Daredevil (2003) User Reviews

Excellent Superhero Film

[Lyriana · 6/10 · 14 February 2008]

This movie is an exciting and excellent movie. The special effects and lighting is amazing, and all in all, the picture is superb. Also, the theme is a good one - he is an underdog, being blind, and fights for the underdogs, considering his job as an attorney. But he proves that he is much better than that when he serves justice at night as Daredevil. I dearly love how he does several stunts and tricks.

It is exciting to watch him do insane stunts like jumping right off buildings and then regaining his balance. All the stunts are a piece of art! But maybe, next time, more criminals.

I applaud this movie and hope for a sequel!

Meh the director's cut was okay

[zacksnydersucksdick · 6/10 · 3 March 2019]

Not the worst Marvel movie ever, but not really a good movie either. At best it's a fun and entertaining guilty pleasure movie. It has that early 2000's edge and cheesiness. The director's cut really fixes a lot of the movies problems but not all of it. There are a couple dumb scenes that take you out of the movie and the cgi is pretty dated. However most of the cast does a pretty good job with the roles they are given and the movie does a quick and simple job at telling the origin story. Some of the visuals and art designs are also pretty great and the action sequences still hold up. Overall, only watch the director's cut and don't take it to seriously.

It's like a darker, more violent version of "Spider-Man". Grade: B

[practiced_bravado · 7 July 2004]

That's why I think most critics hated this thing. It's not lighthearted fun like "Spider-Man" was, it's more adult-themed. I actually found it a bit more effective than Sam Raimi's superhero epic. Why? Because it wasn't campy and it didn't have cartoony special effects. The CGI in "Daredevil" is more photorealistic. I also loved the "Matrix"-like martial-arts incorporated throughout the film.

In fact, as far as darker-themed comic book movies go, I think "Daredevil" is a much better film than either of the first two "Batman" pictures were. I recently watched "Spider-Man" again on DVD and I've always had mixed reactions of it. I do think it works on the level of campy fun and for that I gave it a B Minus. But I think "Daredevil" is a more solid picture and I'd grade it with a B.

I like the look of the film, the washed-out colors make the movie look very 70's in certain scenes. Like "The Crow", the movie has an MTV mentality with rock and rap songs, but also has a love story as well. The sound design is awesome, if you have a good theatre sound system, "Daredevil" will take full advantage of it. I don't think Ben Affleck got credit when it was deserved. Along with Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell and Michael Clarke Duncan, Affleck was perfect cast.

Anyhow, as much as I believe "Daredevil" is a much better film than "Spider-Man" was. I actually think "Spider-Man 2" is better than "Daredevil". The best comic book movie ever placed on film. It shows that a director can really improve on his work. I highly recommend that film to anyone. Well, the bottom line is: "Spider-Man" (B-), "Daredevil" (B) and "Spider-Man 2" (A). I hope you enjoyed my review.

Directors cut so much better.

[p.greenwood · 7/10 · 23 January 2005]

When I heard about a directors cut to this movie I never imagined it would be so much better than the original release. Why must movie studios always feel they know better than the director. This film would have been much more successful had they left it alone, but by insisting on so many cuts and changes they shot themselves in the foot. All because they wanted a family friendly spider-man type film instead of the much more dark and violent world of daredevil. Every scene added to the film makes you wonder why they cut it in the first place. It isn't just about adding scenes though they have taken a couple out too. I can't imagine anyone who would miss the fireside love scene. I urge everyone who saw the theatrical cut to watch the directors cut. It isn't a perfect film but it's a more complete and enjoyable one. Also watch the documentary on the directors cut DVD and see one of the producers trying to defend the original release and then actually saying he thinks it is the better cut. I think he must be more blind than Matt Murdock!!!

It's True About The 'Director's Cut'

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 15 November 2005]

First off, this was a more complete version of the DVD which came out earlier. In this edition, about a half-hour of new material was added to the disc (and what was shown at the theaters.) All reviews I read said it elevated this film from "fair at best" to "good." I agree. It made the movie much, much better.

