DAREDEVIL: BORN AGAIN Season 2 Now Certified Fresh With One Of Marvel's Best Rotten Tomatoes Scores

DAREDEVIL: BORN AGAIN Season 2 Now Certified Fresh With One Of Marvel's Best Rotten Tomatoes Scores

Daredevil: Born Again Season 2 has been "Certified Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes, and with a 94% score from critics, it now ranks among the best-reviewed Marvel Studios movies or TV shows of all-time.

News
By JoshWilding - Mar 26, 2026 06:03 AM EST
Filed Under: Daredevil

The first episode of Daredevil: Born Again Season 2 is now streaming on Disney+, and while fans have only seen one of eight episodes so far, critics have watched the entire thing. 

That's a stark contrast to some previous MCU TV series, where only part of a season was provided in advance. As a result, it became commonplace for early reviews to differ from those for the entire season (Secret Invasion, for example, started strong and then took a sharp dip in quality by the finale). 

With critics able to weigh in on the entire story, Daredevil: Born Again Season 2 currently has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes' "Tomatometer." 

According to the Critics Consensus, "Daredevil: Born Again imbues its second season with rich substance thanks to devilishly good performances, punchier narrative momentum, and well-timed themes befitting this daring crusader."

With a 95% Audience Score—based on the premiere, "The Northern Star"—the Popcormeter verdict reads, "A thrilling successor that captures the essence of the source comics, Daredevil: Born Again builds like a ticking clock -- and we’re here for the big boom."

The most impressive thing about this score is that Daredevil: Born Again now ranks among the all-time best-reviewed MCU movies and TV shows. On the small screen, it sits above the likes of WandaVision (92%) and Hawkeye (92%), and behind only Ms. Marvel (98%) on the live-action side.

In terms of movies, it's tied with Iron Man (94%) and Avengers: Endgame (94%), but is beaten by Marvel Studios' most critically acclaimed title, Black Panther (96%).

In our review of the series, we concluded by saying, "A brutal, relentless tour-de-force, Daredevil: Born Again Season 2 is a Marvel masterstroke that sees Charlie Cox take the Man Without Fear to unprecedented heights, delivering the definitive take on Daredevil."

How excited are you for the rest of Daredevil: Born Again Season 2?

In Daredevil: Born Again, survival, resistance and redemption collide as the battle for the soul of New York begins. In Season 2, Mayor Wilson Fisk crushes New York City underfoot as he hunts down public enemy number one, the Hell’s Kitchen vigilante known as Daredevil.

But beneath the horned mask, Matt Murdock will try to fight back from the shadows to tear down the Kingpin’s corrupt empire and redeem his home. Resist. Rebel. Rebuild.

Created by Dario Scardapane, Chris Ord and Matt Corman, Daredevil: Born Again Season 2 stars Charlie Cox as the titular masked vigilante (aka Matt Murdock) and Vincent D’Onofrio as Wilson Fisk.

Returning to the series are Deborah Ann Woll as Karen Page, Ayelet Zurer as Vanessa Fisk, Wilson Bethel as Benjamin Poindexter/Bullseye and Margarita Levieva as Heather Glenn. This season also marks the long-awaited return of Krysten Ritter as fan-favourite Jessica Jones and introduces Matthew Lillard as the mysterious Mr. Charles.

Daredevil: Born Again is now streaming weekly on Disney+.

About The Author:
JoshWilding
Member Since 3/13/2009
Comic Book Reader. Film Lover. WWE and F1 Fan. Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic and ComicBookMovie.com's #1 contributor.
Daredevil: Born Again Star Ayelet Zurer Shares Surprising Revelation About Episode 5's Flashbacks (Exclusive)
Related:

Daredevil: Born Again Star Ayelet Zurer Shares Surprising Revelation About Episode 5's Flashbacks (Exclusive)
Daredevil: Born Again Star Ayelet Zurer Addresses Vanessa Fisk's Possible Season 3 Role (Exclusive)
Recommended For You:

Daredevil: Born Again Star Ayelet Zurer Addresses Vanessa Fisk's Possible Season 3 Role (Exclusive)

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
LSHF
LSHF - 3/26/2026, 6:38 AM
I enjoyed it. Looking forward to the next one.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 3/26/2026, 6:44 AM
I'm struggling to form any real opinion on the new season since the first episode was such a nothing burger.

