Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes
Too hollow and pedestrian to dramatize the conflict between its hero's vigilante streak and his moral straits imaginatively.
Detroit Free Press:
Plays closer to the Joel Schumacher campy sequel Batman & Robin: convoluted, junky and obsessed with form-fitting leather costumes.
For all its ambition, Daredevil can't overcome the fact that at its colorful center lies a perfect blank in a bad suit.
Ebert & Roeper:
Daredevil has electric energy, a wickedly dark sense of humor, some ingenious fight scenes and that high-powered cast.
Daredevil is slick, expensive and filled with good-looking actors flexing muscles, but once it grabs our attention it doesn't really reward it.
Los Angeles Times:
While Daredevils' title role proves to be a snug fit for Ben Affleck, the movie itself sags in all the wrong places.
The action almost never stops, which is both Daredevil's biggest asset and its greatest shortcoming.
After sundry Batmans and last summer's Spider-Man, the comic-book formula of childhood loss, filial revenge, and freakish physical prowess doesn't seem all that fresh anymore.
Completely devoid of subtlety or sense, the film is a series of bad scenes connected by empty characters, most of whom seem like leftovers from scripts abandoned long ago.
New York Post:
The flick misses the bull's-eye by such a length that nobody except hard-core fanboys and leather fetishists will be panting for the sequel promised at the end.
There's good stuff in the margins. But on the heels of such successful comic-book adaptations as X-Men and Spider-Man, Johnson's film makes Daredevil look like the second-rate hero he never really was.
San Jose Mercury News:
With the appearance in movie theaters of Daredevil, we have now officially arrived at the bottom of the comic-book pile.
When Farrell's on screen, Daredevil becomes more than just a finely tuned entertainment machine. In a movie that will rake people in no matter what, it's fun to see something unexpected.
Daredevil, in this movie at least, is little more than a hollow clone of Batman and Spider-Man, with far less idiosyncrasy than either.
The dialogue is dreadful, a stale sort of hokum that wouldn't make the cut at Marvel Comics.
Torn between moody grandiosity and cartoonish mayhem, Daredevil tries to have it both ways, and succeeds at neither.
Much of the rest of Daredevil is so dark that you can't see it. I don't think you're missing a great deal.
Sometimes, you can tell when parts of a movie have been left on the cutting room floor, and that's the case with Daredevil.
The maroon couch-suit is kind of cool and it's fun to watch him suck face with Jennifer Garner. But in the end, Ben Affleck can't make us forget that other red-costumed New York superhero.
Convincing in the physical demands of the role, Affleck persuades us of the pain of sightlessness and supersensitive hearing, although writer/director Johnson's scrappy construction fails him and everyone else as the showdown approaches.
There'll be plenty of ragging to go around once audiences get a dose of the dullest live-action comic strip on record, one that lacks even an interesting villain.
A pretender in the realm of bona fide superheroes.
The numerous fight scenes have been filmed in Confuse-o-Rama, a headache-inducing technique that mixes a dozen too many cuts per minute, projectile P.O.V., and intermittent glimpses of the hero's sonar sensorium.
Wall Street Journal:
It isn't a great film, or even a greatly original one. Still, it has many grace notes, and interesting oddities.