Yeah, it's more far-fetched than the other superhero movies because here, the hero is a blind guy who, because of his blindness, has extraordinary hearing powers along with the rest of the usual Batman/Spiderman-type athletic skills.

As in most of the Batman films, this is a dark film. I think it would have been better had it lightened up a bit with a few jokes and a more wholesome female lead. Jennifer Garner is another one of these latter-day skinny chicks who is made to be tough-looking, tough-talking and tough-fighting. In other words: ridiculous. However, I will say she comes across a little more likable on the extended version. One more negative: the fight scenes go on a tad too long and are outlandish.

On the positive side, this may be the best-sounding DVD I own, at least up to ones I had heard up until this came out in January of 2005. Since the hero (Ben Affleck) has super hearing, this is emphasized in this movie and so you, if you have a 5.1 surround system, hear sounds from all speakers at almost times. It's awesome!

Affleck, meanwhile, is likable as the superhero and I liked the message he gives at the end about shunning revenge. Wow, you don't hear that much in movies. Kudos, too, to villains' Colin Farrell and Michael Clarke Duncan. They are fun to watch, especially Farrell.

So, if this superhero film interests you, make sure you get the "Director's Cut" edition. It's far better than the original, and, I believe, the same price.

"If it looks like The Phantom, and smells like The Phantom... "

[bonnynklyd · 1/10 · 17 October 2003]

Daredevil is a hero movie. Unfortunately, the hero happens to be James Acheson. I looked his name up on the credits and he is the costume designer. When the makers of the film paid him to make a very camp Daredevil suit he did as they asked. Everyone else involved should be ashamed of this sorry mess of a film. I could go on, and I will.

In your average blockbuster you'll see action, follow a storyline, perhaps witness a little love interest. This will build up to a grand finale, a showdown. And would just a small amount of good acting be too much to ask? Apparently so, because on all counts this movie fails.

When a comic-book action movie contains only a handful of minutes of said action, you know there's a problem. That isn't even the bad news regarding action in this film. As if by accident Daredevil battles Bullseye for a second time. At this point the CGI characters (yes, i think Colin and Ben were in a bar drinking when this scene was made) move in. Did I mention that they move in like drunken idiots, unconvincingly lurching up and down, all over the screen. Didn't the CGI guys see The Matrix (original or :Reloaded), or Blade?

As for the storyline, don't get me started. Because I won't know where to. Was there a story? I saw this film an hour ago and I can't tell you what happened apart from people fighting, crying, kissing and dying. the scriptwriters should never be allowed out of the unemployment line again.

A big deal was made of Jennifer Garner taking on the part of Elektra. I think she read the script and thought she was playing Carmen Electra, because that's how much of an acting range she shows in this film (and I'm a big fan of Carmen.) Garner and Ben had no chemistry at all. A stink bomb has more chemistry, and would have done the job (i.e stunk to high heaven) better than this film for a lot less money. Ben has no excuse, as I'm fairly sure J-Lo made him sit down and watch all her movies. Did he watch Out Of Sight? (Imagine J-Lo being better than you at acting...)

And on the subject of acting the usually dependable Colin Farrell manages to play a very unconvincing Irishman, which is no mean feat for an actual Irishman. Yet another illustration of just how poor this film is.

You've still managed to make it to the end of the movie instead of a) destroying your TV, or b) plain old falling asleep? I won't spoil the ending but you are rewarded (and I use the word 'rewarded' loosely) by a total lack of a spectacular showdown. Instead Daredevil gets really angry to all the naughty men who've stayed up past their bedtimes. You can almost hear Daredevil say "Hey, don't make me come up there!" as he wanders into the night one last time (hopefully, anyway.)

This film gets 0 out of 10, with perhaps an extra 1 for costume design.