New costume was good. Starting and ending with an action sequence was a good way to sandwich the nothing burger. Very clever of them, considering the lack of action was a point of contention for the first season.

Mr Charles isn't his real name? He could be Fisk's son, he could be Jean Grey, but he'll probably turn out to be nobody too important after stringing us along with a season worth of mystery box speculation. That's how these things usually end.

Weak start overall but lets see how it goes.
SuperClark
SuperClark - 3/26/2026, 9:54 AM
@ObserverIO - wow you are not the demanding type are you.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 3/26/2026, 5:53 PM
@SuperClark - I know that's sarcasm but I don't know if it's because you think I'm being too hard on the episode or too soft.
Did you think it was so bad that I should more vehemently demand better or did you think it was some kinda masterpiece and I'm being overly critical... because it really wasn't bad bad, just a bad opening episode really And it certainly wasn't any kinda masterpiece, I don't care how nutty of a fan you are there's no way you thought it was that good.
TheVisionary25
TheVisionary25 - 3/26/2026, 6:53 AM
Sweet , most critics having seen the entire 8 episode run makes me more confident in these reviews then I have been for some tv shows in the past so I hope that continues for the MCU moving forward tbh.

Also I’m sure some on here will disparage this rating by using Ms Marvel’s 98% as a comparison to why RT can’t be trusted yet they don’t really know that it isn’t some arbitrary score but the percentage of how many liked the show or not so…

User Comment Image

Anyway , I liked the premeire quite a bit so looking forward to the rest of the season (remember that next week we get 2 episodes)!!.
FireGunn
FireGunn - 3/26/2026, 6:56 AM
None of this matters because Disney clearly pays for this. Almost all their horrendous shows have positive scores.

Reboot the MCU and DCU
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 3/26/2026, 7:26 AM
@FireGunn - So Disney pays for good ratings, yet WB, who owns RT, can't even get good scores for SnyderVerse?

Looks to me like either they thought no money in the world is worth ruining their rep for a franchise that bad, or you are just too far gone to think straight. Those are the only two options.
FireGunn
FireGunn - 3/26/2026, 7:44 AM
@SpiderParker - Tell me why there was an influx of downvotes for Predator 1987 right before and right after the release of Predator Badlands?
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 3/26/2026, 8:08 AM
@FireGunn - Because it was a movie that came out before RT was a thing? Most of the reviews for the movies were never added to RT? People who reviewed Badlands thought "wait, I reviewed this movie before, let me add it on RT"? People who went to watch Badlands wanted to watch the prequel first and simultaneously reviewed that as well?

Pick any one. But the consensus is that RT just updated the page to include the old reviews that were left out since it was a old movie.

I mean, you are certainly not suggesting Disney paid to get their own movie (since they own it now) to get bad reviews? If anything, isn't that what WB would do to try and tank Disney? Did you lose the plot, again?
FireGunn
FireGunn - 3/26/2026, 8:38 AM
@SpiderParker - Oh yeah, NONE of these critics submitted their negative reviews for Pred87 when Predator 2018 released. Last time I checked, Rotten Tomatoes existed in 2018. These so called new reviewers just suddenly came out of nowhere Disney owns the franchise. Right... And almost every single new review post October 15th, 2025 is negative? Yes, definitely not suspicious at all. Use common sense, Occam's razor, and your damn brain for a second.

"I mean, you are certainly not suggesting Disney paid to get their own movie (since they own it now) to get bad reviews? If anything, isn't that what WB would do to try and tank Disney? Did you lose the plot, again?"

Disney did not make Predator87. They didn't have a single hand in it. They made Prey and Badlands. Just because they own the franchise now doesn't mean shit. Nice try.

