Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1

I love it

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1_720p(480P)

source: Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1

Despite sporting an unwieldy title (an unnecessary and clumsy modification of the seminal Frank Miller comic book), the end result stands far from what its moniker would suggest, providing a traditional but loyal adaptation that should easily satisfy fans while offering up something for the less initiated. It's actually immensely interesting to prop up Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1 – out on DVD and Blu-Ray today – alongside Christopher Nolan's trilogy and take a long hard look. Despite the obvious variance in medium, they couldn't be more different at heart either. Landing in a deteriorating Gotham City with a retired, 55-year-old Bruce Wayne (and a rising criminal organization known as The Mutants) the events that eventually thrust The Caped Crusader back into the cowl do not require the grounded procedure we've been experiencing since 2005's Batman Begins. Despite laying low for the course of a decade, Wayne is still a chiselled, hulking and athletic presence – nearly inhuman in fact – and is able to return to his vigilante ways without a great deal of difficulty (no Rocky­-esque training montages to be found here). In a way it's a refreshing change of pace. Likewise is the arrival of a new incarnation of Robin (a teenaged girl by the name of Carrie Kelly) who takes to gravity-defying gymnastics and villain-dispatching at the flick of a switch. Again, it's loyal to the traditional roots of the genre, but it should still detract minimally from those who admire the more grounded superhero films of the last decade. As you've likely surmised, I am one of the aforementioned uninitiated when it comes to DC's animated canon, having seen only the stellar Mask of the Phantasm from back in 1993 before venturing to this adaptation. Although far from my usual cup of tea, so to speak, "Part 1" makes it easy to see why Miller's comic is so revered and if ever adapted to live action would be an utterly bleak and fascinating endeavor. For now, this hand-drawn-GCI creation will do just wonderfully for those subconsciously begging Warner Bros. to go somewhere geeky with The Dark Knight when the inevitable reboot hits. My one big complaint that doesn't have to do with basic execution would be the lack of depth in the Bruce Wayne character. With a two-film arc at play, more time could have been used to explore this troubled and emotionally broken individual who is one of the most tormented incarnations of Batman's human alter-ego. Although starting out rather choppy, the animation gradually improves as the fight scenes escalate, eventually barely calling to attention that it is in fact not real-life actors and sets we're witnessing. The two principle battles between Batman and the brute known simply as Mutant Leader are stellar, unafraid to highlight snap bones and spatter those involved in crimson. Additionally the voices behind these characters are excellent across the board, particularly RoboCop's Peter Weller as Batman and David Selby as a retiring James Gordon. Modern Family's Ariel Winter also lends her pipes as Robin. With this being part one of the full adaptation, we've so far got but a tease of Lost's Michael Emerson as The Joker, which will no doubt turn out to be a treat to behold. It's nothing we haven't seen before in terms of execution (the days of watching Superman on Saturday morning cartoons when I was but a youngun' spring immediately and vividly to mind) it's Miller's original vision and a dedicated cast that knock Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1 up a peg in terms of what one would expect from a direct-to-DVD product. When viewing the entire adaptation when "Part 2" arrives in 2013, it will no doubt be a favorite among fans of all Batman comics and is worth a look for those who deem these types of films as strictly nerd fare. 7.5/10 playeraffinity.com

We are not used to this Batman in cinema. In the Christopher Nolan films recently, we are treated to a Batman that must exist and operate in the real world. The Batman that is presented to us in The Dark Knight Returns Part 1, could not do the things he does in the film, in the real world. But that is okay. Whereas Christopher Nolan was adapting for his own personal take on the character, this film takes a shot for shot interpretation from the graphic novel by Frank Miller. Batman is brutal and punishing to his foes, to the point where we almost feel sympathy for them, but not quite. For he is operating under a strict code, a code that most of the cops in the film can't even live up to. He does the things we want to do because we know they are right. But this also makes him a quite terrifying individual. This once again is not a bad thing. The film, like the graphic novel, loves to show us Batman's flawed and vulnerable sides. He even recruits a new young Robin, the most realistic Robin in my opinion to ever be introduced to the Batman comics, even though he had previously promised to never again work with a partner. I like the story of this Batman film, better than the story in the conclusion of Christopher Nolan's series. But, I prefer Christopher Nolan's film as a piece of cinema. There is a reason why graphic novels are graphic novels and films are films, because they each get away with certain things. A straight from comic interpretation never breads a wonderful film, but it sure will make a perfectly decent and entertaining one. The main reason is because graphic novels are mostly meant for kids. Now, adults can enjoy them too (after all I do) and a lot of new writers of comics say they want to write for an older audience, but graphic novels will forever have the huge amount of young followers. So even though writers say they won't, it's unavoidable that comics will be catered, at least a little bit, for kids. The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 doesn't seem to take itself completely seriously, it goes dark, but at the same time it seems to wink at the audience, saying: "Don't worry, it's just a comic book film." The sophistication is sometimes lost, a character like Batman can believably exist in the real world, but not this one. Maybe I am being a little too nit-picky though, after all, this cartoon is a lot of fun.

