Batman: Year Two

Detective Comics (1937-2011) #575-578

by Mike W. Barr, Alan Davis (Illustrator), Todd McFarlane (Illustrator)

Why doesn't Batman use a gun in his war on crime? And what happens when he meets Joe Chill - the man who murdered his parents? The Dark Knight's second year on Gotham's streets found him still fresh as a crimefighter, forging relationships with Commissioner Gordon and others while facing some of the most difficult decisions of his life. YEAR TWO is a trade paperback collecting DETECTIVE COMICS #575-578 written by Mike. W. Barr (who provides a new introduction), and featuring the artwork of Alan Davis & Paul Neary and Todd McFarlane & Alfredo Alcala. In "Year Two," Batman ends up in violent conflict with Gotham City's first vigilante, the scythe-wielding Reaper-now a brutal killer. Batman has no choice but to make a desperate alliance with Joe Chill to bring the Reaper down! Warner Books edition.

Genres: Comics, Batman, Graphic Novels, Dc Comics, Comic Book, Superheroes, Graphic Novels Comics

104 pages, Comic

First published January 1, 1987

About the author

Mike W. Barr is an American writer of comic books, and mystery, and science fiction novels. Barr's debut as a comics professional came in DC Comics' Detective Comics #444 (Dec. 1974-Jan. 1975), for which he wrote an 8-page back-up mystery feature starring the Elongated Man. Another Elongated Man story followed in Detective Comics #453 (November 1975). He wrote text articles and editorial replies in letter columns for the next few years. By mid-1980 he was writing regularly for both DC and Marvel, including stories for Marvel Team-Up, Mystery in Space, Green Lantern, and various Batman titles.

Legion of Super-Heroes #277 (July 1981) saw him take on editorial duties at DC, while writing issues of DC's Star Trek comic, for whom he created the native American character Ensign Bearclaw and a pacifist Klingon named Konom. In December 1982, he and artist Brian Bolland began Camelot 3000, a 12 issue limited series that was one of DC Comics' first direct market projects. In August 1983, Barr created what may well be his most enduring work, the monthly title Batman and the Outsiders with art by Jim Aparo. Barr wrote every issue of the original series, and its Baxter paper spinoff, The Outsiders.

His other comics work includes Mantra and Maze Agency as well as the 1987 OGN hardcover book Batman: Son of the Demon (with art by Jerry Bingham), proceeds from which reputedly "restored DC Comics to first place in sales after fifteen years." This title, and Barr's work on Batman with artist Alan Davis have been cited by Grant Morrison as key inspirations for his recent (2006) run on the Batman title.

In 2007, he wrote a two-part story for the pages of DC's JLA: Classified (#47-48, Jan-Feb 2008), returned to the Outsiders with Outsiders: Five of a Kind—Katana/Shazam #1 (Oct 2007), contributed to Tokyopop's Star Trek: The Manga, and relaunched Maze Agency at IDW Publishing. He has also scripted many of Bongo Comics' Simpsons titles, including a Christmas story for 2010.

In May 2010, the Invisible College Press published Barr's science fiction/fantasy novel, Majician/51, about the discoveries of a scientist working at Area 51.

Reviews

[Jodie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Listen, I'm not even a "real" Batman fan so maybe my opinion doesn't mean much but I'm gonna say it. This heap of garbage shouldn't be allowed to market itself as the sequel to Batman: Year One and every single person who drew this, wrote this, and approved it should be ashamed of themselves. The lot of them birthed one of the most vapid, unreadable, ridiculous, contrived, condescending stories in comics to date as far as I'm concerned. Save your time and skip it, read one of the dozens of GOOD Batman stories floating around. Hell, read some good 'ole free Fanfiction; It'll probably be written by someone with more respect for the characters of this series than anyone on this book possessed.

[Paul · Rating 2 out of 5]

A strange and uneven book that suffers badly in comparison to Batman: Year One.

No one would envy Mike Barr's assignment to write a sequel to be published immediately after Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli's Year One, a work that has since become a classic, informing Batman for decades and directly inspiring Batman Begins and its sequels. Mike Barr responded to the challenge by writing a story involving Batman deciding to pick up the gun that killed his parents to team up with the man who killed his parents in order to defeat an old bloodthirsty vigilante named the Reaper who has come back to Gotham after twenty years. With these notes, Barr tries to come up with deep emotional roots for Batman to wrestle with, but they're not set up well at all. The plot twists come solely to give cliffhangers shock value. There's no real reason in the story for this foe to be the one to convince him to give up his hatred for firearms, and his willingness to team up with his parents' murderer makes no sense. Barr also tacks on a romantic subplot that also doesn't have time to develop believably and only serves to add an unnecessary complication to the plot. Also not helping is the strange sense of pacing. Several scenes are devoted to Batman and the Reaper chasing each other around, until the story is very abruptly concluded in a few rushed pages whose events could have used a lot more room to breathe.