Do you think these "critics" represent the majority having Badlands at an 86% and Pred87 at an 63%?
HashTagSwagg
HashTagSwagg - 3/26/2026, 8:48 AM
@SpiderParker - Badlands had a 68 percent drop in its second week, it is not this revoltionary film that "restored the franchise" and brought in new fans who just suddenly happened to look back at the OG and go hmmm, yeah thats no where near as good as the new one, I better hop online and write down my review to make the new film look good.
User Comment Image
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 3/26/2026, 8:56 AM
@FireGunn - So, your argument is that... RT went back in time, created negative reviews in the year 1987 then came Back to the Future and added those reviews to the site?

Doesn't mean shit? So, Disney tried to tank their own franchise, for which they paid billions to purchase, by paying RT to get negative reviews for the original movie?

If you wanna complain, how about asking RT why they suddenly added the almost 4 decades old movie reviews for a mixed-reception movie when people were already fooled into thinking it was a highly critically praised movie since those old reviews were never accounted for?

90% of those reviews are from the 80's, you can actually check those reviews on RT, they were all added on Nov 1st but reviewed decades ago and taken from places like BBC, NY times, Variety, etc.

It's not that hard to do research, buddy. Or maybe, it is for you.
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 3/26/2026, 9:18 AM
@HashTagSwagg - I never said it was all new reviews, I used 'rhetoric' to insinuate general reasoning why something like that could happen for any movie not just Predator.

I explicitly 'stated' - "But the consensus is that RT just updated the page to include the old reviews that were left out since it was a old movie." 

Which can be verified very easily by checking the published dates of those newly added reviews. Most were published in the newspaper back in the day, some can be viewed on BBC, etc.

Unless you think RT got a Flux Capacitor powered modified DeLorean, this is not a conspiracy. It was never a critically acclaimed movie. If you think it was, well, that's cope.
FireGunn
FireGunn - 3/26/2026, 9:22 AM
@SpiderParker - You've still yet to answer why those reviews "from the 80's" suddenly were added once Disney released their films. Why didn't Rotten Tomatoes add them in 2018?
FireGunn
FireGunn - 3/26/2026, 9:26 AM
@SpiderParker - "It was never a critically acclaimed movie. If you think it was, well, that's cope."

Letterboxd: 3.8/5
Imdb: 7.8/10
Metacritic: 8.5/10
Trakt: 78%

Who are you lying to?
HashTagSwagg
HashTagSwagg - 3/26/2026, 9:32 AM
@SpiderParker -
User Comment Image

User Comment Image

User Comment Image
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 3/26/2026, 10:43 AM
@FireGunn - I didn't know IMDB, Letterboxd, Metacritic, RT, etc were an established company back in 1987. IMDB launched in 93' and that's not even critic based. Who are you lying to? Critics from that time didn't think much of the movie. If a century old movie is added on RT today and one person's review rates it at 100% does that mean it was critically acclaimed back in the day?

@HashTagSwagg - Everyone wants to think about their beloved movie as universally praised. But just because a data was lacking doesn't make it so. Some of the indie movies have 100% RT rating but just by a few people, doesn't make them better than all of the other movies.

I'll ask both of you, if Predator was such a critically acclaimed movie when it released, then why did it only have 60 reviews before 2025 when some of the other critically acclaimed movies from that time even have over 200 reviews on RT? Answer? - Reviews were not scraped properly due to lack of proper databases. Of course old movies released before web was such a integral part of life will have lacking data that doesn't match the reality of that time.
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 3/26/2026, 10:54 AM
And RT is not absolute, it never was. It's just a data a person can use to judge a movie on and to a lesser degree so is IMDB. It's a necessary evil, without it, you can't make a judgement but that doesn't mean these ratings are not fallible.