There are some reviews panning the storyline and animation style. Understandable if the only Batman you really knew was the 90's Kevin Conroy version (which is excellent btw). While I know I'm not unique regarding this, my perspective of this film comes from growing up in the 80's on the Batman comic books. Batman in the mid 80's was still trying to shed the Adam West live action & the Superfriends animated image people had of the character. Then came the Crisis On Infinite Earths epic. It really made bad things possible to DC characters. Characters didn't always get a noble end. Then Frank Miller looked at the Batman character blowing in the wind without substance and said "No. THIS is what he is." and hence Batman: The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel. WOW. The collective thud heard in 1986 were jaws dropping all over the world. The animation was dark, gritty, even depressing (a sharp contrast to the DC comics and animated cartoons of the day). It gave Batman his identity of the obsessive/borderline sociopath & force of nature whose self control of his violent tendencies hung by a thread. Batman may have debuted in 1939, but he was born in 1986. Yes, Batman is slower, meaner, and sometimes uses a gun. That's the beauty of it. Miller showed the high price his body had paid and the compromises he had to make since he was in his fifties. (The rifle - The fight with the Mutant leader in the mud pit to even the odds). That's why Batman at this age was so dangerous, he wasn't trying to be like he was before. He compensated for his age and injuries. There are strange goings on in the film that couldn't be explained the way they were in the graphic novel: Superman as a government agent? Yes, because in his inner monologue Superman discusses how he gave his silence and obedience to the government to avoid the slaughter of his comrades. That's why he has no choice but to come after Bruce! Superman survives a nuclear blast by touching a flower??? Yes, because he tapped into the energy that all plants store from the sunlight to save himself. Joker seemed off? Yes, because he had been catatonic, literally, for ten years since he had no Batman to focus on. Green Arrow wants to kill Superman? Yes, because the book directly alludes to Superman being the one who tore his arm off. The bottom line for me is that everything works here, especially with the retrospect of having read the graphic novel in the 80's. The animation looks like a literal page by page shot of what I saw 27 years ago. The 80's theme is kept alive too. Look at the sunglasses, the ladies' hair styles, even the car on the road that encounters the Batmobile. Even the music has a touch of 80's synthesizer with the powerful orchestral sounds so popular in the Dark Knight movie trilogy. The Reagan character was spot on how Miller portrayed him as well! As for Peter Weller, yes, I was skeptical. But then I heard the line "These men are mine!" and the deadpanned response after he saved the two year old "I believe you." Sold! It was pitch perfect. Whether you liked or panned this film, read the original graphic novel then watch the film again. I promise it will add a whole new perspective on a job well done!

Review of both parts: Why do people praise this? It literally just takes one of the best Batman stories ever told and sucks any ounce of creativity and identity from it leaving it with just this stale retelling of events with no emotion attached. This is on the same level as The Lion King remake for me. I don't automatically think the original in better in adaptations but like this is insane the amount of quality that doesn't translate from the amazing source material. Everything that is great about this is lifted derectly from the original and everything that is either bland or bad is new additions. The voice acting is actually fairly awful which is very strange because of the talent on display in the cast. I feel like the director just blatantly didn't understand what made the source material so unbelievably gripping as you miss very important details given in the original while getting backstory and new additions that flesh out everything that is not as important. I promise I went into this film wanting to love it and I'm not that guy that just compared every adaptation to the original but when they are taking ideas from the source material and just making them worse because of easy to fix mistakes I can't help but compare the two. It makes me sad to think of the people who first experienced The Dark Knight Returns through this film.