The art for the first chapter is by the always marvelous team of Alan Davis and Paul Neary, but the final three chapters are handled by future superstar Todd MacFarlane. His heavily rendered style can be appealing but is dragged down by MacFarlane's awkward storytelling and obvious love of gore (quite a few stabbings are depicted here in tender detail).

All in all, Year Two is a bizarre mishmash of elements. Its high concept comes straight from the Silver Age, but it's couched in an art style and level of violence that belongs to a darker period. It's a grim harbinger for the comics of the 90s.

[Katherine (Kat) · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5/5 Stars
This wasn't horrible, but also not that great. A lot of things I wasn't really a fan of, but I thought the art was cool.

Individual issues rated below -

Detective Comics #575: 2.5/5
Detective Comics #576: 3/5
Detective Comics #577: 3/5
Detective Comics #578: 2.5/5

[Eddie B. · Rating 3 out of 5]

After reading Mike Barr's "Batman: Son of the Demon", I decided to give Barr a second chance. I only had to forget the marketing people's decision to call this story "Batman: Year Two" because that would only damage it. And it wasn't a bad book after all. In fact it served some good questions (alas the answers weren't as good) and some really good art (from Alan Davis then Todd McFarlane) and a study in inking! (Todd McFarlane did his own inking in the last chapter and it looked significantly.. different.)

[Ripley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Batman Year Two (1987)

This mini series was written by Mike W Barr and penciled by Todd Mcfarlane as a continuation of Batman Year One. At this point Batman is still learning how to be Batman. Future stories show Batman's moral code being a strong stance against killing and even in this story arc you see that develop. But this Bat carries a gun.

The main villain in this tale is The Reaper, a vigilante who protected Gotham City during previous generations but has since retired. His moral code is virtually non existance as he's willing to hurt, maim, or kill anyone who stands in his way. Batman decides the only way to save Gotham is to kill The Reaper. In an unlikely move he teams up with his parents murderer, Joe Chill.

This is an excellent story. I couldn't put it down. The artwork is pretty good too. We also get to see Bruce Wayne truly happy for the first time since his parents death. But true to form, it doesn't last long, as Batman's life is a tragedy start to finish. The end made my cry but I still loved it because I like when I can be made to care that much about characters. It's a sign of excellent writing.

If you haven't yet read this one I strongly recommend as a good follow up to year one. Plus this story arc supposedly heavily influenced The Batman with Robert Pattinson. It'll be interesting to see what elements make it on screen.

5 out of 5 bat bullets!

[Brian Garthoff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Batman Year Two, or Gatman as I like to refer to it, is a sloppy excuse for a story, where Batman does a bit of gun-toting and fights a buffoon named the Reaper. On it’s own, it has some shock value and not much else, and as a marketed successor to Year One it fails miserably to uphold Miller’s standard. But I have a strange appreciation for this weird, rejected side mission in Batman’s past and still found it entertaining as an oddball hiccup in Batman’s lore.

[JM S · Rating 1 out of 5]

Batman: Year Two Review:

Batman: Year Two was at the time the sequel to the critcal acclaimed graphic novel Batman: Year One by Frank Miller. Before being put as non-canon after the events of Zero Hour. Unlike Year One, this one was poorly received by a lot of readers just because of how a lot of things here is bland, uninteresting or just bad overall.

While the animated movie Batman: Mask of the Phantasm did drew some inspiration to this one. Thankfully though, the movie improved all of the things that was inspired here and it ended being an amazing film. But this one however, is still a bad story in the end. A story that is uninspiring, disappointing and forgettable.

The book has two artists, Alan Davis and Todd McFarlane. Alan Davis art at the first issue of the book is great. There are some really great panels, some that are even striking imo. As soon as the 2nd issue though, Todd McFarlane took over and while the art isn't bad. By then the art is pretty inconsistent throughout the book.

The same can also be said from the story. The book actually started quite good, but same with the art after the 1st issue even the story went downhill as well. It was just a bland story imo, one that was uninteresting with no suprises and even if it has a twists there were questionable. The writing was also inconsistent throughout.

The characters are also a huge issue here. There are just nothing and Leslie Thompkins is the worst character in this book. The villain is also very one note and came out as a forgettable villain. That's what this book is as a whole. It is a forgettable story and one that doesn't even have any conflicts to its characters. There is barely even a story here imo.

