• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Movies Daredevil w/ Ben Affleck

DLFerguson

Registered Member
DAREDEVIL would have been a good movie if director Mark Johnson had been interested in doing just that instead of giving us Frank Miller's Greatest Hits.

I must say that I enjoyed Ben Affleck as Matt Murdock. He looked exactly like a John Romita, Jr. drawing of the character. Didn't think he made a good Daredevil. I did like the costume a lot. It looked like something that could actually work in the real world.

Can't stand Jennifer Garner in anything. And I'll never understand why she's considered to be this outstandingly hot chick. She looks like right in the middle of her sex change operation the surgeon just walked off the job. And ELEKTRA should be avoided as if it were The Hong Kong Flu.
 

Shooting_Palanx

The Rock is cooking atm..
Daredevil =)

Not too bad of a movie, but it's been so long since I've seen it.

Who here was shocked to find that the King Pin was all of a sudden black?
 

Italiano

Film Elitist
I will say this, the "suck" was sort of a welcomed thing IMO. 'Cause here's the problem, Comic movies are not easily pulled off. They require no name acting talent to become the name of the character. Otherwise you end up with Nicholas Cage playing Ghost Rider.
Comic book films aren't easily pulled off but it doesn't mean they're extremely difficult either. They might require a certain consideration since they are based off of multiple storylines and series of graphic novels and comic books in order to find the best plot formula but again, the same consideration taken for any movie based off a book.

Also I don't think they require no-name actors in order to make them decent. BATMAN BEGINS had a lot of big names in it and that was amazing.

I absolutely loved the Punisher Movie (not warzone... havent seen that one yet) and I felt one of the reasons it was so good... I have no idea who the actor was that played Frank Castle. I know Travolta's character was Bullshit and I dont even remember what importance he had and thats exactly what I'm getting at.
I am also a fan of the 2004 THE PUNISHER. I believe you're talking about Tom Jane. He's been in a few films with a few big name actors. He's been in THE SWEETEST THING, DEEP BLUE SEA and had a few small roles in BOOGIE NIGHTS and MAGNOLIA.

If you don't remember the significance of John Travolta's character that doesn't mean the role needed a different actor it just means you don't remember the movie very well. Though I didn't like John Travolta as Howard Saint it doesn't mean a no-name actor wouldn't have been better than say an A-list actor.

Ghostrider was ok in my book, could have definitely been improved. That film seemed like they were making it just to make it so to speak. And after watching it... I dont know who the character was, I just know Nicholas Cage was Ghost Rider.
GHOSTRIDER is one of the worst movies to come out of 2007. The case of this movie isn't necessarily that it was made as a high concept film but rather the director is just very incompetent.

In Daredevil, I felt Ben Affleck sucked enough that he actually played Matt Murdock. I didnt feel it was Ben Affleck playing Daredevil (does that make sense?) Basically what I'm saying here is its sort of the Spider-Man effect. Tobey McGuire was a no name actor coming into Spider-Man 1. The movie was fan-flippin'tastic IMO. Then in Spider-man 2 he does a better job, now suddenly people know who McGuire is and he's not Peter Parker anymore. Then finally in the third Installment... its McGuire playing Spider-man and now every time I watch Spider-Man 3 I get a craving for Gun Metal in my mouth.
Again, I see what you're saying but I just disagree. You don't need a no-name actor to make a good comic book film. Look at BLADE, ROAD TO PERDITION, SIN CITY, V FOR VENDETTA, X-MEN.

The reason SPIDER-MAN 3 makes you want to take a pizza cutter to your balls is because it was a really shitty movie. It had too many different large character arcs built into one storyline which allowed for little character development. Also there was a lot of motivation that didn't make sense and it was really poorly written.

Jeanie said something a while back about Valkyrie and Tom Cruise that really resonated with this statement I'm trying to make.... Tom Cruise has a habit of looking like this in a movie: He becomes Tom Cruise Playing Tom Cruise Playing (insert role). And I believe that is a problem with the bigger actors and these delicate Comic Movies. To me, Established actors are Oil to a Comic movies water... they just dont mix well unless agitated properly and even then its still not a good mix.

My biggest bitch about DareDevil... Michael Clarke Duncan. I absolutely love the guy so dont get me wrong here. But MCD is no Wilson "Kingpin" Fisk. To me thats like getting Samuel L. Jackson to play Nick Fury.... I fucking hate that concept with a passion and I swear to the ever loving gods that I'll boycott any damn SLJ = Nick Fury movies. Fuck that!
I know this syndrome of which you speak. It's called John Wayne Syndrome. It happens when actors are often overused or they have no real varying range in their acting capabilities. John Wayne was the biggest example of this phenomena, hence John Wayne Syndrome.

However, I still don't believe this is the main root of discourse for comic book films. The problem lies more so in the writing and directing platforms. The biggest problem with teh majority of comic book films is in those two aspects of filmmaking and the acting cannot improve until those issues are addressed first.

I understand that there more than a few comic book movies that carry their weight in John Wayne Syndrome but it's just not the biggest issue to boot.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Comic book films aren't easily pulled off but it doesn't mean they're extremely difficult either. They might require a certain consideration since they are based off of multiple storylines and series of graphic novels and comic books in order to find the best plot formula but again, the same consideration taken for any movie based off a book.
I'd argue that they are extremely difficult because of all the expectations of the fan base. It's hard to make a successful comic book film that appeals to those outside of the hardcore fans.

If you don't remember the significance of John Travolta's character that doesn't mean the role needed a different actor it just means you don't remember the movie very well. Though I didn't like John Travolta as Howard Saint it doesn't mean a no-name actor wouldn't have been better than say an A-list actor.
Actually, I'm going to have to agree. Travolta was just not very good, he was kind of bland to be honest. He was nowhere near as sinister or "villainous" as he could have been.

Again, I see what you're saying but I just disagree. You don't need a no-name actor to make a good comic book film. Look at BLADE, ROAD TO PERDITION, SIN CITY, V FOR VENDETTA, X-MEN.
No, you don't need a no name actor, but surely you can agree Italiano that having an up and coming star could be better for a film because that actor/actress has no ties to other major roles. You bring in an A-lister and people will be like, "Oh the guy who played [character]? Cool" or "The guy who played [character]? Lame."
 
Top