Malk tells you exactly what he thinks about the Batman: Year One movie.

Malkavian

Arguably the best thing that has-been Frank Miller created, Batman: Year One remains an important breakthrough work in the history of Batman. Not only does it still have a heavy impact on the portrayals of the character of Batman, but it was a critical piece of inspiration for Batman Begins. Not only that, but it's a story that works from a sense of actual social consciousness of class (albeit a vastly simplified one) and a strange amount of real emotional heart that has since been lost in Miller's obsession with machismo and guns. 

With DC's habit of making straight-to-DVD cartoon adaptations of comics, this one seems like a shoo-in. So, how does it fare?

Well, not as well as I'd like. One of the first things you get to hear in the film is Ben McKenzie's absolutely abominable voice acting as he quotes directly from Frank Miller's actual comic in a droning monotone. It's akin to listening to a high-school student do his first performance of Shakespeare. Fortunately, both Bryan Cranston as Jim Gordon and Eliza Dushku as Catwoman-to-be Selina Kyle, but having such a poor Batman is one of the worst starting actions to have. Admittedly, the gritty-yet-florid prose of Frank Miller is not the easiest stuff in the world to say without donning a sarcastic Jack Bauer voice, but Bryan Cranston seems to do alright, bringing a sense of tire and despair to his performance. 

Storywise, it's pretty much Batman: Year One except as an animated film rather than a comic. Some of the less savory aspects have been thankfully cut out. (There's no 'scary growl straight out of Africa' for example) but it follows the plot of the comic pretty straight forward. The presence of pimps, hookers, and gangbangers probably wouldn't make this a good choice to introduce your five-year-old to Batman and I'm hoping you responsible parents out there read the backs before deciding to buy it. Teenagers who like their Batman gritty will probably get a kick of it, though.

The animation is good. It's not quite up to the visual wizardry of the classic animated series, but it does look good; almost generically so. The original story had a marked style the worked with the grim and unhealthy Gotham Gordon and Batman were working in. The city is still portrayed as dirty and dank, the fights are still brutal and visceral, but the art style seems a bit too entrenched in the traditional style of these straight-to-DVD movies which is odd since the Jonah Hex short didn't make the same mistake.

This all brings me to my main point: this movie has no reason to exist. It's at best a vanity project and at worst a cash grab with a recognizable name. It's not like the one good, faithful adaptation of Miller's work (Sin City), where the unique visual style was used to work in concert with the over-the-top action and machismo to make a visually unique film. Batman: Year One is a generic adaptation where it will only be surprising to people who have never read the original comic and only loses things in translation. Sure they're moving now, but somehow they look even less alive. It's Mid-town High's highschool production of Batman: Year One. It's just missing a few 'ums.' 

MadassAlex

> no mention of Batman's increasing movement towards the moe genre

Alt+F4

Sounds like it's best used as an introduction to some elements of Miller's Batman, if you ask me. If someone likes this, chances are that they'll get even more out of the comics.

On the topic of Sin City, I've never read the comic, but I hear the movie is near enough a 100% translation. That whole movie seemed pointlessly grimdark to me. Like, there was one point where a bunch of prostitutes pulled out automatic weapons and began to exult in bloodshed and my interest pretty much dropped there. I'm not sure if the comic is much better dealing with disempowered women, but it seems like the use of prostitutes in Western media is often played for darkness rather than drama or examination of the sex industry.

So when prostitutes pull out automatic weapons and start ripping shit up, I feel as though I'm looking at a teenager's attempt to be edgy, or to push more ground.

Malkavian

Oh, Sin City is ridiculously indulgent in the worst kind of false machismo, but it's got a good spit and polish and visual techniques. Frodo the Cannibal is really creepy and Bruce Willis as disgraced ex-cop Hartigan is actually a really great performance. It's no masterpiece, but the visual flair is good and the final story is actually engaging if still over-indulgent in grimdarkery.

You have touched on one of the constant issues of Miller (and other writers) in using prostitutes. In fact, my least favorite part of Year One is the thankfully retconned past of Catwoman as a hooker. 

Really, Frank Miller's a hack who got lucky if you ask me. There are writers who do the dark and fucked-up much better like Warren Ellis and Garth Ennis while still managing to make it mean something.

And as for introducing Miller's Batman I don't know if there's anyone who'd watch this that wasn't willing to read the comic anyways so long as they were assured it was totally dark, maaaaaan. 

MadassAlex

so long as they were assured it was totally dark, maaaaaan.

This is quickly going to be a "criticisms of the creation and consumption of Western media" thread, but...

This attitude irks me a lot, probably because I know people who try to sell me on stuff using that attitude. As much as we like to criticise TVT for making the assumption that darkness involves deconstruction or automatically creates a deeper discussion or meaning concerning the subject matter, I find this attitude amongst personal friends and relatives.

I think it annoys me because I have to put up with it I'm witnessing people cheat themselves out of great narrative experiences because they'll take darkness over light-heartedness at any junction. One of my friends insists on a hyper-detailed, grimdark interpretation of Zelda, for instance, despite the express intention of many who work on those games to create fairy tales for children and adults alike. Perhaps I'm merely suffering from a meta form of Darkness Induced Audience Apathy, but these days I'd rather experience the fairy tale.

After all, the fairy tale needs tension and threat to work in the first place. A happy ending doesn't prevent pretty horrible things from happening, and I'd rather see the heroes pull through so the author of the work can make a point.

I mean, ferchrissake, even the original ending of NGE took the weight off the shoulders of the audience.

Also.

>"criticisms of the creation and consumption of Western media"
> only mention Zelda and NGE

lol.

captainbrass

I liked Sin City, but I agree about Miller's dodgy attitude to women. I'll never forget when Marv's probation officer turns up and she looks as if she's come straight from a stint in a brothel. This...isn't typical of probation officers. I was thinking, "Jesus, kids are probably going to go out and burgle houses after watching this, in the hope of being sent to see the sexy probation officer."

MillerCross

Honestly, I liked Miller's Daredevil and Batman because he managed to kinda strike a balance between ultra noirish grimdark and superhero ridiculousness with a degree of satire. But they definetly showed signs of what was to come in terms of his future craziness.