Which is unfortunate, because there are some nice action scenes here that I quite enjoyed. But in the end, it was still a bland book and there was even a sequel that aside from Alan Davis returning to draw that story. It was also a bad story as well. It was also weird that this one is called Year Two, but there is almost no connection to Year One.

So overall, Batman: Year Two was a disappointing follow up after Year One. It is nice though as this isn't canon as the whole story is forgettable and bland. It also has poorly written characters, poor writing, and an inconsistent art throughout the book. We did get an incredible movie though so I guess that was nice.

3/10

[John Richardson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This review is more a reaction to other reviews I see here. A good deal of my enjoyment of this story may well be simple nostalgia. But I am surprised to see the other reviews range from middling to *harsh*. The ones that veer toward harsh seem to feel that this story is an 'unworthy successor' to Frank Miller's Year One. To this I would plead to them to disabuse themselves of whatever mystique Miller's artistry seems to wield. To be clear, I enjoy his admittedly significant 1986-87 contributions to the mythology but my lauding toward him ends there and I tend to avoid the rest of his catalogue. Let me say a word for Mike W. Barr: he was making solid contributions to the franchise before, during, and after Year One, and his writing (in my opinion) hearkens back much more effectively not only to Denny O'Neil's Bronze Age work, but even to Bill Finger's of the early eras. Regrettable though it was that Davis & Neary had to depart so early in the storyline, it gave some young guy named Todd McFarlane something of a springboard.

[Victoria Hawco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bonus points for the Reaper having a cool name and parallel backstory, but negative points for a very silly costume.

[Santiago L. Moreno · Rating 2 out of 5]

El pretendido carácter continuador que el título concede a esta miniserie la mata. Un cómic muy normalito tirando a malo en el que lo único salvable es el dibujo de Alan Davis con su mejor entintador, Paul Neary. Y ni siquiera este aguanta, pues es sustituido por Todd McFarlane, al que entintan Alfredo Alcalá y Pablo Marcos con diferente resultado.
Batman asiendo la pistola que mató a sus padres para vengarse de su asesino, al que, error, en esta historia se identifica. Bruce Wayne convenciendo a una futura monja de no tomar los hábitos y casarse con él. Y Leslie, un personaje que, sumado a la futura esposa, convierte a Bruce, el solitario por antonomasia, en un ser sociable. Lo único bueno de esta trama, para mi gusto, es el segador.

[Katy Grace · Rating 1 out of 5]

sucked! that’s my review

[M Cash · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am reading from the original issues of Detective Comics (#575–578) rather than the trade paperback. This is a truly terrible story. Much worse than the previous year's worth of stories in 'Tec. I am reading them in order. The art by Alan Davis in issue one is fantastic, as are all of the issues he drew. The follow-ups by Todd McFarlane are poor, especially the quality of the inking. Batman's cape is ridiculously large as drawn by McFarlane. But the real problem is Mike W. Barr's story. He tries to emulate Frank Miller's Batman vs. the police idea from Year One, but it doesn't make sense this time. It doesn't make sense that there was some psycho vigilante from a generation before Bruce Wayne that has somehow never been mentioned. Batman was supposed to be the first costumed vigilante in Gotham City. That's kind of the whole point: that he had to figure out all of this on his own. His only role models were his movie heroes like Zorro.

It doesn't make sense that The Reaper would wield giant sickles that completely cover his hands, thus removing his ability to do anything with them... like fight. It makes no sense why this geriatric old man can best Batman (a much younger in-his-prime, world-class athlete) at every turn. It makes no sense that Bruce Wayne owns the gun that killed his parents. At least show a scene of him stealing it from police evidence years ago. It makes no sense that he decides to use that very gun against The Reaper. Why?? It makes no sense that he would work with Joe Chill and allow him to commit more murders right in front of him. It makes no sense that Batman would rather work with the criminal element than the police. Batman actually shoots a gun out of Gordon's hand at one point like The Lone Ranger. What if he missed and shot Gordon in the heart instead? What if Gordon was just about to cap The Reaper? All of this just so the "world's greatest detective" can overtake one man. One OLD man. Why didn't Batman just figure out The Reaper's identity and then capture him when he was in civilian garb? This story just makes zero sense. The first issue was interesting, but the rest is really poor. The ending in issue four is wrapped up in great haste.

[Adrian Santiago · Rating 1 out of 5]

Se entiende qué se quería abarcar con la historia: por qué Batman quería retirarse, por qué no usa armas, por qué es Batman, por qué continuó y por qué siguió sin atormentarse por Joe Chill, el asesino de sus padres.

Pero solo se entiende que se quiso abarcar, en realidad ni se responde y -lo peor- nada tiene sentido. Mientras Batman es rafagueado varias veces, la parca tiene un disfraz completamente a prueba de balas. Batman aun con muchos más recursos decide usar el arma con la que mataron a sus padres, así de la nada, como si no hubiera otra opción y al final no se explica por qué no usa armas. La historia de des/amor no tiene sentido.

A lo mucho se acepta y está genial el toque "noir" o policiaco de mafias y disparos. Pero el enemigo, la parca, no tiene ninguna relevancia. Los dibujos y entintados claramente son mejores que lo que se hacia antes, pero quedan muy por debajo del Año Uno, salvo 3 o 4 cuadros que quedaron geniales.

Y lastimosamente la historia no aporta nada.

[Nate]

Terrible. There's barely a redeeming quality here. Setting aside the obvious that this book pales in comparison to Year One, it's just a bad story. The Reaper, a murderous vigilante, reemerges in Gotham after twenty years. Batman decides that the best way to stop him is use the gun that killed his parents while teaming up with mobsters. Yeah... okay. Batman used guns for a minute in the Golden Age, but was it really necessary to bring this idea back fifty years later? Throw in a half-baked romance and eye-roll dialogue, and you've got an instantly forgettable comic. At least the art by Alan Davis and Todd McFarlane is decent. But the fourth issue, where McFarlane took over inking duties, looks ugly and unfinished. I was checked out by that point, anyway.

Maybe seek this one out if you're a diehard Batfan. Otherwise, stay far away.

[Kyle Berk]

First, I did not enjoy this book. I think the only reason it's still printed is because of the cover where Batman has a gun.

Most of what I don’t like about this comes down to the tropes that I detest in a Batman story. But they’re tried and true so this story of Batman falling in love ready to give it up might work for someone else reading this, know that is what you’re in for.

Do not recommend. I hope somebody loves this, this might work for other people but it did not operate for me. I think a better early story option would to just go back to the golden and silver ages. Read them in their pulpy absurd fun.

[Fugo Feedback · Rating 3 out of 5]

De chico la leí en capítulos sueltos y me encantó. Hace unos años lo releí en esta edición y le encontré varias pifiadas pero aun así me pareció una buena historia, aunque no pude eludir la sensación de nostalgia y no sé qué tan permisivo fui por ese factor. Cuando lo rerrelea seguro lo rerreseñe.

[Omar Zambrano · Rating 4 out of 5]

Que buena saga. Su historia, el villano, y sobre todo que batman se encuentra cara a cara con el asesino de sus padres!. Clásico en dónde el personaje se encuentra al posible camino de su paso al lado oscuro. Para tener tantos años, creo que envejece bien

[Doh · Rating 2 out of 5]

...... Don't fear the reaper. I'm a sucker for McFarlanes art but damn this book is crap.

[Javier Lárraga · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fue un poco más que un fanfic pero uno que lejos de buscar complacer a los lectores, trató de innovar y crear algo totalmente nuevo.

Batman Año 2 como su nombre lo indica es una secuela a Año 1 pues se nos sigue presentando este Batman joven, arrogante y aun en una etapa de aprendizaje, no tiene todas las cartas bajo la manga y no es infalible como en los últimos comics que han ido saliendo. Y eso es lo único que podría decir que da a entender que es una secuela del trabajo de Miller, por todo lo demás es algo completamente diferente tanto en esencia como en el objetivo final de la obra.

Año 2 inicia con el retorno de un antiguo antihéroe de Ciudad Gótica llamado The Reaper, un asesino que mata tanto a criminales como a los poderes corruptos y cualquier cosa que segun su criterio este ensuciando la ciudad como dealers de bajo perfil y prostitutas. Cabe señalar que una vez que Batman y Reaper tienen su primer enfrentamiento, Batman termina herido mortalmente y humillado frente a todos, pues es más que obvio que el anti héroe es superior a el en todos los sentidos gracias a su experiencia. Debido a esto y a los conflictos mentales que tiene, Bruce se ve incapaz de cumplir la promesa que hizo a sus padres pues no ve una manera factible de detener a un enemigo como The Reaper, la ciudad es un caos y eso es lo que orilla a Batman a tener que tomar una decisión drástica, si su entrenamiento cuerpo a cuerpo no es suficiente entonces tendría que combatir fuego contra fuego. Si...Batman utilizaría armas de fuego, pero no cualquiera, pues la única arma que tiene en su poder es aquella que mato a sus padres...

