Duncan, Garner do the comic book thing
January 30th, 2002
The cast is set for the movie version of the comic DAREDEVIL. And its impressive: Ben Affleck takes the lead; the latest, hottest supporting actor Colin Farrell takes the villain role; everyones favorite new starlet, Jennifer Garner (or, as it is now appropriate, Golden Globe winner Jennifer Garner), is the love interest; and everyones favorite giant teddy bear, Michael Clarke Duncan, is the huge mobster who rules over New York.
Mark Steven Johnson, who wrote his script with Brian Helgeland (actually, Brian rewrote it), is -- dont start weeping yet -- the director.
DAREDEVIL is about a man blinded in an accident involving a radioactive transport truck. (Dont you hate it when that happens?) While he loses the sense of sight, his other senses are enhanced and -- true comic-book fashion -- he dresses up in an absurd costume and fights crime in Hells Kitchen.
(I read Chris Columbus version of this script, which was awful, and it included the whole plot about Daredevils wrestler father, which I found ridiculous; I hope this version doesnt have it, too.)
My interest in this project figures squarely on the head of Jennifer Garner. This is her first post-ALIAS acting role, and I think shes making a mistake.
Jennifers character, Elektra, is pretty cool from what I know about it. A female assassin. But this isnt her movie, and I fear shell be nothing but pretty eye-candy.
Its hard to launch comics that dont have a tremendous fanbase. You can use Batman because people know him. Ditto Spidey. But this? People are just going to call it a knockoff of SPIDER-MAN, which, by the time this rolls along, will have been a mega-success.
I dont exactly have a lot of faith in the guy who directed GRUMPY OLD MEN, the film has to be shot as cheap as possible (read: phony CGI), Ben Affleck still hasnt proven himself as a bona fide star. The final nail in the coffin for me was just a few hours ago, when I read an E-mail by a comic-buff buddy who was less than enthused about this project, and said the best thing it had going for itself was Garner (and hes not obsessed with the teachers daughter like moi).
Itll be great if they spin Garners character off into her own movies -- Garner off on missions killing people in different beautiful outfits -- but, oh, right -- she already does that four times a month on her TV show! Which is the exact reason she shouldnt be making this movie. The best thing about her work on ALIAS is that she gives comic-book action a soul; now she should use her fame to expose that she can bring a soul to work that isnt comic-book.
As Tarantino said in the Rolling Stone piece about Garner: shell work forever. So a few early mistakes wont matter.
Im just hoping she reteams with Woody Allen (after her two-second scene in DECONSTRUCTING HARRY) or has a few Dan Waters or Ron Bass scripts slip her way.
Had ALIAS preempted the loud-and-loose CHARLIES ANGELS Jen probably would have been the third Angel.
...maybe it was a good thing she wasnt.
-- Darwin Mayflower (darwinmayflower@yahoo.com)
Mark Steven Johnson, who wrote his script with Brian Helgeland (actually, Brian rewrote it), is -- dont start weeping yet -- the director.
DAREDEVIL is about a man blinded in an accident involving a radioactive transport truck. (Dont you hate it when that happens?) While he loses the sense of sight, his other senses are enhanced and -- true comic-book fashion -- he dresses up in an absurd costume and fights crime in Hells Kitchen.
(I read Chris Columbus version of this script, which was awful, and it included the whole plot about Daredevils wrestler father, which I found ridiculous; I hope this version doesnt have it, too.)
My interest in this project figures squarely on the head of Jennifer Garner. This is her first post-ALIAS acting role, and I think shes making a mistake.
Jennifers character, Elektra, is pretty cool from what I know about it. A female assassin. But this isnt her movie, and I fear shell be nothing but pretty eye-candy.
Its hard to launch comics that dont have a tremendous fanbase. You can use Batman because people know him. Ditto Spidey. But this? People are just going to call it a knockoff of SPIDER-MAN, which, by the time this rolls along, will have been a mega-success.
I dont exactly have a lot of faith in the guy who directed GRUMPY OLD MEN, the film has to be shot as cheap as possible (read: phony CGI), Ben Affleck still hasnt proven himself as a bona fide star. The final nail in the coffin for me was just a few hours ago, when I read an E-mail by a comic-buff buddy who was less than enthused about this project, and said the best thing it had going for itself was Garner (and hes not obsessed with the teachers daughter like moi).
Itll be great if they spin Garners character off into her own movies -- Garner off on missions killing people in different beautiful outfits -- but, oh, right -- she already does that four times a month on her TV show! Which is the exact reason she shouldnt be making this movie. The best thing about her work on ALIAS is that she gives comic-book action a soul; now she should use her fame to expose that she can bring a soul to work that isnt comic-book.
As Tarantino said in the Rolling Stone piece about Garner: shell work forever. So a few early mistakes wont matter.
Im just hoping she reteams with Woody Allen (after her two-second scene in DECONSTRUCTING HARRY) or has a few Dan Waters or Ron Bass scripts slip her way.
Had ALIAS preempted the loud-and-loose CHARLIES ANGELS Jen probably would have been the third Angel.
...maybe it was a good thing she wasnt.
-- Darwin Mayflower (darwinmayflower@yahoo.com)
Comments
Only logged-in members can comment. You can log in or join today for free!
Advertisement
