Monday, May 19, 2014

Review #1: Daredevil (2003)

As expected, approximately 0.00 people looked at my ground rules, so I guess I'll just have to hit the ground running by myself. And since films like Spartacus or Escape From New York don't usually attract many readers, I'll just leech off of Batman .vs. Superman and take a gander at Ben Affleck's other superhero flick, Daredevil.

Intro: Everyone who uses the Internet for more than 30 minutes a day exploded into anger when Zack Snyder cast Ben Affleck as the next Caped Crusader. Okay, not EVERYONE, but a good few to be sure. And what did these rage fueled crusaders from the DC gods point their fingers at as proof for their fury? Daredevil, of course, the 2003 Marvel title that crushed so many fans and has been constantly cited as one of the worst comic book movies of all time, disregarding the fact that not all of these claims are entirely true.

Don't misinterpret what I say. There are plenty of people who despise Daredevil and wish to see all copies of it burned, buried, and forgotten. But the general consensus says they are in the minority. Review website Rotten Tomatoes (prepare to see this website a lot) collected 211 Daredevil reviews and found that 45% of people said the film was passable and audiences seemed to agree, as Daredevil also managed to end its theatrical run with over $100 million in domestic cash alone and $178 million worldwide, doubling its' now meager $76 million budget. The stats aren't exactly impressive, but when aligned next to true comic book failures (Batman and Robin, Catwoman, Superman IV, Fantastic Four, etc.), Daredevil is clearly nowhere near as miserable. So why such hate?

Plot Summary: Matt Murdock (Ben Affleck) is the son of washed up boxer turned mob enforcer Jack "The Devil" Murdock (David Keith). When Matt discovers his father's real profession while returning home from school, he runs into a vat of toxic waste which pours into his eyes. Instead of damaging his entire body and completely blinding him like most toxic chemicals, the waste Matt ran into amplifies his other senses and allows him to have sonar, like a bat, which technically makes him a better candidate for Batman, but I digress. Guilty as hell, Jack turns back to boxing only; but when he refuses to throw a fight for a mob boss, he gets gunned down, as most superhero parents do. From there on out, Matt makes a vow to end crime in his native New York City. 

All grown up, Matt becomes a lawyer operating in the shady Hell's Kitchen by day, and the vigilante Daredevil by night. On his warpath, he collides paths with Wilson Fisk, AKA Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan) and his less than legal business operations. Attempting to stop Kingpin with all the justice he has, Matt forms allies with Elektra Natchios (Jennifer Garner, and yes her last name is Natchios) and confronts Kingpin's #1 Guy Bullseye (Colin Farrell).

Thoughts: If you read the plot summary and thought, wow, what an original, inventive storyline, I'd like to be the first to reintroduce you to the outside world. I hope your hibernation was relaxing.

Daredevil is no stranger to familiar superhero tropes. Dead parents? Check. Secret Identity that really shouldn't be that hard to uncover? Check. Skin tight jumpsuit that would be useless when fighting? Don't even test this movie. It is a superhero origin story through and through. But unlike, say, Catwoman or Green Lantern, which are too generic or silly to be memorable, Daredevil has a few tricks up its sleeve.

To compare, the hero Daredevil has the feel of a poor man's Batman, striking fear into the hearts of criminals in a crime ridden city after the death of his parents. Sure there are key differences - Batman is a rich playboy, Daredevil is a middle class lawyer, Batman uses ill conceived Batarangs, Daredevil uses an ill conceived jump rope - but the tone of each hero's world is near identical. In fact, Daredevil almost has an aura of the Batman franchise about it; after all, Daredevil did beat Nolan's Batman Begins by two years.