For example, MOS deserves lower RT IMO and BvS deserves higher IMO even though both are trash. Eternals on the other hand, while understandably divisive, could connect with a certain niche group who can digest the slow pace more than others.
FireGunn
FireGunn - 3/26/2026, 3:01 PM
@SpiderParker - It's on YOU to prove that a loved movie wasn't so loved on release. You're the one making the claim so go ahead and provide the source
FireGunn
FireGunn - 3/26/2026, 3:02 PM
@SpiderParker - And you STILL haven't answered my question. You're blatantly avoiding it. Impressive
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 3/26/2026, 7:58 PM
@FireGunn - It's on me? Nah, buddy. The evidence is already present as currently provided by RT upon adding the reviews from that time. You are the one accusing it's validity so it's on YOU to prove it. You don't know how law works?
FireGunn
FireGunn - 3/26/2026, 11:11 PM
@SpiderParker - Why are you avoiding my question?
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 3/27/2026, 12:18 AM
@FireGunn - Why are you incapable of recognizing that I already answered it?
FireGunn
FireGunn - 3/27/2026, 12:27 AM
@SpiderParker - No you haven't. Now answer it.

Why didn't Rotten Tomatoes add them in 2018?
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 3/27/2026, 5:30 AM
@FireGunn - Because I forgot to file the complaint regarding the score discrepancy back in 2018. When I finally filed it in 2022 as Prey came out, they contested that the ongoing pandemic left them without the resources to scrape old reviews for a single movie while their library of half a million titles still needed to be taken care of.

But, due to my persistence last year, they finally gave in. After I offered to set up an AI system to scrape the old reviews and pointed out the upcoming 40th anniversary would create a perfect disharmony among fans causing major engagement on their site, they gladly accepted my proposal.

I can certainly see how my actions led you to think that Disney paid off WB to sabotage their own franchise. You would have done the same if you owned Disney and this property, right? You would have made a great corporate leader!

User Comment Image
Matchesz
Matchesz - 3/26/2026, 7:07 AM
Shows going to be 80% girl bosses, 20% toxic men and 5 mins of Daredevil action per each episode. Cant tell me these writers arent from reddit
MotherGooseUPus
MotherGooseUPus - 3/26/2026, 7:08 AM
"and behind only Ms. Marvel (98%) on the live-action side" --> that show was so bland and did nothing. the family was the only good thing about it. this just proves my point and MANY other that rotten tomatoes doesnt mean shit

User Comment Image
dragon316
dragon316 - 3/26/2026, 7:25 AM
Don’t need score tell you what’s goood you decide what’s goood let reviews tell you what goood in life decide your life choices is sad way to live high scores doenst mean it’s goood and bad unless you see to believe
TheVisionary25
TheVisionary25 - 3/26/2026, 8:22 AM
God there are some real losers on this site , holy shit…

Also the rose colored glasses for Netflix Daredevil is hilarious since people would complain about the pacing of those shows aswell and how 13 episodes was too long but now , everyone acts like it was perfect?.

Honestly , ya’ll just need to come out and say that you just love to complain for the sake of it and clearly have no idea what you want!!.
ptick
ptick - 3/26/2026, 11:53 AM
@TheVisionary25 - Yes! I loved the Netflix shows for the most part (especially Daredevil season 1 and 3 and the first half of season 2, Jessica Jones season 1, and Luke Cage season 1 until Cottonmouth died), but there was a ton of filler in those. There are entire batches of episodes where the plot barely moved. For all of its warts re: The Hand, the second-best thing about Defenders was the pacing since it was a shorter run. (The best thing was the interplay between the heroes.)
bs77
bs77 - 3/26/2026, 10:42 AM
I liked the first Ep. It felt like a different show to me from the get go. DDs fight choreography looked great, felt like Netflix again. I did not like season 1 fights. They make me think of Batman/Bane in TDKR. I just hope all the mystery characters and subplots pay off. Looking forward to the rest.
SuperSpiderMan5
SuperSpiderMan5 - 3/26/2026, 10:45 AM
RT certified something that isn't woke? Huh. Go figure.
NinnesMBC
NinnesMBC - 3/26/2026, 10:58 AM
Daredevil always delivers. Cool.

User Comment Image

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Auto Racing

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder