User Score
6.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 281 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 47 out of 281
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jul 19, 2014
    10
    Daredevil is an excellent marvel comic and superhero movie. The movie received a lot of flak when it was
    released. I don't see why, the movie is terrific. From the acting to the special effects, the movie hits the
    mark. Daredevil deserves the utmost kudos for staying true to the dark themes of the comic book. Daredevil and The Punisher are the truest movies to the comic books and they
    Daredevil is an excellent marvel comic and superhero movie. The movie received a lot of flak when it was
    released. I don't see why, the movie is terrific. From the acting to the special effects, the movie hits the
    mark. Daredevil deserves the utmost kudos for staying true to the dark themes of the comic book.
    Daredevil and The Punisher are the truest movies to the comic books and they both received low reviews.
    The reviews mean nothing because both of the movies are magnificent. Both movies are 100 percent true to the marvel comics, A+ for both movies.
    Expand
  2. MichaelM.
    Oct 23, 2004
    4
    When I went to go see this movie I thought it was going to be horrible. All I heard were negative things about this movie. I thought to myself, "Ben Affleck as a superhero? Give me a break!". When I went to go saw it it actually wasn't bad! It wasn't good either. It was just an average movie. There was nothing special about it, and nothing to horrible about it either, except When I went to go see this movie I thought it was going to be horrible. All I heard were negative things about this movie. I thought to myself, "Ben Affleck as a superhero? Give me a break!". When I went to go saw it it actually wasn't bad! It wasn't good either. It was just an average movie. There was nothing special about it, and nothing to horrible about it either, except Jennifer Garner's atrocious acting. Ben Affleck is pretty bad actor, but not as bad as her. Other cast members were a delight to watch such as Colin Farrel, Jon Favreau, Joe Pantoliano and Kevin Smith in a tiny cameo as a person working at a morgue. The thing I really don't get though is, in the comic book the character of Kingpin is white. The man who plays him, Michael Clarke Duncan, is black. And another thing, the original Kingpin wasn't muscular and strong like Michael Clarke Duncan, he was morbidly obese. It has some cool special effects in the movie, but nothing too spectacular. I think the character of Bullseye, played by Colin Farrel was pretty interesting and kind of funny. In the beginning there is a cameo by Robert Iler who plays AJ Soprano on "The Sopranos" as a bully who beats up Daredevil as a boy. The movie is worth watching if you have nothing better to do, but don't go out of your way to see it. I know I wouldn't. (2/14/03) Expand
  3. Mar 28, 2015
    3
    Daredevil could’ve been a good film. The set up was decent and the visual style was intriguing but the film quickly throws away its potential after the first act. The film glosses over Daredevil’s origin, which could’ve been a film onto itself and fleshed out the protagonist but the film just skips to him being Daredevil so he can fight the Kingpin. Michael Clarke Duncan does the best heDaredevil could’ve been a good film. The set up was decent and the visual style was intriguing but the film quickly throws away its potential after the first act. The film glosses over Daredevil’s origin, which could’ve been a film onto itself and fleshed out the protagonist but the film just skips to him being Daredevil so he can fight the Kingpin. Michael Clarke Duncan does the best he can has the villain and provides one of the more entertaining performances of the film but its not enough. The film is way too goofy at times and his henchman Bullseye along with Eletrika along with some bizarre choices in filming, editing, and scoring. The cast assembled here is good and fine but while they try to give the best performances they can they have been handed a terrible script. Daredevil isn’t the worst comicbook movie ever but its still bad providing a forgettable film that you could honestly skip, which is a shame considering how fascinating this character is in the comics. Hopefully the upcoming Netflix series will make up for it. Expand
  4. Jan 29, 2015
    4
    Sem sombra de dúvidas um dos piores filmes já produzidos da Marvel,não são os atores Affleck,Farrell,Garner e Clarke Duncan estão excelentes,destaque ainda mais para performance de Colin Farrell,o problema é a idéia de colocarem na maioria cenas bestas sem ação e sem vida no filme,mas destaques as cenas do Demolidor Vs Elektra,chefão e Collin são as únicas que prestam.
  5. Dec 29, 2010
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I know what your thinking. 8 for Daredevil? The original is worth 6 at most, the 8 is for the Directors Cut version, which is better than the original cinematic version. For the Directors Cut, a sub-plot is added where Matt and Foggy Nelson take the case of a murdered prostitute, with a drug addict framed for the murder, played by Coolio. This addition makes the film seem darker than the original cut. Foggy Nelson is given more to do than be just the lawyers sidekick and we get more time with Matt Murdock as a lawyer than a masked vigilante. Also, the reason the cops come for Kingpin at the end seems more believable than in the original cut. The opening origin is extended, focusing more upon Matts catholic upbringing and making us feel more for his relationship with his father, which makes it more tragic when his father is murdered. However, many flaws still remain. The playground fight scene's a big one, and you can't help but feel that Jennifer Gardners casting as Elektra was just stunt casting, due to her being in Alias. I personally liked Colin Farrels portrayal as Bullseye. He plays the character crazy and enjoyable, just like Bullseye. I feel they missed a trick though. When Bullseye asks Kingpin for a costume, that was the right moment for Bullseye to get his Marvel costume. But seeing Ben Afflecks gimpy DD costume and the schoolgirl Elektra, maybe a Bullseye costume was better left undone. Michael Clarke Duncan will always be John Coffey off the Green Mile for me, so I'm not fully convinced as him playing Kingpin. I was convinced in his battle with Daredevil and him talking with Bullseye, but not much else. And Ben Affleck as Daredevil? I honestly didn't mind him. Who would've thought the addition of Coolio would help this become a better film? Still confounded by Ben Urich finding the gasoline/alcohol marked DD which he set on fire... Expand
  6. Nov 8, 2012
    4
    Excluding some impressive stunts, there's just not much here if you look at all the money and star power that went into making it.
