Guest realsandman420 Report post Posted February 11, 2003 went to a sneak of daredevil tonight. i must say, i am so proud to be a DD fan. and even more proud to be a comic book fan. it is so worth seeing. the only part that was really cheesey was the fight scene where matt meets electra...which is in the trailer....so i'm not ruining anything. i want to talk about the movie, but i don't want to spoil anything for anyone. they also showed trailers for LXG...wow wow wow. i am so excited to see this one. also a new x-men 2 trailer. just wait to you see nightcrawler teleport. they did such a great job with the sp-effects... what a great night. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest starvenger Report post Posted February 11, 2003 OK, now read the comic and tell me how different the two are. I just wanna know, because the comic version of the movie blew chunks... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Sassquatch Report post Posted February 12, 2003 I finally read the movie adaptation. What a load. I pray that the movie turns out to be better than the pile of shit I read earlier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest raptor Report post Posted February 12, 2003 I just bought my ticket for the Thursday pre-screening, and am as happy as a little girl. My friend (a non-comic guy) and I have been psyched to see this for a long, long time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest starvenger Report post Posted February 12, 2003 I just bought my ticket for the Thursday pre-screening, and am as happy as a little girl. My friend (a non-comic guy) and I have been psyched to see this for a long, long time. Sufferin' Shad, a Dieter reference!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest starvenger Report post Posted February 13, 2003 I was checking Rotten Tomatoes to see what the critics have said so far, and it's running about 50-50. But for what it's worth, the only review there that I put any real stock in is Moriarty's review at AICN. Yeah, yeah, I know, but he's the only good thing at that site. So, I guess I'm not really all that stoked about the movie but I'm intruiged enough to go watch it maybe late next week. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest pochorenella Report post Posted February 13, 2003 I've read about 5 reviews so far and most of them give it good-very good grades. The only one that gave it a C- was Entertainment Weekly. Of course, ultimately it is your own opinion that matters. I'm still looking forward to it but probabaly would wind up watching it next week at the earliest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest raptor Report post Posted February 13, 2003 Entertainment Weekly is perhaps the WORST place to get movie reviews. In the latest issue (the spring movie one) they re-reviewed "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and brough it from a D to B, just because it's popular. BULLSHIT. Oh, and for starvenger: TOUCH MY MONKEY! TOUCH IT! Gotta love Sprockets Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Sassquatch Report post Posted February 14, 2003 We will soon find out whether or not the comic book was dead-on with it's adaptation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest realsandman420 Report post Posted February 14, 2003 i'm telling ya all...if you are a daredevil fan you will love this flix!!!!! there are scenes in there that are ripped right from the frank miller run......this film is dead on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest raptor Report post Posted February 14, 2003 I just got back... and it was frickin' spectacular. I was entranced during the entire movie, even though I went in expecting to be dissapointed. My friend, who doesn't read comics, loved it every bit as much as I did (although he didn't like the "Lowlife" issue that he got for free). So, I really can't see how you couldn't like it. It isn't perfect, but the parts that are lacking are so minuet that they won't detract from the movie. Oh, and Colin Farrell OWNS as Bullseye. He just chews the scenery with such venom that you can't help but cheer such a homicidal maniac. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest starvenger Report post Posted February 14, 2003 I just got back... and it was frickin' spectacular. I was entranced during the entire movie, even though I went in expecting to be dissapointed. My friend, who doesn't read comics, loved it every bit as much as I did (although he didn't like the "Lowlife" issue that he got for free). So, I really can't see how you couldn't like it. It isn't perfect, but the parts that are lacking are so minuet that they won't detract from the movie. Oh, and Colin Farrell OWNS as Bullseye. He just chews the scenery with such venom that you can't help but cheer such a homicidal maniac. Well, you're at a movie theatre, so I suppose that free popcorn > "Lowlife" - as if that would ever happen nowadays. Glad you liked the movie. But once again, I implore you to read the book, and let us know how different it is, if at all. and fwiw, CHUD.com gave it 7.9/10, - 1 point for the apparently bad, bad nuMusic... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Karnage Report post Posted February 14, 2003 Well, I went to a pre screening yesterday night and I thought the movie was okay at best. The fight scenes were filmed in such a weird manner which really bothered me. Colin Farrel is such a badass as Bullseye and Michael Clark Duncan does a really good job as the Kingpin. All those references to Kirby, Bendis, Miller, etc. were really fun also. Overall, I give it 2/5 stars. Superman is still the best comic to movie adaptation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest raptor Report post Posted February 15, 2003 My comic budget is a little low right now, but I'll try and thumb through the adaption in the store. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest starvenger Report post Posted February 15, 2003 My comic budget is a little low right now, but I'll try and thumb through the adaption in the store. They probably have that GN version at Borders and Barnes and Noble - it's probably easier to read it there. Not that I advocate that or anything but hey if you're gonna do it, do it to the big chain store as opposed to the comic shop... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted February 15, 2003 My comic budget is a little low right now, but I'll try and thumb through the adaption in the store. They probably have that GN version at Borders and Barnes and Noble - it's probably easier to read it there. Not that I advocate that or anything but hey if you're gonna do it, do it to the big chain store as opposed to the comic shop... As far as I'm concerned, THEY make it so easy to read their stuff there. They put big chairs right there, and sell coffee downstairs. Not to mention that the sales staff is a bunch of high-school kids and don't give a damn anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted February 16, 2003 My review for TSM, for the curious among you. Overall, I thought it was a pretty good movie that suffered for being basically empty. The mood and Catholic imagery was very reminiscent of Frank Miller's run, and in fact, he has a bit part as a dead guy. Overall, I'd have to say the movie's a little better than average, but it felt to me like the whole thing was just an audition for a series of sequels. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted February 16, 2003 It felt rushed, but then, so did X-MEN. It's curious that both of those franchises are owned by 20th Century Fox. I think this story felt a little more "complete" than X-Men though. Bullseye looked like a fucking tool, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Karnage Report post Posted February 16, 2003 Bullseye looked like a fucking tool, though. Collin Farrel fucking owned as Bullseye. Nuff' Said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted February 16, 2003 Bullseye looked like a fucking tool, though. Collin Farrel fucking owned as Bullseye. Nuff' Said. Oh, I agree. But the costume was god-awful. The one from the comics is so badass; why did they change it? Was I the only one who RELISHED hearing the gasps at Elektra's death after Garner had been hyped to high heaven? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest raptor Report post Posted February 16, 2003 I thought Garner was great, and EVERYBODY in the theatre was pissed when she died. I had to assure my friends that she was alive so they wouldn't hate the movie. On the Bullseye issue, I love the original (and now former) costume, but my opinion is that it might be a comics only costume. Much like Wolverine's mask, perhaps they couldn't make it credible enough to put him onscreen with it and not elicit laughter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest starvenger Report post Posted February 16, 2003 I thought Garner was great, and EVERYBODY in the theatre was pissed when she died. I had to assure my friends that she was alive so they wouldn't hate the movie. That'll teach them to not read comics... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted February 17, 2003 Superman is still the best comic to movie adaptation. Bullshit, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is the best. Followed by Spider-Man, and X-Men. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest raptor Report post Posted February 17, 2003 Comic adaptions go like this (in terms of quality of film): X-Men Daredevil Spider-Man (all these 3 are really close) Batman Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (we are agreed Zsasz, this kicked all kinds of ass) Blade BladeII Superman ...and everything else. This might come from my bias against amything Superman related (besides the great "Smallville") Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted February 17, 2003 raptor: Batman, quality-wise is no where near Batman Returns. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Sassquatch Report post Posted February 17, 2003 I finally saw Daredevil on Saturday night. Nothing too offensive but like Tom and others have said it lacked a soul which didn't give me a connection to the characters in the movie as they all just seemed like these wounded individuals who I would not want to be around. John Favreau as Foggy Nelson was just gold whenever he was on-screen and was the big bright spot for me in the movie. Jennifer Garner did as good a job as she could with the material she was given which wasn't really much in terms of character growth. Colin Farrell's over-the-top acting as Bullseye was the other bright spot in the movie and nailed down the characters mannerisms. The lack of the cool comic book version of Bullseye's costume was weak but can be forgiven (hopefully Marvel will stick with the original costume in the books...). Michael Clarke Duncan was too ghettoized in the beginning and near the end for me to think of him as the Kingpin whose skin color never played a role in the character's dialogue or motives. He did a nice job in his portrayal of the Kingpin but the ghettoizing of the character by the studio was unnecessary. The rose bit was also corny as well since someone as smart as the Kingpin would never leave a calling card every time he would take someone out which could be traced back to him. Ben Affleck, love him or hate him, did a good job in his roles of Matt Murdock and Daredevil. I didn't notice anything off with his acting blind around other characters. The interaction between him and Favreau was the best part of the movie in terms of dialogue exchange between two characters in the movie and I was hoping we would get to see more of them together. You could tell that Affleck bulked up for the role a bit which was nice to see since Daredevil is quite bulky himself but not to the point of a muscular freak. He had a good and solid presence as Daredevil as he gave off this vibe in which you would have to be crazy to try to fight him. The kid who played the younger version of Murdock also did a good job in his portrayal of a blind person. The changes to the origin of the character were fine since they were still kept true to the original material which did not needed to be changed around at all and would fit within the confines of a movie without confusion. The guy who played the father of Murdock also did a nice job with the material he had and I was half expecting him to hit little Murdock at one point when he was shown to be drunk since the comic book version dad use to do that. 7 out of 10 for the whole outing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest starvenger Report post Posted February 17, 2003 Comic adaptions go like this (in terms of quality of film): X-Men Daredevil Spider-Man (all these 3 are really close) Batman Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (we are agreed Zsasz, this kicked all kinds of ass) Blade BladeII Superman ...and everything else. This might come from my bias against amything Superman related (besides the great "Smallville") I'd put Batman: MotP in a separate category. It's a great movie, but I think that with it being animated you can't compare it to the live stuff. Compare it to Akira and Ghost in the Shell and you've probably got a better idea of where it stands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted February 17, 2003 Since this has become the "Comic Book to Film" Thread, I'll a question: Can Ra's Al-Ghul translate to film, and if so, would the WB risk a sucessful Batman franchise (if they had one) on Ra's? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Sassquatch Report post Posted February 17, 2003 Any comic book character can translate well onto the big screen if they have a talented group of movie professionals working on their character and the film. I doubt the WB would go with Ra's because then they would have the "Batman 5" comments coming out and at this point, the WB wants to forget the old Batman franchise and start fresh again. More than likely the studio would go with the Joker than anyone else. Just to add to the earlier discussion: I have always maintained that while not perfect, the first Superman movie is better than any of the Batman films put out by the WB. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted February 17, 2003 Sass, I didn't mean NOW. I was speaking hypothetically. Mask of the Phantasm was put out by WB, and I still contend that it captures everything Batman, from general mood to the nitty-gritty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