To be fair, Batman Begins is a much better and much darker take on the superhero genre, but a lot of Daredevil can be tied directly with the Batman franchise. The city of New York is presented in a much harsher light than in any of Marvel's other films such as Spider-Man and The Avengers. The cinematography is effective and drapes the streets of the Big Apple in a shroud of darkness. Beneath the city, Daredevil doesn't fight grand, operatic villains like Doctor Octopus or Loki; he fights common criminals, thugs, and mob bosses. And unlike the thoroughly PG-13 violence of every other Marvel film, Daredevil's violence is cold and hard hitting; when Daredevil goes up against Kingpin, the hits have a weight and impact unmatched by many superhero films.

The film even has some religious themes. Matt Murdock goes to confession near daily as a way to repent for his own sins; only the local priest Father Everett (Derrick O'Connor) knows his true identity. It's not remarkably bold, as Daredevil still remains pretty unscathed and unaffected after fighting hardened thugs day in and day out, but in attempting to give our hero some morality, it remains an admirable choice. To add on to the religious motif, the entire climax of the film is located at the same church, in a well executed fight sequence between Daredevil and Bullseye leaping up the bells and windows of the chapel.

Even Ben Affleck isn't that bad. He's not perfect, per se; even as a supposedly humble but investigative lawyer he still reeks of Gigli arrogance. But as Daredevil, he surprisingly brings needed weight to the character of Daredevil. Affleck is much better as the hero than the lawyer, and he treats his role as less of a quip-heavy asshole and more of a silent, but altruistic hero with less than peaceful means. Again, that doesn't mean he's perfect - just look at the opening barfight for a solid example of how his hero went wrong. But as a B-list hero, Affleck serves his purpose quite well.

With this approach, Daredevil might have achieved a form of cult status, the pre-Batman Begins film that was criminally overlooked due to its relatively unknown hero. Of course, that wasn't the case. Instead, the film attempts to adopt another, more lighthearted approach with half assed comedy and over the top performances for characters that would've been great if played straight. For every intense, effective scene of straight drama, there lies a quirky, out of sync take that ruins the effects of the scenes before it.

At the center of this charade is Colin Farrell's Bullseye, a hammy, one-note henchman who occupies way too much screen time in a movie that so desperately wants to be taken seriously. Farrell brazenly snickers his way through the film, sporting an absurd bullseye imprint on his forehead and a black leather trench coat left over from the Matrix sequels. His powers of extreme accuracy aren't necessarily terrible; but when the weapons he's aiming are knives and playing cards, it's no wonder he's being defeated by a blind superhero.

That's not to say he's the only one at fault. Michael Clarke Duncan, while a commanding physical presence, doesn't quite fit the role dramatically for Kingpin, as he veers from deceitful to ridiculous in every other scene. Jon Favreau, portraying Matt's best friend Franklin, is Jon Favreau-y, an unnecessary addition to what should have been a much more dramatic picture.

But symbolically, the tonal inconsistencies of this film can be found in Jennifer Garner's Elektra. Her character arc from observer to vigilante had the potential to be drastically unique and seemingly unheard of in a mainstream superhero film. After all, when was the last time we had a good female superhero origin in cinemas (Hit-Girl aside)? Sadly, Elektra's storyline is overlooked, as the shadier elements of her transformation are glanced over via montage, while incredibly goofy scenes such as her practice scuffle with Daredevil (a horrendously silly and unnecessary sequence that nearly kills the movie) remain perfectly intact.

Daredevil's other major fault is in its dialogue, which is leagues below the majority of its heroic counterparts. Dramatic, comedic, and expositional dialogue are all forgettable, contrived, or generic. Batman had dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight. Spider-Man had great power tied in with great responsibility. Daredevil has a "guardian devil" and Bullseye calling himself "magic." Once again, the tonal shifts are responsible for such unremarkable screenwriting; changing gears from Bullseye quips to Daredevil monologues about Hell's Kitchen is unsurprisingly painful to say the least.

It's a shame that Daredevil has so many glaring inconsistencies and dialogue problems, for it really could have been something special, an early expansion of the Marvel Universe, a true predecessor to Iron Man and The Avengers expansion. But this blog isn't about hypothetical films, it's about what we've been given. And for what it is, Daredevil is a missed opportunity, a film with more promise than actual delivery.

RATING: 4 Units of Criticism out of 10: A Meh Film

Do you agree with my disappointment? Do you think Daredevil is one of the worst comic book movies ever made? Or do you like challenging opinions and saying that Daredevil is an underrated classic? Tell me more in the comments below. As promised, here are six more films that you can vote for for next time.

SPARTACUS (1960)
PLANES (2013)
ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK (1981)
PRETTY IN PINK (1986)
TRUE GRIT (1969)
SILENT RUNNING (1972)

Thursday, May 15, 2014

The Ground Rules

What is Film Roulette?

That is a good question, my dear reader. But first, allow me to introduce the author behind the concept, namely me.

My name is Francis Lai. I happen to be another young, upstart film critic voicing his ultimately irrelevant opinion on the topic he so passionately defends and cares about. I consider myself to be a humorous, intelligent, and all around amable person; whether or not you will is a different story.

Over the past 17 or so years of my life, I have taken in (as of May 15, 2014) 543 feature length films (with a couple of exceptions) and organized them into a series of lists posted here: <http://community.flixster.com/user/deckard42/movie-list>.*

As something of an underage film critic/aficionado, one may assume I lack the experience of veteran critics such as Peter Travers, Richard Roeper, or A.O. Scott. Those people have not met me eye to eye. And by eye to eye, I mean chest to eye because I happen to be 6'8", but that's not the point. What is relevant is the fact that I have recorded every last film I have ever seen and ranked them according to my personal preference. It's a hobby, one I'm not entirely sure I'm proud of.

Needless to say, I adore movies. So many of us do. After all, the human experience is essentially one long visually stimulating story, quite similar to a movie, but without all the misunderstandings and physics breaking. If the spoken word and written literature are the trunk of creativity in this extended metaphor, then the art of film is one of its main metaphorical branches. I could go on and on about what makes movies great, how they transport their audiences to foreign, awe-inspiring worlds, how they are able to connect with the peaks and valleys of humanity, but I need to get this exposition out of the way so I can use it in future reviews.

So, as a filthy, no good, pretentious, and crumudgeony movie critic that no one listens to anyway, I present to you my take on criticism: a game I call FILM ROULETTE.

My favorite genre of movie is good movies. But in order to appreciate the finer things in life, one must suffer through its low points. As a result, I have diversified my viewing selections to whatever, whenever, and my style of selection has carried over into the concept I present to you today.

Most critics review the new films released every Friday. I don't have a steady income to afford $10 tickets. Other critics cover a certain genre or style of film-making and detail the highs and lows of that particular niche. The movies on my DVR don't fall into one category; they fall into about 12. Keenly noting this, I decided that I should review the random films I see in, what else, a randomized order. At the end of every review, special, or announcement, I will post a list of six films, chosen at random from my movie lists, and I will leave it up to vote in the comments section. If I am ignored and no one comments, I will choose myself because it's quite lonely in my room.

I also take requests. That doesn't mean I'll review your fav-o-rite film right away. I will just add it to the list and see what happens. HOWEVER, I will reject some requests. I do not need a hundred people telling me to review The Human Centipede or Hostel. I have my limits. And brothers. I don't need my younger brothers busting in on the torture scene from Audition.

Finally, I promote open conversation in the comments below. If you think my take was absolute bullshit and that I should be booted off the Internet, congratulations! You have the freedom to write a strongly worded letter down below. I shall offer my rebuttal as soon as possible.

To begin, I leave you with six films. They are:
SPARTACUS (1960)
PLANES (2013)
ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK (1981)
DAREDEVIL (2003)
PRETTY IN PINK (1986)
TRUE GRIT (1969)

So vote now...whoever you are.

*Note: Some lists do not work: they include 3 copies of All The Movies I've Seen - The 7s, Deckard42's Great Movies, and 2 copies of the Worst Movies Ever.