  7. Sep 24, 2011
    4
    "Daredevil" is just the worst movie you can think of in Marvel Studios. It has crappy CGI, undeveloped romance between Affleck and Garner (in the movie), and a monotonous length that rushes towards the end.
  8. Apr 21, 2014
    7
    Real guilty pleasure movie for me, just enjoy the movie for being so, Different, at the time of release it had to go up against the amazing spiderman 2 so, good job for being fun and mindless, this being the main reason why i love the film. The character of Daredevil is very hard to portray and i believe the film did a pretty decent job.
    7/10
  9. Jan 18, 2012
    4
    I recently read Brian Michael Bendis' run on Daredevil and was blown away by how good it was. Out of curiosity (and my better judgement) I decided I had to watch this movie. Unfortunately, the quality of the comic book is lost to the film. Director Mark Steven Johnson got just about everything wrong. The casting was poor - the most obvious example is Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin. InI recently read Brian Michael Bendis' run on Daredevil and was blown away by how good it was. Out of curiosity (and my better judgement) I decided I had to watch this movie. Unfortunately, the quality of the comic book is lost to the film. Director Mark Steven Johnson got just about everything wrong. The casting was poor - the most obvious example is Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin. In the comics, he's a fat white guy. In the film, hes a black body builder. I could have lived with this if Michael Clarke Duncan could play the role of a villain - but he's just to damn charming. Ben Affleck was mis-cast, as was Jennifer Garner. Their combined acting was pretty poor - I just couldn't suspend my belief long enough to accept either of them as heroes. I think the director just tried to cram too much into this film. The film covers Matt Murdock gaining his powers (and disability) as a child, his fathers death, his career as a lawyer, his romantic relationship with Elektra, his friendship with Foggy Nelson and Ben Ulrich and his feud with both Bullseye and Kingpin. It was just too much - the movie was saturated and watered down with plot devices. Aesthetically speaking, the film was too dark. Many of the scenes were filmed at night or in dark interiors. I found it distracting during the action scenes; the sequences were hard to follow because of the dimly lit sets. Finally, I'd just like to point out that this movie is CHEESY. Good god. I actually laughed out loud a couple of times because of how bad the acting/dialogue was. The bottom line? Skip it, especially if you're a fan of the Daredevil comics. Expand
  10. Sep 21, 2014
    3
    A solid performance from Ben Affleck and Garner can't withstand the whole 2 hours of noisy soundtrack and mostly bland acting. A disappointing super-hero movie.
  11. Feb 24, 2013
    2
    Ben Affleck is a tool. He's about as believable a super hero as I am a super model. Ben, do us all a favor, stick to directing and romantic comedies so that I don't have to see you anymore!
  12. Jul 1, 2013
    4
    It's not enough to make a regular popcorn superhero flick when films like Spider-Man as well as X-men has wit, character development and high-octane action sequences that makes them great movies all around.

    Ben Affleck fits the role for Matt Murdock/Daredevil but the movie is, ultimately, too derivative to be on par with other superhero movies. It does have enough moments that, without
    It's not enough to make a regular popcorn superhero flick when films like Spider-Man as well as X-men has wit, character development and high-octane action sequences that makes them great movies all around.

    Ben Affleck fits the role for Matt Murdock/Daredevil but the movie is, ultimately, too derivative to be on par with other superhero movies. It does have enough moments that, without them, would've made the movie much worse than it already is but the rest of the characters don't get their showcase, especially Elektra.
    Expand
  13. Aug 27, 2011
    4
    For a superhero that's supposed to be so dark and tortured by guilt (emotional and Catholic), Daredevil is a rather goofy movie. It's dialogue feels like it was written by someone who had never read a comic book trying to emulate one, and scene after scene of forced drama (and by drama, I mean play a ton of emo songs).
  14. Aug 26, 2013
    0
    Bad script, bad actors, bad felling, pointless.... The movie dont have any good point..
    Unfortunately i had watch on the cinema. Was a wasteof money..
  15. Nov 26, 2011
    2
    The only good parts of this film are the flashback scenes to his past, Besides that the entire film sucked. The cast was terrible and the whole idea of this film was just an epic failure.
