old gag.)

I know it's kind of a mixed review, but the ultimate defense I have of Daredevil is that I was pleased that it made money over the weekend.  Even if it wasn't as good as Shanghai Nights!”

And finally, KATIE’S DAD writes:  “Usually when a movie botches up as badly as Daredevil, I just shrug it off and laugh at it, largely because, in most cases, I had really low expectations going in (i.e. The Tuxedo or Pluto Nash, both of which I got into for free).  Daredevil, though, I had some hope for.  I am also not a "comic book geek", but I have really enjoyed some of the recent comics-inspired movies (and I am including From Hell and even the underrated Mystery Men in this category) and found that, in most cases, the films, when left in the unconventional hands of a Sam Raimi or the Hughes Brothers or even Stephen Norrington ( I was REALLY blown away by Blade 1, sorta liked its sequel, and really hope that League of Extraordinary Gentlemen survives the holy hell shoot that it endured in one piece) that the result is a visceral, pulpy thrill.  

So, placing this film solely in the hands of Mark Steven Johnson didn't seem THAT much of a stretch, right?  I mean, how badly could he botch up this storyline--sarcastic lawyer by day, fierce fighter by night, comically wacko henchman to a comically over the top villain, nice piece of tortured-soul female side action--most hacks could fill an hour forty five with at least a watchable movie, huh?  Not Mark Steven Johnson!  Life less..Slow...DULL script!!  Very flawed touch for casting---I'm sorry to say this since I really liked Ben Affleck in Catching Amy and Good Will Hunting, but he needs to leave our screens until he remembers how to act--and how the hell did this movie screw up this badly with Jon Favreau in it?? By giving him sub Jimmy Olsen dialogue and not insisting he visit a gym for a few months before shooting (Jon, no offense, but a few too many Dinners for Five, man!).  

Worst of all, though, he has no idea how to light a movie or to frame action, not that there was much of it in the first place--both of the major set pieces are dark and unfocused and edited like someone with Tourettes Syndrome was manning the AVID.  His choice of "New York City" locations was also laughable--Mark, when you shot the scene where Bullseye frames Daredevil for the crucial hit, did it not occur to you that anyone who ever watched a TV show in the last twenty years would recognize that you were shooting in Downtown L.A.!! I mean, anyone who has ANY knowledge of New York City knows that there are not PALM TREES lining any of its downtown streets and MAYBE would notice that Riggs and Murtagh fried the General's Nuts on the exact same location and that a few blocks down you'd run into the Nakatomi Plaza?!!

And, as for the "exciting" climax??  (SPOILERS TO COME!!!)  A minute-fifty for the final showdown with your main villain??  This is not an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer! (not to insult that show).  You don't hire someone like Michael Duncan and then have him stand around a few scenes and wimp out during the final showdown!  Thirty seconds of punches and a "good luck at Riker's" quip??  THAT was really it?!!  

New Regency blew $80 million on a script worse than the two-hour finale of Birds of Prey (which at least has pretty good acting) and trusted it into the worst action director since Russell Mulcahy (who torched a similarly promising The Shadow in 1992)..But, hey, at least this gives you a better idea of just how good Spiderman was...If Daredevil is the quality of Spiderman clone that Hollywood is planning on foisting on us, I dread the Hellboys or the Fantastic Fours coming down the pike.  I think I'll just watch repeats of Angel, thank you.”

E ME:  Uh, you want to try to get a word in edgewise?