N.B. This review is of the Director's Cut of Daredevil.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 28 December 2014]

Blinded by bio-hazardous waste as a child, Matt Murdock finds that his other senses have developed to the point where they afford him almost supernatural physical abilities. Years later, Murdock (Ben Affleck), now a pro-bono lawyer, takes on the guise of night-time vigilante Daredevil, using his powers to ensure that justice is always served. In doing so, he finds himself pitted against crime boss Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan), his hired hit-man Bullseye (Colin Farrell, who hams it up wonderfully in every scene), and kick-ass babe Elektra (Jennifer Garner), who mistakenly holds Daredevil responsible for the death of her father.

The recent casting of Ben Affleck as Batman has been the cause of much controversy amongst comic book fans, but judging by Daredevil, the star's previous foray into comicdom, I'm not all that concerned, this fun movie proving the actor to be more than capable in the role of superhero. Affleck acquits himself surprisingly well as both the laudable lawyer and his leather-clad alter-ego, providing the character with the necessary depth and the required physicality.

If this longer version still proves less than perfect, it is not down to Affleck, but once again due to the script and the directorial style (I guess some things just can't be fixed). With an extra thirty minutes, The Director's Cut fleshes out the characters and makes more sense of the narrative, but at the expense of the pacing; in addition, the poorly lit visuals makes some of the action hard to follow (I understand that the look and feel is intended to emulate the style of Frank Miller's comic book artwork, which makes great use of heavy shadow, but director Mark Steven Johnson takes things a step too far).

Over the last decade, Marvel have gradually honed their product to meet maximum audience approval, boosting their budgets and throwing the best special effects available onto the screen, but as one of the earliest postmillenial attempts to bring their characters to the big screen (yes… Daredevil is already well over a decade old) this is still a serviceable effort, with only the occasional iffy CGI shot belying its age.

Crummy!

[themarina1 · 1/10 · 29 November 2003]

This entire movie was bad, all that is, but the cast. However, even they couldn't help this movie out. I've never read a Daredevil comic but it HAS to be better than this movie. It was slow, pathetic and that death scene on the roof...what the HECK was THAT?????? Bad, bad bad. Truly bad.

1/10 Even Bullseye sucked

Such Sweet Sorrow

[daveisit · 1/10 · 16 May 2005]

Daredevil achieved nothing as a movie. There was no enjoyment from watching, no interest in the acting, and certainly no belief in the story, whether it be comic super hero or not. For every new scene, and every second I watched, I simply hoped there would be a big turn around and something would spark some interest. This never eventuated and I found myself slipping deeper and deeper into a state of painful shock.

As for Ben Affleck, he was simply terrible. Nothing about his performance enhanced his profile as an employable actor. He ripped the shine out of his and all the other performances and spat on the leftovers.

Criminally underrated

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 2 June 2016]

This surprisingly dark and moody superhero yarn is a great and unexpected surprise – probably the most genuinely entertaining comic-book film to come out of Hollywood in the early surge of such movies. It certainly walks all over the likes of HULK and SPIDER-MAN. The fun aspect of the movie comes from a pleasingly witty script, which serves up crisp dialogue throughout; some surprising plot developments (coming from somebody who never reads any comics); memorable acting performances and a freshness which is more than worthwhile. The backstory of the main character is run through pleasingly fast, in about fifteen minutes (compared to HULK's forty-five). I don't want to spoil any of the plot, other than to say that this film takes a more adult, mature approach to the material – both in the depth of emotion of the characters, in the handling of death, and in the rather violent action sequences.

Said action – invariably incorporating martial arts, which is of course currently in vogue in Hollywood – is highly entertaining and the film as a whole is packed with special effects, which add to the impact rather than being really noticeable. The entire cast put in good performances, from Ben Affleck's subdued turn as the lead to the solid support of Jon Favreau, Joe Pantoliano and Leland Orser. Yet the most noticeable characters are Jennifer Garner as the truly electrifying Elektra, Michael Clarke Duncan as the impossibly imposing Kingpin, and best of all, Colin Farrell as mad henchman Bullseye. Farrell bags the best role in the film and really makes a meal of it, bringing humour to his psycho-schtick and enlivening the proceedings no end. The combination of the above factors serve to highlight DAREDEVIL as one of the triumphs of the Hollywood year!

