I saw Daredevil last night. I'd never read the books, but from seeing the trailers, I wasn't expecting much, so maybe my reaction was a self-fulfilling prophecy. I didn't think Daredevil was a very good movie.
The opening fight scene uses a filming technique I criticized in Blade II, where the camera angle changed much too rapidly for the viewer to know what was happening. Of course, I'm also given the feeling it doesn't matter what's happening, because if it did, then I'd've been seeing it. Likewise, the CGI was overdone. While it was prevalent in Spider-Man, here it just looked fake, as it did in Blade II. The use of guidewires in at least one scene was much too obvious.
Speaking of battles, two scenes in the final battle between Daredevil and Bullseye were taken right from last year's Spider-Man/Green Goblin bouts. Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin was fine, but overall the character had too little screen time to be worthy of being the movie's ultimate villain.
Near the end, heroine Elektra falls under a misconception I cannot explain. I may have missed something, but it seems to me the truth was staring her right in the face, yet the movie plays out as if she didn't see it.
Two gimmicks were laughably obvious and/or flawed: when a reflection of the "Daredevil" insignia was not reversed, as most reflections are; and a computer keyboard with two adjacent, antipodal keys. Very convenient! Other gimmicks/loose ends: I never found out why Daredevil sleeps in a coffin, or what the reporter wanted to talk to Matt Murdock about.
The movie was entertaining, but not because it was very good.
On a related note, The Boston Herald describes Murdock's background as follows: "Murdock was blinded as a child by a toxic splash that left his four other senses heightened. He saw thugs murder his dad…"
Anyone else see the contradiction there?