Platypuschow
Following directly on from the passable Dark Knight Returns Part 1 we see an aged Batman doing what he does best. Clearly tired and with a new young Robin protege he is forced to contend with the return of the Joker, civil unrest, an increasingly hostile police force and Superman himself.I went into this expecting more of the same, little did I realise it would be a contender for the best Batman movie out there.Well written, thoughtful, very dark & with some genuinely game changing moments this second (And likely last) part really delivers. I find the old Batman so much more interesting, tired, hurting but determined to continue his crusade until his final breath.This is evidence that the franchise has plenty of life in it, it just needs to be placed in the right peoples hands. If Batman vs Superman had been like this the DC Universe would be looking a whole hell of a lot more promising right now.The Good:Dark, gritty and violentThe Bad:Robin, really?!Odd version of the JokerTimeline is weirdThings I Learnt From This Movie:More movies need topless villainess'sCatwoman becoming a Madam, not really surprisingThe bat glider scene made me just plain uncomfortable, good soldier, good soldierOne day DC will need to explain how Supermans outfit is impervious to damage as well
ironbat-85417
I don't know how they have managed to show all this in 75 minutes .. but i thought i was watching a 2 hour movie and the thrill never went down . NOT EVEN FOR A MINUTEThe first part was in itself great, but the second part really breaks the boundary of excellence. Not being familiar to the graphic novel origins of the story, what happens in second part really blows my mind. Not only does Batman have the Joker to contend with, but put Superman together in the mix, and you get another level of awesomeness.This is one of the darkest portrayals of the Batman universe and it makes me wonder how the hell did they get away from an R rating. Never has been an animated movie been so thrilling and so serious for me like these. The whole story and some of the fight scenes are just epic. While face-offs with Harvey Dent & the Mutant Leader in Part 1 was great, battles with the Joker & Superman in Part 2 takes animation movies to a whole new level. Some might be disappointed not to hear Kevin Conroy & Mark Hamill's familiar voices, I'd say the chosen actors to play the older counterparts was a right decision. Some subplots might be mildly uninteresting, but that is irrelevant when most of the package is stuffed with such greatness.Easily the most powerful conclusion and the finest animated production from Warner Premiere, the whole thing looks superb. Animation is of the highest quality, rivaling that of big budget anime movies. Fight scenes are in full motion, bristling with a kinetic sense of energy and without a single short cut. All of it set to a unique score by composer Christopher Drake which combines blockbuster orchestral tunes with a futuristic tune inspired synthesizer sounds. Again, the main complaint is more with the art than the animation. Frank Miller's art is faithfully replicated but in certain scenes, the quality of the art takes a nose dive. One such scene involves superman taking on a naval fleet; the way the ships are drawn look pathetically cheap compared to the rest of the movie.These are Batman movies which almost shake my soul some of the familiar experiences are Batman Under the Red hood and The Dark Knight.But I recommend a new comer to watch in this order1)Batman Under the red hood 2)Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1 3)Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 2 Final marks A++
vesil_vesalier
A lot of people consider "The Dark Knight Returns" as one of the finest if not THE finest book ever written about Batman. I would have to agree with that sentiment, and it's more than just because of the quality of the plot. It's a reflection of society, politics, fear and control.That being said, a lot of that is left out of this pair of movies, which is a shame.Conversion from one medium to another is always challenging. Most of the time, it's a miss, where one champions the other and there's just no comparison. Honestly, most of the time if I read the book, I don't enjoy the movie, and if I watch the movie, I refuse to read the book because I have a pretty good idea of just how different the two mediums can be. I think it is impossible to accurately translate ANYTHING from one medium to another, without having to cut something away or modify something important, in order to make the story functional in both."The Dark Knight Returns" has a theme, and that theme is certainly R rated material. From the swastika-over-her-nipples thug that Batman has to fight post-Mutant, to the philosophical single-page stories thrown into the book to give atmosphere to this new, semi-futuristic Gotham, there was something special in the design and overall feel of the book.Unfortunately, in order to appeal to a wider audience, a lot of this is lost in translation. Allow me to explain.There was a constant, recurring theme of public morality that resurfaced over and over again in the book that is merely touched upon in the movie. Batman, in previous installments, has always just been a phantom, an apparition in the background of Gotham, something people who lived there were familiar with, but had no real opinion on, or at least not one that was addressed in the course of the stories. In the book, this was a major theme. Ten years after Batman hung up the cowl, and the people of Earth did away with their superheroes, pubic opinion shifted in a similar way that it has shifted for us, now, in the year 2016. While the book does not use the idea of Political Correctness, it does use the general debate over a public that has become sleepy to the idea of justice, who, instead of fighting the powers that be have instead surrendered to it, and when you think about it, that's precisely what we have today. I think it is reflected most specifically in the idea of Political Correctness, where our discussions have all but been quieted for fear of offense and labels.Anyway, this theme is touched on in the movie, but ONLY touched on. It is not a driving force, not a recurring theme. It feels like a lot of the jokes do, falling flat as references to the book without support from the plot of the movie, which is always something I don't like in films. References that go outside of the film, as a kind of wink-wink to those people in the audience that read the book, is always a stopper in the flow of the movie, when the person who didn't read the book doesn't get it. I'm reminded of THE HUNGER GAMES, in which Gale, the original love interest of Katniss, tells us he has something like 27 entries into the lottery for the games, but we are never told as to why. For the people that read the book, it's not a problem.For me, I didn't understand. And it plagued me throughout the movie, ultimately revealing a constant theme throughout that brought my rating for it way down as a result.In my humble opinion, references should be left out altogether, only used if they actually contribute to the plot. Otherwise they should be discarded outright.On the positive side, the action was intense, the animation of good quality. Some of the voice acting was questionable, in the choices of the Commissioner and especially in that of the Joker. I did not have a problem with Seller's take on an aged Batman. I thought that part went just fine.Without the R rating, a lot of the darker themes of the book were smoothed over, polished to make them slightly less dark. A lot of the time, the character's thoughts told a lot of the story, traded in here for commentary that ALMOST felt out of context. I say ALMOST. Considering how hard it is to have thoughts communicated in a film, it's understandable what they did with that.At the same time, some of the more precious moments of the book never get screen time. The man who pushed another man in front of a subway train actually had a recurring, albeit small, point in the book, which gets a PG-rated reference here, instead of a point-maker like it does in the book. Harvey's conflict of having his face fixed is not nearly as powerful on screen as it is in the book. The general's death is also more beautifully depicted in the book, and feels slightly forced in the movie.The emphasis of Superman's near-death experience when being enveloped in a nuclear blast is also done a little too quickly here, showing the ghastly form of a near-dead Superman only briefly, for the sake of a PG-13 rating.All of which could have been fixed, if only an R rating could have been allowed. This is the Batman film that NEEDED an R rating, reflecting Frank Miller's dark and powerful storytelling, complete with grisly imagery and a dark sense of humor. It was SUPPOSED to be nearly horrifying, as a final testament to the Batman, and the end of a long, tiring battle between who he was and who he wanted to be.