Unbelivable bad

[tindfoting · 3/10 · 28 May 2022]

I see the 1st review says this is "underrated". I guess he skipped the parts were a very CGI Daredevil jumped like Sonic The Hedgehog trough the city? Seeing Netflix spot on show with Charlie Cox does nothing to improve this terrible movie, were the creators clearly have no idea who Daredevil is. They got the part that he is blind, at least. The rest is utter crap. Ben Affleck is terrible, and I guess Jennifer Garner got the Elektra part for being his girlfriend. You would think the chemistry between a real couple would show on screen, but alas, the stupid "flirting" in the playpark shows both actors hardly can act. I was frankly upset seeing this in cinema. My own, favorite superhero with inner demons, reduced to a cardboard character. And the music is rubbish, full of nu metal. I know Evanecence got a #1 out of "Bring Me Back To Life", but you don't have to be a genious to understand the makers tried to riff of the much better soundtrack of The Crow. Man I'm glad Netflix did ol'DareDevil a real character again.

An Honest Review

[generationofswine · 7/10 · 16 November 2016]

The problem here is that it wasn't exactly dark enough and Daredevil wasn't exactly street enough.

But that is without seeing the director's cut.

The fact is, they tried for the darkness that people would expect from Daredevil, but still attempted to make it relatively child friendly. It made for an epic fail that only came half-way to what it needed to be.

And then there is the street aspect of Daredevil. He isn't the Avengers, he takes on problems in Hell's Kitchen, he operates close to the community and you sort of only got a taste of it.

They tried to show that street-wise hero, but ended up making things still a little larger than life. A little too much in that regard. The Kingpin, and Duncan was perfect for the role, seemed like a villain a little too big for Daredevil, a little too removed from the mafia thug that he actually is.

As a result, the movie sort of fails, but only just. A little push further in the right direction would have taken it from a failure to a success.

It can still be enjoyed, for what it is, but feels hallow.

Daredevil is blinded by an overstuffed plot that feels more suited to an Evanescence music video.

[TheMovieDiorama · 3/10 · 5 September 2019]

"Devil card, never leave the church without it". Honest to God, was fully expecting that line, that's the level of cringe we're dealing with here. Prior to this wonderful superhero blockbuster, I had no knowledge of Daredevil aside from his sonar ability. No, I've not seen the Netflix series, and no I hadn't read the comics. I simply just don't care enough. And after watching this, I really really don't care anymore. My refusal to summarise the plot in one sentence is justified, reason being is that the narrative is overstuffed with segregated sub-plots that it feels respectable to tackle them individually. So, here we go!

Unequivocally the basis of Sin Cit..., I mean, Daredevil is revolving around a blind wealthy lawyer who takes it upon himself to become a masked vigilante at night and nunchuck civilians to death (*cough* Batman *cough*). It's a tight, cheaply woven PVC gimp suit that provides no protection or added traits whatsoever, and due to the helmet covering up his eyes, Affleck's butt chin is more noticeable than the shoddy CGI. Thank the lord his eyes were covered up though, because Affleck's blind acting was more "derpy" than me trying to work out basic mathematics whilst heavily influenced by gin (hint: I look like Affleck).

So Matt Murdock, the eponymous character, yearns to annihilate the crime lord Kingpin for committing a crime that had influenced Matt's fight against criminals. Y'know, "justice is blind" and all that obvious rubbish that makes you want to heave. Ingenious casting of Clarke Duncan, I must say, just a shame Johnson never flippin' utilised him at all. Same can be said about the assassin Bullseye, with Farrell having a target etched onto his forehead in case we forgot who he was playing, who "never misses". The cruel irony is, that he missed atleast fifty seven times. Should've been called the "Inaccurate Irishman". Anyway, he's in it for no apparent reason, but Farrell did good with his cocaine fuelled acting.

But we're not done yet. Oh no. Half of the film focused on a blossoming romance between Matt and Elektra "Nachos", because she wanted guacamole instead of salsa dip if you catch my cold. Yet despite Matt thinking "hey, I am nacho boyfriend", his resistance proved futile. And so, as soon as they meet, they battle it out whilst precariously balancing on some seesaws in front of some kids in public. Oh, super basic choreography by the way, was slower than my nan (she can't walk sooo...). But before any of this excitement ensues, Johnson tackles the origin story of Daredevil in the most uninspired fashion by simply doing nothing with it. All of this is just the narrative, I haven't even touched upon the court ruling with Coolio that apparently is exclusively available in the Director's Cut. So much stuff, yet no actual substance. Amazing, really.

The action set pieces are plagued with Dutch angles, flashing lighting that will induce epileptics into seizure mode and grungy aesthetics to capitalise on Miller's style. The soundtrack though, oh God the soundtrack! Who knew that playing Evanescence's 'My Immortal' at a funeral would evoke my nostalgic emo phase. And then 'Bring Me To Life' during a training montage? I can't. It's too much.

As an album, Daredevil rocks. As a film, it's both blind and deaf. That's narratively blind and emotionally tone deaf. The film wouldn't end and all I wanted was a bowl of nachos whilst I fall asleep watching this snooze-fest.

very underrated

[The_Amazing_Spy_Rises · 7/10 · 15 October 2005]

I personally thought this film portrayed the darkness of the comic books very, very well. Ben Affleck's performance as the Daredevil Matt Murdock is believable, but he does get too dramatic in scenes where it really isn't required. As much as people don't want to believe it, this movie works with the pretty boys Affleck and Colin Farrell as the secondary villain, a sharpshooting hit-man named Bullseye. They really hate each other (laughs). Jennifer Garner as the very sexy heiress Elektra Nachios saves this movie from being a 5/10 instead of an 8/10. She is such a likable character and does an excellent job of playing the powerful yet vulnerable Elektra. She is great at being a woman who wants to be with her man, yet has her priorities. The main villain is the very evil Kingpin, headed by a great Michael Clarke Duncan. Duncan shows his brute force near the end of the movie. All throughout, these 4 A and B list actors are flanked by a great supporting cast including Joe Pantoliano as an investigative reporter who later becomes of aid to the Daredevil, Leland Orser as the Kingpin's right hand man Wesley, and Jon Favreau as Murdock's best friend and colleague. Favreau is mostly comic relief, but the first two characters played by Pantoliano and Orser are serious characters. All in all this is a good movie, not great, good. The cast does a much better job than most people believed they would, and Jennifer Garner owns the film. It's a shame no sequel has been announced, because it would be a great film as well. The darkness of this movie can be felt all throughout, with the great villainous work of Duncan and Farrell, and the mood of Affleck and Garner. 7/10

Very underrated, I also agree that the Director's Cut is infinitely superior to the theatrical release

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 25 January 2012]

I have to admit when I saw Daredevil in its theatrical release, I found myself underwhelmed by it. I loved the visuals, but I found the love story soppy and couldn't always make sense of the story. However, hearing so much about the Director's Cut being superior I got the DVD off my brother, and actually I really liked it. Daredevil is not what I call a perfect movie, I still did find the love story soppy and becoming dangerously close to flagging down the film and the soundtrack is rather dated and heavy for my liking. On the other hand, I loved the stylish visuals, the fresh, funny dialogue, that I could make much more sense of the story and could be more entertained by it and the characterisation of the titular character with him being vulnerable and flawed I found him very interesting. The other characters are not as well developed, but are enthusiastically performed. Colin Farrell especially is lots of fun, Jennifer Garner is decent and Michael Clarke Duncan is great as is Joe Pantoliano. The editing is good if occasionally rushed, and the action sequences are clear if not always very subtle. Overall, a good movie that fared much better on re-watch. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