No one does it better than the Bat at any age he is still the same, too smart for those who what to get on his bad side. This part1 is so good I can't wait to see the rest; I hope veterans like the joker will be there to make it all crazy like. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is a two-part animated superhero film, an adaptation of the four-issue story arc The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller, printed in 1986. This animation is nowhere near the movies (i.e. story wise), and it focuses on the future, wrong choice of words it is about the future, Bruce Wayne is 55 and the bat has not been seen for 10 years. The story arc curved around the bat after retirement. Gotham now seemed to be overrun by a group called Mutants. The Mutants weren't just any gang they were absolutely ruthless and in a way useless. Also in this flick we get to see Harvey Dent/Two face after he has undergone plastic surgery to fix his face. Harvey now looked normal but he was so paranoid and out of it that he went back to his old ways. Things weren't changing in Gotham and with the ongoing nightmares and Bruce sleep walking and sleep doing things in the night; it was obvious he could no longer cage the bat any more. Bruce carved to the urges. In the dark is the "billionairelly" in sane Batman, is seen jumping over roof tops and doing things other billionaires could only dream that their bodyguards could do (because no sane billionaire jumps around in the dark. Imagine one day you look out the window only to see Bill Gates in his underwear and a cape on your roof…would you say Bill still got all his screws nicely tight?) I don't know what I liked better is it watching Bat being Bat again in his old age, or the bad guys not knowing in time to skip town when they found out he was out of retirement (you can't blame them though, some didn't know who he was). Well, the directing of this wonderful flick was done by Jay Oliva, who worked as a storyboard artist on Man of Steel, Batman: Year One and Batman: Under the Red Hood. The animation was well drawn, far better… sorry, far far far better than what we saw in Superman vs. the Elite. The only downside to this wonderful movie is the news casting; it was boring and looked too much like child's play I hope you are not still reading this, because I expect by now that you have hit the stores to go grab your copy of The Dark Knight Returns Part 1. www.lagsreviews.com

An impressively loyal adaptation of one of comics' most important stories, complete with social commentary, nods at dark chapters of the character's history and a glut of wanton brutality. Despite being ripped violently into two pieces, the story still functions very well and reaches a natural climax in time for the credits to roll after a drawn-out 75 minutes. I fear the end result may be a less-dense arching plot line, especially as most of the political commentary was removed from this chapter (presumably as it won't be relevant until the second) but there's still more than enough pulp to go around. While the storyline is doggedly faithful (indeed, most of the dialog is copied verbatim from the source), the artwork is both influenced by and notably distanced from Frank Miller and Lynn Varley's amazing work on the printed page. And, while that does rob the story of some of its character, the result is suitable enough; fresh but also familiar. Peter Weller turns in some decent work as the voice of Bruce Wayne, but I couldn't help but daydream about how Kevin Conroy would have approached the material. Very good, if not perfect.

Understandably, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns was just lifted straight from the graphic novels I haven't read, but damn, this "movie" was random. Obviously, it was a stunt to make more money releasing this in two parts, but on the other hand, it was basically two movies – albeit, short ones at an hour apiece – with two completely different moods. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 sort of resembles what we know about the Batman legend and felt, at first, like it took place following the events of the motion picture, The Dark Knight Rises. Once it's learned that it's not, you get a few random events that only conclude barely enough to leave open for Part 2. Part 2, although still random at spots, is much darker and more adult than most animated features I've seen. And when finished, a couple dozen questions appeared in my brain: (This next paragraph is chock-full of spoilers. Skip if you don't appreciate those.) How does everyone know who Clark is, or namely the President and FatWoman, er CatWoman? Why even mention the brief background of the Justice League and leave holes in that story? How can the Joker withstand a dagger in the eye #1, and #2 continue fighting and navigating, hell, thinking? Why was it set back in the 1980s? Why was Batman so evil at times, actually shoots guns and randomly beats up police? Since when did Batman murder people (he admits this to the Joker)? What happened to the old Robin – or, for the love of God, stop brining up something only insiders would know! Why were Superman and Batman such enemies? And why did Bruce hate Clark so much, other than the fact Superman fought for peace? Why was it was a bad idea for Superman to detonate a bomb in space – sort of? – verses in the city? Further, since when would a nuclear bomb – which he's survived before, make him turn into James Wood's Hades from Disney's Hercules? Where did the "Mutants" come from and why were they even called that since, all-but-one, were perfectly normal idiots with red Cylon-style glasses? Why did Batman go out of his way to make sure the new Commissioner hated him and later, why would she all-of-a-sudden refuse to attack him when given the (15th) chance? When did Batman begin using (the absent) Scarecrow's hallucinate gas? And finally, not really a question, but a nice observation: It's good to know that if a multistory apartment building's on fire, the quickest and most effective way to put it out is with just a few buckets of water. An entire room's fire seemed to get extinguished with one bucket of water! (End of Spoilers. You can resume now.) Perhaps, I am taking all this too seriously, but that was the idea I got from the filmmakers: a deeper, darker and most realistic animated Batman feature. And although this was definitely an alternative (DC) universe, much like TV's Smallville, this cartoon felt like 15 animated features were created before this, much like what Marvel did to lead up to The Avengers. But, at least in that great movie, I didn't have to question every aspect when a new plot line formed. As much as this review, so far, has looked like a bashing, I actually did have a little bit of fun – from time to time. If you can put away everything you know about these characters you might have grown up with, i.e. completely forget they've ever used to stand up for good and justice or even existed at all, then you might enjoy the whole experience.