  16. Nov 3, 2013
    7
    Daredevil is a great movie, for the Marvel fans (at least.). Ben Affleck is a blind hero by the name of Daredevil who makes his vision by his excellent hearing. The movie is over the top R rated fun. Jennifer Garner is hot, Duncan is funny and Ferrell is awesome and violent. This movie is so boring to normal man and so much fun to Marvel fans. Critics aren't Marvel fans. Daredevil is soDaredevil is a great movie, for the Marvel fans (at least.). Ben Affleck is a blind hero by the name of Daredevil who makes his vision by his excellent hearing. The movie is over the top R rated fun. Jennifer Garner is hot, Duncan is funny and Ferrell is awesome and violent. This movie is so boring to normal man and so much fun to Marvel fans. Critics aren't Marvel fans. Daredevil is so awesome you will cry. It's corny fun. What we want! The guns are used and the blood is shed. Watch the UNRATED version! (If You Dare!) every actor nails it in this film and the pacing is good as well. It's a 7/10 movie for sure. Nothing less nothing more. Expand
  17. RobertJ
    Nov 7, 2006
    2
    In the genre, this film is a prime example of how not to do it. As a movie in general, it is absolutely lousy. Predictable, cliche, with rather uninspired action sequences, and average acting at best. A waste of time for anyone who doesn't have a particular interest in the main character.
  18. (Anonymous555]
    Mar 22, 2008
    10
    I don't understand why people think this is so bad, just remove the terrible music and the crappy fight scene in the park and you have a great movie. I think if they released the director's cut in cinemas it would have made a lot more money. You should watch the director's cut it awesome!
  19. JimP
    Dec 26, 2006
    1
    Piece of crap. Especially when that mute keeps saying "I never miss!" what's that about?! One of THE worst films I have ever seen. Ben Affleck should be ashamed. Period.
  20. Nov 29, 2010
    3
    Mildly entertaining and not much more. The reason why everyone bags on this movie? It's cheesy, Nachio heesy!

    Concept is great and another Hollywood easy out by going to the comic book well at it's finest. The story is solid though if not a little disconnected. M Duncan as the big boss is a bit of a redirect from the comic but he pulls it off smashingly.
  21. Oct 15, 2011
    5
    This film isn't the scarring experience I was expecting (for that I watched Electra) but it didn't live up to what it could have been. It seemed that Daredevil took the middle ground and stayed there with it aspiring to be something more than average but never really putting in the effort. I normally don't appreciate super hero movies for the same reason in that they are way too upbeat andThis film isn't the scarring experience I was expecting (for that I watched Electra) but it didn't live up to what it could have been. It seemed that Daredevil took the middle ground and stayed there with it aspiring to be something more than average but never really putting in the effort. I normally don't appreciate super hero movies for the same reason in that they are way too upbeat and when a comic book film tries to show real darkness it usually fails quite miserably. However Daredevil actually does have a nice tone in its darkness, the mixture of colours actually provides for a pleasant viewing experience with there being some truly clever direction in places (rain face). I'm not saying its high art but it works with there being some incredibly visceral moments. If anything the movie annoys with the fact it embraces a little too much its comic book roots in its representation of Bullseye who (with the help of Colin Farrell) manages to drive the viewer up the wall. Daredevil made some moves to be unique but overall just didn't put in enough effort to pull it off. Also Jon Favreau needs to stop playing the jovial sidekick, if you've seen Swingers you know it is beneath him Expand
  22. Mar 7, 2012
    5
    Other good title. I meet the Daredevil story, and is beautiful, is same like the batman's story, but this adaptation is some regular, some performance are good, but others no much, the story of this film is regular, and a lot of boring. I think that is a correct film, special mention to the church scene, is fantastic. In no much words, a correct film.
  23. Sep 23, 2013
    5
    To be fair, I didn't hate this movie. There was allot I liked and I thought Affleck didn't do a bad job. He looked like Daredevil and his Matt Murdock was a little wimpy, but good enough. I really don't like how much he gets trashed, since it wasn't him that was wrong with the movie, but the writing and directing.

    How could Garner be cast as Elektra? This role was clearly design for
    To be fair, I didn't hate this movie. There was allot I liked and I thought Affleck didn't do a bad job. He looked like Daredevil and his Matt Murdock was a little wimpy, but good enough. I really don't like how much he gets trashed, since it wasn't him that was wrong with the movie, but the writing and directing.

    How could Garner be cast as Elektra? This role was clearly design for Michelle Rodriguez. Garner was terrible in the movie. Enough on this.

    Farrell is just fantastic as Bullseye. I do question the movies design for his character, but I guess it's fine. Michael Clarke Duncan is just phenomenal as Kingpin, granted the race change has a little odd at first, but he nails the character, both in delivery and in physically.

    Overall:
    Daredevil Is a badly written and poorly directed mess by someone who clearly lacks the experience for this kind of movie. Luckily the actors (not Garner) do save the film from being a total failure.
    Expand
  24. Jul 1, 2013
    7
    A decent superhero flick but compared to the likes of Spider-Man, etc there are just better ones out there to look to instead. I actually enjoyed the Elektra prequel that followed more than this, but enough about the bad because its still a good film with an interesting premise and a good line-up of actors. The problem is it never really grabs you and you don't really fall in love with anyA decent superhero flick but compared to the likes of Spider-Man, etc there are just better ones out there to look to instead. I actually enjoyed the Elektra prequel that followed more than this, but enough about the bad because its still a good film with an interesting premise and a good line-up of actors. The problem is it never really grabs you and you don't really fall in love with any of the characters so I found myself drifting throughout, but still there's enough here for it to be enjoyed. Expand
  25. Aug 5, 2013
    4
    There are moments of undeniably zippy fun, but Daredevil suffers from indolent acting, incoherent pacing and a monotonous script that's weak compared to the average superhero movie standard.