One of the best Marvel movies to date

[yodaschoda · 7/10 · 25 January 2005]

Despite the low ratings this movie has gotten from the masses, I honestly can say that this is probably the best Marvel movie to come out in the recent barrage of comic based movies to hit the big screen. I'm guessing the reason for the lack of high ratings is that most people were looking for a super hero along the lines of Spiderman who saves people and is always doing "the right thing". Well this obviously isn't the case here, as one can clearly see from how Daredevil does away with the baddies. I personally think that the concept of an avenging lawyer who serves up street justice to those that manipulate the system is a great concept. I also think that everybody did a great job of playing their characters as they should be played, yes… I know, even Ben. The only person I thought did a mediocre job was Colin, who only helped to make the already stupid looking Bullseye look even dumber then the character deserves. As you can no doubt guess from reading this, I'm a huge fan of the series. What you probably wouldn't guess is that choosing Michael Clarke Duncan to play the Kingpin is by far the best "improvisational" casting choice I've ever seen. For those of you who don't know, the Kingpin is "supposed" to be a big white guy… we're talking sumo style big. While Michael isn't quite that big, his size and look are by far better then anybody else they could have ever gotten to play this role. So, in conclusion, if you like your hero's on the darker side, a la Batman, then this should be a good choice for you. The effects and story line are great; I can only hope that the only "acceptable" attendance at the theaters won't stop them from making a sequel to this movie… I know, don't hate me… but with Ben playing Daredevil again as well… don't worry, I hate myself too!!! And P.S. Elektra isn't a sequel… it's a separate plot line all together, although they try to link the two at some point in the movie, but that's another comment for another movie.

Not even entertainingly bad...

[Mikey_Walsh · 1/10 · 23 February 2003]

This movie has nothing going for it. The action sequences weren't spectacular, the story was uninspired, and the acting was atrocious (on all accounts). Trying to cash in on another profitable Hollywood trend, the Marvel Superhero, this movie brought nothing to the table. While the film was more frustratingly bad than entertaining I did find myself laughing aloud at Colin Farrell's ridiculous and over the top "pyscho" antics. I gave this movie a 1 out of 10.

Dumbdevil

[SillyWil · 1/10 · 30 July 2003]

A really, really, really, really (there aren't enough really's) bad movie. Don't they ever watch these things before they make us watch them? One of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. Dare I say it - Spiderman was actually better.

Director's cut is a good superhero movie

[sserafimescu-541-914731 · 7/10 · 15 February 2014]

I have recently seen the Daredevil Director's Cut, and was surprised - the movie is pretty entertaining and well played. It even has some memorable poetic scenes. I believe Ben Affleck lends more depth and plausibility to Daredevil than Christian Bale did to his monosyllabic Batman. Collin Farrell delivers an intriguing and funny superhero movie villain (a rare treat, that was later brought to perfection by his friend Heath). Michael Clarke Duncan and Jennifer Garner are, each in their own way, beautiful to behold, and perform well in their archetypal roles. Overall, if you enjoy superhero movies and skipped this one, see it - just make sure to get the Director's Cut.

leave well alone

[rjpurves · 1/10 · 14 February 2003]

Hmmm. Laughable CG effect (the opening titles for one look like on of my 3DS Max test renders), combined with camera shots that are too close and/or too wobbly. Add to the mix the Gullermo Del Toro style of frenzied cutting and you have a film that quite literally made me motion sick.

The direction was extremely poor, and there are so many incidences of this it's impossible for me to pick out a specific reference.

The script seems to lack coherent plotting or dialogue. Some of the dialogue is so poor that it defies belief. The only consistency is the fact that it's totally inconsistent. I've seen more holes in swiss cheese: the plot is so bad.

The heavy metal sound track and the obvious product placements either detract or just simply annoy.

Also, the comic book characters were human, with all the skills and weaknesses that go with it. In the film, they're practically superhuman.

