I liked the theatrical a lot and not sure why there was so much criticism. This is really a good movie and a good superhero movie as well. Sure it's dark and gritty, but that is why it works so well above the lighter superhero fare.
I thought Ben did an admirable job and this DC just adds to the enjoyment. With the extra scenes of how he is such a brilliant lawyer...not bad. Gives him personality and Colin Farrell just steals the show as Bullseye. He was so superiorly deranged.

Where's the love...

I've wanted to see the Daredevil DC, since it's supposedly quite different.

Though I hated the theatrical cut. It wanted to be dark and gritty, but instead was light and silly with some rather undeserved "dark" moments.

Is the DC a big improvement though? If I could rent this thing I'd watch it but nobody ever has the DC.

Yeah, I wish Netflix carried the DC. I've never seen the theatrical cut either, which they have, but I'd much rather just see the DC.

The quick, sloppy editing of the action scenes ruined it for me. Bullseye was definitely one of the cooler comic book bad guy. I am only into comics via the movies, so as a general movie fan, I think the fact that he was blind hurt the movie. Just gave it a twist of ridiculousness.

I don't have a single good thing to say about this movie. Lousy music, lousy acting, and lousy script. A better director wouldve helped.

I still haven't seen the DC yet, but I'm one of the lone lovers of the theatrical cut. Kept on hearing how bad it sucked when it was in theaters, so I skipped it. But I checked it out at a Hotel room on ppv and was suprised at how much I liked the movie.
Honestly, the now-dated soundtrack is the only problem I have with it.

I've seen them both and really, the DC doesn't do much to save this P.O.S. The difference, they take away the sex scene and make it so DD goes out and fights. Big whoop, the rest of the flaws still show.

I enjoyed the theatrical, and enjoyed the director's cut a little bit more. Very solid comic book films.

....hated Clarke (?) as Kingpin. He just didn't work for me. He should've been MUCH more massive (perhaps CGI). His race is irrelevant in this matter, though; don't want anyone to misunderstand my dislike for him IN THIS ROLE. He was just a big meaty guy, and, hell, if that's the requirement. they could've gotten me to play Kingpin for much less, LOL....

Likewise...the DC is just that tad bit better. The movie is considerably longer, for the better too. It gives us more time with the Matt Murdock character, which actually makes it a "Daredevil" movie.

The theaterical version was so busy introducing so many characters that Daredevil didn't necessarily seem like the centerpoint of the movie.

I loved the way the cops bust in and arrest kingpin for losing to daredevil.

"Kingpin, You are under arrest for getting your ass kicked by a blind man"

I enjoyed the DC way more than the original version but there are certainly still many flaws in the film. I like most of the stars in the film but I don't care for them much in this particular film.

The theatrical cut was one of the least memorable movies i've ever seen, a hotch potch of ever superhero cliche in the book.

I thought the theatrical cut was an ok movie. I thought the director's cut was much better, and made this a good movie.

I'm a big daredevil comic fan and the movie sucked. All of it. It was badly written, badly acted and butchered what miller did on daredevil. And Ghost rider will suck too.

Ditto.

I bought, and still have, both, but would only watch the first release for disk 2.

you're not alone in liking the theatrical. i very much enjoyed it and what prompted me to buy the DC.

But in the director's cut, they actually explain why the cops show up to arrest him. It's been about a year since I've seen it, so I forget the reason, but it's there.

I have both versions and the director's cut improves the film greatly. An entire subplot was axed for the theatrical cut. I'm glad it's put back in.

I didn't think the theatrical cut was bad, but casting Afleck as a superhero was one of the poorest casting decisions of all time.

Did you see the director's cut?

There is a subpot excised; the death of a hooker is traced back to Kingpin's right-hand man, played by Leland Orser. The cop tells him he can go to jail or start talking about a plea bargain. Therefore, the police take Kingpin down over what his underboss confessed to.

Yeah, I've seen the DC and even though they toss in that quick and dirty reason it still feels forced and the movie, while it improves on it, is like spraying frebreeze on a pile. I wouldn't call it an under appreciated classic in any way though.

I rather like the original movie, I'd line it up with Fantastic Four - flawed, but still fun. I actually think Affleck was pretty good as DD, but the mediocre direction didn't help. Still, I own it and like it -- keep meaning to pick up the director's Cut, I've seen it for $10 at WalMart.

My point of view exactly. (I was going to compare it to FF as well. I’m glad I read to the bottom before posting.)

They made the same mistakes in the Spiderman movies. A guy that can crawl up walls??? C’mon!

I actually enjoyed the TC but the DC made a good film much better. It's not a classic by any means but it's a good comic book movie. That said, the stuff with Wesley seemed a bit rushed. But I did like that final shot of him and Kingpin with adjacent cells. Obviously Kingpin pulled some strings (why else would they have adjacent cells?) and Wesley is a dead man. A quick easy set up for a sequel that doesn't linger unnecesarily.

Now if only the fight choreography was better. The bar fight was just fine but the other fights weren't as good.