I never did see it in the theater, but my dad did to make sure it was ok for me to watch when I was seven because of the dark tone the film has. I got permission and when I saw it, I fell in love with it. Then again, for awhile I did that with all superhero films. The pros to seeing the movie was the exposure to a character that I describe as Marvel's Dark Knight. The cons, well that's most of the movie. He is known as The Man Without Fear and also known as The Man Without a Good movie. Here is my review for DareDevil.
"As for Daredevil. Well... soon the world will know the truth. That this is a city born of heroes. That one man can make a difference."
Acting: I've seen people say that Ben Affleck was not fit for the role. Actually, he did a REALLY good job with the role. It's the writing that made it come off bad. Unfortunately, this is one of the last movies that Ben Affleck did as an actor (if I rememeber correctly) and it's really sad. Jennifer Gardner was also pretty good in the role but the chemistry between her and Affleck I just couldn't see. I know they were trying for something but she kept falling from it. Colin Farrell made the movie really fun and funny. I know it's not in character but I think the movie really needed it. Michael Clarke Duncan was awesome as Kingpin.
Rest in Peace, big guy. He fit the Kingpin so well. Him, Bullseye and Matt Murdock I personally can't see getting better actors than what they got. Joe Pantoliano as Ben Urich was good but for me the best part of the whole movie was Jon Favreau as Franklin "Foggy" Nelson. I can't see anyone pulling off this character more perfect.
Directing/Writing: Here is where the film failed. Mark Steven Johnsons passion for these characters is admirable and I can tell he means well, but ultimately he couldn't deliver on both this and Ghost Rider (an improvement on DD but not much). He got the tone right and the look right for the most part.
Score: The films score is really good, but I don't feel that it compliments the film itself. Therefore bringing down the movie even more.
Visual effects: Is it sad that the radar sense POV is better visuals than most of the CGI in the film? Rhythm and Hues, I've never cared much for them despite the impressive visuals in The Incredible Hulk but the visuals was done in 2002 which means I can't complain too much but still. Spider-Man had better visuals in all three movies than DareDevil, and some of the visual shots in the original trilogy were pretty bad.
Soundtrack: The various artist soundtrack is actually the best soundtrack for a superhero movie, even beating out The Avengers which is saying something because I LOVED The Avengers sountrack.
Editing: It was good but some of the fight scenes got a little confusing, not to mention the lighting at one point made it to where you couldn't see the guy despite the whole turn thing in the first fight scene where he is DD was pretty cool.
Overall: This film is far from being as bad as most people claim it to be. It's far from the worst but it's nowhere near good. Maybe ok at best probably explains why it gets crappier everytime I watch it but is still bearable. The directing had the right idea but his own writing ultimately betrays him along with some bad cgi and an underdeveloped origin. It'll be easy to reboot this movie and would also be cool how DareDevil can translate to film now after Batmans impact on the CBM world (this is a hint at Marvel/Fox, whoever has the current rights to DD to pick up BattlinMurdock's trilogy and translate it to film). DareDevil is anything but perfect but is if anything a fun movie to watch in the spare time. I'm awarding DareDevil a 6/10 and here is to hoping for a reboot that can be as good or better than the recent Batman run.