This is a bad film and i'm not holding my breath for the inevitable sequel.

Not bad.

[mbrydges-12578 · 7/10 · 28 November 2021]

After watching Eternals & Captain Marvel & WW84 Daredevil is no longer the worse Marvel movie anymore. Daredevil is underrated. I wish they would bring back the tv series.

Defending and underrated superhero action flick, One of my favorite films!

[ivo-cobra8 · 7/10 · 19 October 2015]

Daredevil (2003) Director's Cut is very underrated American Action superhero flick. I did saw the theatrical cut in in 2004/2005 and I loved it. I don't care if this film is terrible, for me it is good I love it. I think Ben Affleck did a perfect job at acting as Matt Murdock/Daredevil! This is always been my favorite superhero flick out there and it still is. Jennifer Garner as Elektra did a terrific job as the female hero and she was pretty good. Colin Farrell as Bullseye and Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin did all great on their performances on their characters. I love this film and I don't care how underrated it is I love it.

I am defending this film and I don't think is awful , bad or terrible it is great. It is kind of Entertaining and it is still a good film. People: It's not that bad. In fact, it's really good. Okay, it isn't a classic like are The Dark Knight Trilogy or other Marvel highly rated films. It is still a good, both of the versions are good but I just prefer the Director's Cut because the film explains much more than the theatrical cut douse and ends with a cliffhanger. Daredevil features another hero without super strength, just the ability to use what he has to maximum potential, making him a more accessible hero to the masses.

Ben Affleck (Pearl Harbor) portrays Matt Murdock, a man blinded since childhood after accidental exposure to hazardous materials. By day, Murdock is an honest attorney from Hell's Kitchen, New York. By night, he is Daredevil, a superhero relying on an incredibly attuned sense of hearing (a "radar sense," as he calls it) to fight criminals. Following the death of his father, Matt vows revenge on The Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan, The Scorpion King), who teams with the villainous Bullseye (Collin Farrell, Phone Booth) in a move against Daredevil, Matt must not only fight two super-criminals, but deal with a burgeoning relationship with the mysterious -- and deadly -- Elektra (Jennifer Garner, Juno).

The director's cut is way better than the theatrical version. There is more storyline to this version, more action, more humor! In this version there is an added storyline which makes the movie way easier to understand, it ties together loose strings in the movie. This is probably one of my favorite movies of all time.

The one thing I didn't like about this version is that they take out the confession scene in the beginning of the movie. I recommend it to any superhero fan out their. It is rated R. Mostly for more action/violence. Without question, THIS is the one that should have been released in theaters, not the other version. Underrated of the marvel comic movies For Daredevil, justice is blind, and for the guilty, there's hell to pay!

Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner ignite dangerous sparks and nonstop thrills in this dazzling action-adventure about the newest breed of superhero. By day, blind attorney Matt Murdock (Affleck) toils for justice in Hell's Kitchen. By night, he's Daredevil, The Man Without Fear - a powerful, masked vigilante stalking the dark streets with an uncanny "radar sense" that allows him to "see" with superhuman capabilities. But when the love of his life, fiery Elektra Natchios (Garner), is targeted by New York City's ruthless Kingpin of crime (Michael Clarke Duncan) and his deadly assassin Bullseye (Colin Farrell), Daredevil may be about to meet his match Daredevil is a 2003 American superhero film written and directed by Mark Steven Johnson. Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the film stars Ben Affleck as Matt Murdock, a blind lawyer who fights for justice in the courtroom and out of the courtroom as the masked vigilante Daredevil. Jennifer Garner plays his love interest Elektra Natchios; Colin Farrell plays the merciless assassin Bullseye; David Keith plays Jack "The Devil" Murdock, a washed up fighter who is Matt's father; and Michael Clarke Duncan plays Wilson Fisk, also known as the crime lord Kingpin.