  26. Sep 26, 2013
    7
    Okay superhero movie, at best. The score and dialogue are pretty unintelligent, but the added imparity of blindness to the protagonist adds for at least a little something extra.
  27. Jun 22, 2014
    3
    Daredevil embodies what not to do in a superhero movie. Have cheesy one-liners, convoluted plot and a Director who claims all the best scenes were removed in post. Overall not badly shot, but everything else stinks.
  28. MitchH.
    Feb 16, 2003
    6
    A movie full of nothing but it is entertaining. It has some good fight scenes and shocking moments, but that just doesn't add up. I thought ben Afleck sleepwalked through the roll but the movie was saved my Jennifer Garner. I love her. I would recommend this movie to people because you will have fun, but there isn't a lot of substance.
  29. [Anonymous]
    Mar 10, 2003
    10
    Better than Spiderman, even though I prefer Toby Maguire to Ben Affleck. I'm not a lesbian so I have nothing to say about Jennifer Garner exept she did a good acting job. I loved Bullseye!
  30. CP
    Mar 6, 2003
    9
    I give this movie a nine. All the reviews say that affleck did a bad job but he played the part well, for a guy who is not such an action star. Affleck is a great actor; when he has matt damon with him, which is why I'm shocked that he did a good job in this film. As for Garner, they made a great choice. She was able to do most of the stunts herself, and she is knows the martial I give this movie a nine. All the reviews say that affleck did a bad job but he played the part well, for a guy who is not such an action star. Affleck is a great actor; when he has matt damon with him, which is why I'm shocked that he did a good job in this film. As for Garner, they made a great choice. She was able to do most of the stunts herself, and she is knows the martial arts. As for Clarke, I was a little dissapointed not in his acting, but in his part. Kingpin is supposed to be an excellent fighter. He would not have went down that easy. I also do not believe that he was from the Bronx. Expand
  31. VergilA.
    Apr 9, 2003
    2
    This movie totally reeked! Some say that this film isn't childish like Spider-Man, well I thought this drek was plain stupid like the fight scene between Garner and Affleck in the playground (and among other things). And I cannot believe that some of you consider Daredevil to be "dark". Micheal Jackson's skin color is darker than this film's tone. True "dark" superhero This movie totally reeked! Some say that this film isn't childish like Spider-Man, well I thought this drek was plain stupid like the fight scene between Garner and Affleck in the playground (and among other things). And I cannot believe that some of you consider Daredevil to be "dark". Micheal Jackson's skin color is darker than this film's tone. True "dark" superhero films, for example, are The Crow and Batman Returns, not this devilish bullsh*t. This film's not recommended for hypocrites like me. Expand
  32. SaintHarry
    May 2, 2003
    8
    Well, I was surprised. Ben Affleck makes a good Daredevil. Jennifer Garner makes a sexy Elektra. Colin Farrell is sensational as Bullseye=right on target! Michael Clarke Duncan perfect as Kingpin. A lotta fun! Too violent for the kiddies.
  33. Alissha
    Jul 1, 2003
    9
    While it is a very dark and sometimes serious movie, it was funny in bits with a very good -not confusing- storyline. it is also very modern and deserves 4 stars /5.
  34. KenS.
    Feb 14, 2003
    2
    Affleck and Garner don't do much. The opening NYC night sequences actually look like cheap cartoons rather than contemporary CGI. Colin Farrell is great, but doesn't get enough screen time to keep this turkey airborne. Affleck is a fine actor and has done well in films like Good Will Hunting, but director Johnson gets nothing out of him here--partly because Johnson's leaden Affleck and Garner don't do much. The opening NYC night sequences actually look like cheap cartoons rather than contemporary CGI. Colin Farrell is great, but doesn't get enough screen time to keep this turkey airborne. Affleck is a fine actor and has done well in films like Good Will Hunting, but director Johnson gets nothing out of him here--partly because Johnson's leaden script gives him nothing to start from. Favreau is a trooper and does his best, but looks a little chunky. Michael Clarke Duncan normally can do no wrong and when he's on the screen you tend to forget how crappy the film is for a minute, but not even he can make gold out of lead. Bottom line: This one should have gone direct to video. Sequel? Maybe guest starring the Rugrats. Expand
  35. C.B.
    Feb 14, 2003
    4
    If you love the comic, the movie is tolerable; if you know nothing about the comic, don't bother. Some visual effects are quite neat, but a lot of the CG really falls flat. The acting is mostly flat and uninspired across the board. I felt no passion or hatred for any of the characters at any time in the movie. They should have selected Bullseye or Kingpin as the villain...., not If you love the comic, the movie is tolerable; if you know nothing about the comic, don't bother. Some visual effects are quite neat, but a lot of the CG really falls flat. The acting is mostly flat and uninspired across the board. I felt no passion or hatred for any of the characters at any time in the movie. They should have selected Bullseye or Kingpin as the villain...., not both, it left both feeling undeveloped and unscary. Expand
  36. BubbaFresh
    Feb 15, 2003
    5
    Satisfactory movie with improved special effects (compared to Spider-man). Shootout scenes are quite impressive special fx, but movement around buildings looks EXACTLY like spider-man, which sucks. Daredevil is also much darker film than Spider-man which makes it less of a movie for little kids.
  37. KentM.
    Feb 16, 2003
    4
    I didn't have very high expectations for this movie and I'm glad I didn't (I would have given it a 2). Weak characters, CG effects were too obvious, and the story was uninspiring. Too bad, because DD was a cool character and KingPin was a white guy!
  38. KB
    Feb 23, 2003
    8
    Enjoyable. Jennifer Garner is awesome and who doesn't love a super hero movie?!
  39. KyleH.
    Feb 24, 2003
    0
    Ranks up there with battlefield earth.
  40. ErwinG.
    Feb 20, 2003
    7
    The good news: for those people whose complaint about poor translations between books and movies, Daredevil managed to retain most of the Frank Miller elements that made Matt Murdock and Electra the most popular angst couple in the Marvel universe. The movie takes particular pleasure in showing off as to how much Daredevil isn't so much of a superhuman, but just a plain human despite The good news: for those people whose complaint about poor translations between books and movies, Daredevil managed to retain most of the Frank Miller elements that made Matt Murdock and Electra the most popular angst couple in the Marvel universe. The movie takes particular pleasure in showing off as to how much Daredevil isn't so much of a superhuman, but just a plain human despite his amped up abilities. As a whole, Daredevil does a good job in making sure people are reminded comic heroes aren't just for kids and webslingers. The bad news: the movie relies a bit too much on expounding Matt's disability and his broken heart, inevitably failing to produce a solid storyline. It's a disappointment only because all the elements were placed properly to make Daredevil into a great story, even with Ben Afleck at the helm, but because of poor timing, bad transitions, and a few story holes, all that's left is a movie about a really pissed off blind guy with an incredibly defined sense of hearing and vengance. Expand
  41. LouisP.
    Feb 20, 2003
    1
    This a horrible film. The previews that precede it were more interesting. Affleck, Farrell and Duncan are horrible. Favreau is okay and Garner is pretty good. If you liked her in this watch her on ALIAS. It is the best on TV.
  42. LuigiA.
    Mar 10, 2003
    0
    Sucked!
  43. ShinjiI.
    Mar 29, 2003
    10
    This movie was so good...Affleck did a great job and the action was marvelous :P
  44. TedBear
    Mar 4, 2003
    7
    There were pretty good moments. I enjoyed the movie. The graphics were amazing but they could have been more and of even higher quality. Ya. There was some great acting and it would have been nice to see even more of the childhood of the Daredevil. A great movie altogether.
  45. SimoneM.
    May 14, 2003
    0
    Bleahch!
  46. WAKOJAKO
    Jun 6, 2003
    0
    After avoiding this dud for months, I was nudged into catching it at a local dollar cinema by some clueless frieds. Well, the first few minutes weren't exactly horrible, but then the plot became so stupidly derivative that I fell asleep mid-way through and woke up in time to realize, to my real horror, that this cinematic disaster is likely to spawn a sequel or two. The shame and the After avoiding this dud for months, I was nudged into catching it at a local dollar cinema by some clueless frieds. Well, the first few minutes weren't exactly horrible, but then the plot became so stupidly derivative that I fell asleep mid-way through and woke up in time to realize, to my real horror, that this cinematic disaster is likely to spawn a sequel or two. The shame and the waste... of my time, I mean. If at least the theater had had decent seats. Expand
  47. MattC.
    Jul 18, 2003
    2
    Ok picture this, the wife (who hates action movies) is out on the town, I've got the DVD player & a bottle of Jack Daniels to myself. I have the opportunity to see any... film... I ... choose. And arse that I am I choose Daredevil. After sitting through Armageddon and Sum Of All Fears, I promised myself I'd never watch another Ben Afflek movie, but no... "this one might be OK" I Ok picture this, the wife (who hates action movies) is out on the town, I've got the DVD player & a bottle of Jack Daniels to myself. I have the opportunity to see any... film... I ... choose. And arse that I am I choose Daredevil. After sitting through Armageddon and Sum Of All Fears, I promised myself I'd never watch another Ben Afflek movie, but no... "this one might be OK" I thought "he might have discovered some talent" I thought. Bollocks! Is the reply. This film is SOOO bad that were it not so tedious it might possibly work as a Mel Brooks type spoof of Superhero movies. Afflex is a ham who looks like a side of beef. In short he's a meathead and I was begging Colin Farrell just to kill off our hero and put me out of my misery but unfortunately it wasn't to be. This boring ejaculate pretending to be an adaptation of the only comic book I read as a kid get's 2 points. One because Colin Farrel at least borders on entertaining in his all too brief role, and Jennifer Garner made me go "woah mamma" a couple of times as she is rather hot. In short, I want my money back. No seriously I could have been watching City Of God instead. I WANT MY MONEY BACK AFFLEK! Expand
  48. GregT.
    Aug 4, 2003
    6
    This is a mindless teen flick but I knew that when I rented it. Movies based on comic book characters are not Shakespeare. This movie is fine if you want action and more action and more action and not a lot of plot. There is always something slightly appealing about testosterone filled young men such as Ben Affleck and Colin Farrell who are full of piss and vinegar.