Why I love this film? Because Ben Affleck is one of my favorite actors and I just love what he does in this film. There's the right balance of action romance. There has been criticism about Ben Affleck acting. In his defense , Ben and Jennifer do have chemistry that works and goes somewhere.You can see he is taken with her. Even Ben and Jon Favreau friendship works for their characters Matt/Daredevil and Foggy. They are genuinely funny. I love this film. The rating I am giving is 7 because the film wasn't that good, but it wasn't that bad either.

7/10 Score: B Studio: Marvel Enterprises, New Regency Pictures, Horseshoe Bay Productions Starring: Tobey Maguire, Willem Dafoe, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Cliff Robertson, Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons Director: Mark Steven Johnson Producers: Avi Arad, Gary Foster, Arnon Milchan Screenplay: Mark Steven Johnson Rated: R Running Time: 2 Hrs. 13 Mins. Directors's Cut Based on Daredevil characters by Stan Lee Bill Everett Daredevil: The Man Without Fear by Frank Miller Budget: $78.000.000 Box Office: $431.881

Spare yourself the pain and suffering!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[girl4film · 1/10 · 8 March 2003]

This movie was excruciating!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was almost as bad as jeepers creepers, with even less thrills. Ben Affleck has now perfected his most pathetic acting in his history of bad acting. I'm a straight girl, and even I recognize the only redeeming factor in this film is looking at Jennifer Garner. Just watch Alias. This is the worst comic book movie I have ever seen or heard of. Just the memory of Ben trying to convince himself as well as the audience "I'm not the bad guy" makes me shudder. If you throw your 7 bucks down a sewer it will be better spent. 0 stars, 0/10.

Forget the theatrical version, buy the director's cut DVD instead!

[KryptoniteCornCob · 9/10 · 1 December 2004]

This review is for the Director's cut DVD of Daredevil. In all honesty, i liked the theatrical version of this movie. But now that i have seen the true version of this movie, the director's cut, i don't have any desire to watch the theatrical cut ever again. The director's cut is an improvement in every way. Everything makes sense now, and the characters are more fleshed out, which is a very good thing.

The DC is 30 minutes longer than the original cut, of which the new footage ranges from a whole new big subplot, and little things, that actually have more impact and and make the movie more understandable and better than you might imagine. The action scenes are way better also. The DC makes the movie into what it should've been in the first place before the studio screwed with it. I can't believe how much the studio hacked this movie up for theater..it is quite ridiculous. But now with the movie restored to it's original vision, i can fully enjoy it without the thought of something missing from it. In comparison, the only thing that the original DVD release has over this new DC DVD is it has a second bonus features/behind the scenes disc.

The DC DVD is one disc, and has a few movie trailers, a making-of featurette, and an all new audio commentary. Despite it's shortcomings in form of a second disc compared to it's counterpart, i'd choose the DC over the theatrical version any day. The DC is simply so much better. Forget what you know about the theatrical cut of the movie, and give this new DC version a chance..it is superior to the other version in every way. So give it a try, and i think you might be pleasantly surprised. Even those of you who hate the original cut.

My vote, in comparison: Theatrical version- 5.5 Director's cut version- 9.5

In closing, i'd like to thank the Director, the film editors, and everyone else who made this wonderful Director's cut DVD possible. I love the new version, and it's nice to see the Director's vision restored to this movie after nearly 1 1/2 years. Two thumbs up! R.I.P. Daredevil theatrical version!!

Directors Cut

[richlewin · 7/10 · 12 January 2015]

This film could have kick started a franchise if it hadn't of being hacked about in the cutting room. Thank fully the directors cut was released giving this film its due credit and showcasing what a great film it intended to be. This has a far better tone and direction than Sam Rami's Spider-man which i felt lacked something. There are a couple of dumb moments in the film but overall the film delivers on cast, plot, tone and soundtrack. I have always hoped a sequel would have spawned out of the directors cut, but I am pleased to see that Marvel are producing a TV series. (Shame not another movie). 7/10 is for the directors cut not theatrical.