  49. MichaelR.
    Feb 7, 2004
    1
    I just saw this on HBO and, my God, what a crock of clichéd crap. Daredevil fans may like it for seeing their favorite hero in live-action (which, admittedly, was done well), but unless you're a fan, there really is no good reason to waste your time watching this movie. It's a meandering, predictable mess. And the fight scene in front of the playground? What the hell? I just saw this on HBO and, my God, what a crock of clichéd crap. Daredevil fans may like it for seeing their favorite hero in live-action (which, admittedly, was done well), but unless you're a fan, there really is no good reason to waste your time watching this movie. It's a meandering, predictable mess. And the fight scene in front of the playground? What the hell? That has to be the single stupidest thing I've seen in a movie ever. Expand
  50. RobM.
    May 29, 2004
    10
    The hero in this movie has to overcome so many barriers to his life. The only wish I have for this great movie is that the woman lived and fought the good fight with the Daredevil. After all, it just might be a devil that could also save us. A good devil is rare, but they do exist.
  51. [Anonymous]
    May 29, 2004
    10
    Fantastic special effects and heart breaking love between a man and a woman. Their love will live forever. Yes! The scene of her face in the rain of sonic noise was so beautiful. A very good job from the cast.
  52. PeterJ.
    Jan 24, 2005
    6
    I am an avid Daredevil comic book collector, and I must say I have mixed feelings on the film. The storyline was okay, and it had a good look and feel to it, but I just can't get over them casting Ben Affleck as Daredevil. If someone else had gotten the part this movie would have been much better.
  53. EthanS.
    Feb 14, 2003
    6
    A movie whose parts are far better than the sum. Affleck is fairly winning as Murdock/Daredevil, Garner lights up the screen whenever she is on it, and Farell and Duncan make convincing baddies. However, painfully wooden and obvious writing, and a lack of anything compelling in the direction of this film keep it from becoming something more unique. High point of the film is a playground A movie whose parts are far better than the sum. Affleck is fairly winning as Murdock/Daredevil, Garner lights up the screen whenever she is on it, and Farell and Duncan make convincing baddies. However, painfully wooden and obvious writing, and a lack of anything compelling in the direction of this film keep it from becoming something more unique. High point of the film is a playground flirtation/duel between Affleck and Garner -- the sparks are palpable and the wirework nifty and clean. From there on out, it's all downhill. However, it remains an intriguing set of characters and an interesting world -- let's hope that if there is a sequel, it will expand greatly the romantic/spiritual/physical areas just touched on here -- as well as being handed over to a more subtle writer and a director who can stage an action scene. Expand
  54. DanielZ.
    Feb 14, 2003
    3
    There seems to be little or no character building through the movie, what little screen time they have Michael Clarke Duncan, Collin Farrell, Jon Favreau etc, did a lot better than Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner. This proves Ben Affleck doesn't have what it takes to be a main male role!!
  55. TerryH.
    Feb 15, 2003
    3
    Dark, violent and lame. The director seemed to feel the need to show us the boots of the characters every time they landed from a death-defying leap. Once was plenty.
  56. RyanM.
    Feb 16, 2003
    7
    Sure, it's entertaining enough. But it's a joke. Even with super sound radar sense, a blind guy couldn't do all that.
  57. Phatman
    Feb 16, 2003
    8
    I wouldn't buy this movie, but it's worth watching in theatres. Who cares about the plot? Just watch the special effects.
  58. LeeF.
    Feb 16, 2003
    7
    My girlfriend and I greatly enjoyed this movie. I was a little worried about the darkness of Daredevil to be honest but it wasn't bad. It was a movie about a comic book hero, and, altho X-Men did it better (I was one of the few people in America who didn't like Spider Man ) it gave me what I expected. However, I gotta admit that thankfully Bullseye was in the movie (he was My girlfriend and I greatly enjoyed this movie. I was a little worried about the darkness of Daredevil to be honest but it wasn't bad. It was a movie about a comic book hero, and, altho X-Men did it better (I was one of the few people in America who didn't like Spider Man ) it gave me what I expected. However, I gotta admit that thankfully Bullseye was in the movie (he was great). However, MC Duncan was disappointing as the Kingpin. He looked the part, but wasn't menacing enuff. Otherwise, good movie and the 'tag' during the credits was funny! Expand
  59. GiuseppeA.
    Feb 20, 2003
    10
    Before going to see the movie I read all the critics from several newspapers, and of course I got a bad impression .. well I love Daredevil and I collect all the comic books and I wanted to give it a try. Well in all honesty I liked the movie a lot, probably more then Spiderman, the noir side of the movie is well depicted, the special effect may look too "Spidermanlike", but overall do an Before going to see the movie I read all the critics from several newspapers, and of course I got a bad impression .. well I love Daredevil and I collect all the comic books and I wanted to give it a try. Well in all honesty I liked the movie a lot, probably more then Spiderman, the noir side of the movie is well depicted, the special effect may look too "Spidermanlike", but overall do an excellent job in the fast action sequences (too few in all honesty). The movie is not 100% consistent with the original story (where is Daredevil's master, the guy who teaches him the art of fighting even if blind ?). probably i can criticize the poor characters description as for Kingpin and Bullseye. Affleck plays a decent part and only god knows why they wantred him as Murdok, Electra is electrifying. So I would suggest that if u are a (big) fan of the comic book this movie is really worth to be seen since it leaves several of things to the imagination (knowledge) of the audience, if u are not a fan u might be little bit disappointed especially if u compare this movie to "Spiderman". Expand
  60. JodyK.
    Feb 20, 2003
    1
    I will preface the following by saying that i went into the theater with exceedingly low expectations. I was duly impressed by how completely all of them were disappointed, even ones for the existence of a plot. This movie is essentially 20 to 25 minutes of weak, predictable story, spaced out by jennifer garner's breasts (easily the movie's most versatile character) and CGI that I will preface the following by saying that i went into the theater with exceedingly low expectations. I was duly impressed by how completely all of them were disappointed, even ones for the existence of a plot. This movie is essentially 20 to 25 minutes of weak, predictable story, spaced out by jennifer garner's breasts (easily the movie's most versatile character) and CGI that only achieves the level of "Hey Bubba, you see dem flipping and stuff? that was coo, man!" All this is topped by what is easily the worse performance of Affleck's career (anyone see Reindeer Games?) Two hours I will never get back... Expand
  61. TheMan
    Feb 23, 2003
    8
    I went into the theatre expecting a pretty sucky movie, since I thought the trailers were awful. I was plesantly surprised. The movie is much better than Spiderman, the dialogues are a lot deeper and the characters' interactions are actually interesting. Garner did a great job, Affleck wasn't bad either (thats saying a lot coming from me, I hate the guy). Overall, quite an I went into the theatre expecting a pretty sucky movie, since I thought the trailers were awful. I was plesantly surprised. The movie is much better than Spiderman, the dialogues are a lot deeper and the characters' interactions are actually interesting. Garner did a great job, Affleck wasn't bad either (thats saying a lot coming from me, I hate the guy). Overall, quite an entertaining movie, well worth the $7 I paid for it. Expand
  62. TheBamboBear
    Feb 27, 2003
    8
    I thought that this was an alright movie. I enjoyed the large amount of action, and I like the storyline. I thought that, despite how impressive the graphics were, they could have been used more and could have been touched up a little more. I am glad they did not do to many things similar to the Spiderman movie. All in all, it is a very enjoyable movie that I recommend should be viewed by many.
  63. ShawnT.
    Feb 28, 2003
    8
    Hehe my first movie review...here goes. I thought this movie was pretty kewl. Garner and Farrell were wicked. Benny....go join the preschoolers club. I liked this movie a lot especially at the daredevil and electra fights they were awesomeness. Anywho i highly reccomend this to those blood thirsty fight wanters........this is very entertaining. It was boring at some parts so i gave it an Hehe my first movie review...here goes. I thought this movie was pretty kewl. Garner and Farrell were wicked. Benny....go join the preschoolers club. I liked this movie a lot especially at the daredevil and electra fights they were awesomeness. Anywho i highly reccomend this to those blood thirsty fight wanters........this is very entertaining. It was boring at some parts so i gave it an 8. Great movie. THUMBS UP!!!!! Collapse
  64. Wheeler
    Feb 28, 2003
    0
    I like comic book superhero movies and all I have to say about dirtdevil is "What a waste of time!!!"
  65. Mr.Know-It-All!
    Mar 15, 2003
    10
    It?s hard to believe what the negative reviews have to say about this masterpiece. This movie was intended to be dark and serious. It is unfair that people are comparing it to Spiderman. Most open minded people would accept the fantastic nature of a superhero action movie. Some people complain that the characters can jump too far. Hell, you could say that about Crouching Tiger Hidden It?s hard to believe what the negative reviews have to say about this masterpiece. This movie was intended to be dark and serious. It is unfair that people are comparing it to Spiderman. Most open minded people would accept the fantastic nature of a superhero action movie. Some people complain that the characters can jump too far. Hell, you could say that about Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon too. These are action movies where this sort of thing is EXPECTED! The movie was good in its interpretation of the Daredevil comics and conveyed the story to newcomers very well. I learned that the motion picture rating board forced the director to cut the movie to remove violence several times in order to avoid a R rating rather than the PG13 rating that was intended. Expand
  66. LassiterP.
    Mar 22, 2003
    0
    Anyone who could give this drek a 10, then I will give it a 0. Absolutely horrible. Don't waste your time.
  67. CarlyD.
    Mar 5, 2003
    2
    When i read a bunch of reviews saying that this movie was really good, i decided to see for myself. maybe i was expecting too much, but i thought it was very lame. some of the acting was alright, but i must say that most of it wasn't very convincing to me. the relationship between daredevil and electra was sweet, but seemed very unrealistic. they had only known eachother for a day (orWhen i read a bunch of reviews saying that this movie was really good, i decided to see for myself. maybe i was expecting too much, but i thought it was very lame. some of the acting was alright, but i must say that most of it wasn't very convincing to me. the relationship between daredevil and electra was sweet, but seemed very unrealistic. they had only known eachother for a day (or something like that), and suddenly they were in love and couldn't live without eachother. the graphics were't all that great either. some of the fighting was, er, interesting, but all in all i thought it was lame and wouldn't advise anyone to waste their money on a movie like daredevil. Expand
  68. MatthewR.
    May 11, 2003
    10
    I thought it was a great movie. Wonder if they will make a sequel.
  69. TheElusivePossom
    May 27, 2003
    8
    Quality is always to be delivered with Fox, and "Daredevil" is no exception. It features stunning special effects and an enjoyable romp onto the action scene. Overall, an effective translation to film from comic. One accuracy qualm though: why the hell is the Kingpin black?
  70. AnnaS.
    May 27, 2003
    0
    Are you people nuts? This movie makes no sense and the storyline sucks. If you want to see a better movie, stick on with spider-man and spriggan. Those two are a lot sexier than daredevil.(Eat it up, loser.)
  71. DerekW.
    Jun 23, 2003
    5
    I wasn't running to the theatres to catch this movie. Spider-man and X-men were great (ignoring the fact that they didn't follow the comic book storyline). Comic book movies are a fad like reality TV. All in all, Daredevil isn't all that bad, its fun, and has that comic book theme to it. See it if there's nothing else, but I wouldn't make it a first pick.
  72. TyS.
    Jul 31, 2003
    1
    Money back . Total rubbish.
  73. MelissaM.
    Sep 12, 2003
    1
    Blah.
  74. NicholasM.
    Feb 2, 2005
    0
    This is the worst superhero movie since Captain America, and Ben Affleck is the worst actor of our generation.
  75. HaydenM
    Jun 24, 2005
    10
    Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner do amazing in this great, dark movie.
  76. TomH.
    Nov 24, 2003
    8
    This is the one of the few times Critics have gotten this movie VERY wrong. The movie not only has much originality and spark to it, it is far exceeds Spider-Man in storyline (which has a million cliches). This is not really an action flick, but more of a character story. Seeing this movie, the characters are real and have true conflict rather than incosequential action sequences. They This is the one of the few times Critics have gotten this movie VERY wrong. The movie not only has much originality and spark to it, it is far exceeds Spider-Man in storyline (which has a million cliches). This is not really an action flick, but more of a character story. Seeing this movie, the characters are real and have true conflict rather than incosequential action sequences. They are not invincible, but rather human and that is the focus of this movie. DareDevil is a man with mystery, pain, and the movie even struts some Shakespearian style. Elektra a person who refuses to be anybody victims, and Bullseye a flashy egotistcal villian. Watching it more than once, I realized great symbolisc and artistic staging missed, and most likely others did. The actors do their roles flawlessly and with passion. They are in a very emotionally absorbing film and I think anybody who cannot see that is emotionally crippled or came in expecting more cheap action like the majority of the American public. While the film has a few missed oppurtunties to expand on its "moral complexity" that the director hoped for, this movie is perhaps the great comic book adaptation (The Hulk possibly tying). I especially disagree with the ignorant critic who said this movie tooks no dares. DareDevil is underelaborated for effect, he often does things which are not logically explained, and the other I will not spoil. That critic was especially off. DareDevil is a very worth wild movie for someone who is willing to open their mind WITH their eyes. Expand
  77. RickyC.
    Feb 16, 2003
    1
    It's stupid, and thats the bottom line.
  78. KevinE.
    Feb 19, 2003
    10
    It is cool i love it all the cool effects and the action i want to see this movie again.
  79. Anonymousguy
    Feb 22, 2003
    8
    Why does everyone hate this movie so much? I think it was better than Spiderman and much less childish. Despite what everyone says, I don't think Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner did a horrible job and Farrell did a great job playing a psycohpathic killer. Duncan did a pretty bad job as the King Pin because he didn't seem threatening enough. Although Daredevil was sometimes Why does everyone hate this movie so much? I think it was better than Spiderman and much less childish. Despite what everyone says, I don't think Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner did a horrible job and Farrell did a great job playing a psycohpathic killer. Duncan did a pretty bad job as the King Pin because he didn't seem threatening enough. Although Daredevil was sometimes predictable I really enjoyed it. Expand
  80. PaulV.
    Mar 17, 2003
    5
    A so, so film. Don't get me wrong the action scenes and costumes are top-notch. The film just didn't have all the actors and story line to match.
  81. BrodyK.
    Jun 19, 2003
    8
    I thought that this was a very interesting comic book movie movie that was too underrated. The actors handled the movie very seriously and they came out with a very intriguing film. I'd pass Daredevil, Elektra, and Bullseye over Spiderman, Mary Jane, and the Green Goblin any day. It should have made $140+ million. This movie should not be missed.
  82. BobM.
    Aug 22, 2003
    7
    This movie is fairly decent. Lots of action, intrigue and special effects. I would add it to my movie collection, but probably only watch it upon arriving home from the store,put it back on the shelf and not touch it for a year. Better than X-men and The Hulk in my opinion.
  83. PonR.
    Jul 15, 2005
    7
    Not bad. Expected it to suck, but it actually worked within the parameters of the given story. Good fun.
  84. Sam
    Sep 18, 2005
    8
    I can see how people hated this movie and loved. I for one and none of them, I am one of the people that just flat out enjoyed it. I liked the effects, the dialouge isn't that bad and it was sometimes pretty funny. I liked this movie. In fact, I liked it a lot.
  85. Jan 20, 2015
    10
    Un ottimo film,personalmente mi è piaciuto veramente tanto.Una storia ben fatta,un cast spettacolare ed un ottima recitazione,mi è piaciuto tanto anche perchè sono un fan del fumetto di Daredevil e adoro Ben Affleck e Jennifer Garner.
Metascore
42

Mixed or average reviews - based on 35 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 35
  2. Negative: 7 out of 35
  1. Not woeful, not wonderful, merely watchable.
  2. Brought to the screen with a mix of jaunty humor and jagged violence that should have worked more effectively than it does.
  3. 50
    Daredevil the movie strains itself trying to catch up with Sam Raimi's web-slinging megasmash. It's a faceless copy, right down to the muscle-rock groaning on the soundtrack.