¿Ven lo que digo? Prácticamente es una paja mental que derrumba los cimientos sobre los que el personaje estaba construido en ese entonces y claro, hay varios elementos que tampoco me agradaron del todo y que condenaron a Año 2 a dejar de ser parte de cualquier cronología oficial de Batman, pero eso no quiere decir que la historia sea mala o una pérdida de tiempo, todo lo contrario. Creo que fue un experimento que salió como tuvo que salir y me parece acertado alejarse del trabajo de Miller para entregar algo diferente pues de lo contrario habría sido un patético intento de sobreextender una historia que ya es buena asi como es.

Año 2 tiene unas más que excelentes escenas de acción, un Bruce Wayne que deja de ser una coartada para Batman y que aqui si que tiene un peso relevante en la historia mostrandolo como un ser humano que tambien tiene deseos y ganas de ser feliz y claro no nos olvidemos del gran giro que tiene la historia que no me atrevere a spoilear pero que fue como una terapia de shock como lector ver a Batman hacer algo que jamás creí que haría. Bien ahi, porque si me sorprendí y me mantuve muy al pendiente de inicio a fin.

Por último pero no menos importante, el arte es alucinante. Alan Davis hace un trabajo más que excelente en el primer número y en la secuela Full Circle pero Todd Mcfarlane dibujando a Batman es un deleite visual, Todd reinterpreta al caballero oscuro y lo vuelve...bueno pues más oscuro jaja mas imponente, me encanta.

Entonces ¿Que conclusión puedo sacar de Año 2? Pues... Que me alegra que exista, agradezco que sea diferente, me divirtió, me emocionó y me sorprendió pero su calidad narrativa y las decisiones que Batman toma son extrañas, muy extrañas. Hay varios altibajos por ahi y por alla y unas situaciones tan improbables que genuinamente te haran levantar una ceja y eso esta bien, digo ¿Para que quieres ver otra historia en la que Batman gana porque tiene un plan para todo y le rompe su madre al Joker para que al dia siguiente se escape de Arkham y vuelva a iniciar el ciclo? Lo expuesto aqui es bueno y además se ve que la película de "La máscara del Fantasma" tomo mucha inspiración de este cómic pero no voy a negar que para los más puristas la historia será una aberración.

Año 2 es una recomendación si vas con la mente abierta y te deja pensando, ¿Qué es lo que habría pasado si de aqui derivaran todos los trabajos de Batman que siguieron saliendo después de este cómic hasta el día de hoy? ¿Que pasaría si Batman hubiera usado armas de fuego muy al principio de su carrera? Creo que lo más cercano que tendremos a eso es el Batman de Flashpoint, en su momento cuando el cómic salió seguramente le habria puesto un 0 de 10 pero ahora con tantas líneas alternas de tiempo, versiones multiversales, escritores reinterpretando los origenes de Batman, etc me es imposible no apreciar este cómic por lo arriesgado que fue y por lo diferente que es, lamentablemente mi crítica esta sesgada por el contexto en el que vivo en el que hay tantas versiones de Batman en el cine y en otros medios que ya no veo como algo raro que este Batman exista..

[Chandalito]

El volumen incluye el arco de Año dos y el relato Full circle, ambos relacionados con el justiciero asesino Segador y con Joe Chill, pistolero de poca monta que acabó con los padres de Bruce y que, con ello, creó involuntariamente a Batman. No hace falta recurrir a las incoherencias en la continuidad postcrisis en tierras infinitas para desaprobar la obra, ya que estas licencias o variaciones son una constante histórica en el universo dc.
El relato funciona en sí mismo y su relectura nos devuelve algo de aire fresco; se recupera aquella vulnerabilidad perdida por Batman a lo largo de los guionistas y años.
Las dos son obras de adiestramiento consecutivamente para Bruce y para Dick Grayson. El segundo año de Batman es una época temprana en la formación del caballero oscuro y por tanto permite al personaje tener más dudas e inconsistencia. Cabe recordar también que el joven Bruce está a punto de abandonar tempranamente la capucha y la capa por amor.
Por otra parte, el sempiterno dilema de la pistola adquiere un peso decisivo, y no por el uso de un arma de fuego en sí, pues el Batman original las usaba y mataba con ellas, sino por tratarse concretamente del arma que mató a sus padres, lo cual puede implicar un desajuste llamativo en la consistencia moral del personaje. El mensaje que parecen querer subrayar este arco y su continuidad es el del límite que ese Batman postcrisis no cruzaría, para no transformarse en el mismo mal contra el que dedica su existencia.
AVISO DE SPOILER
Parece que hay un momento de incertidumbre irresoluble: Bruce termina preguntándose si hubiera podido acabar con Joe Chill si el Segador no se hubiera adelantado. El final de Full circle con la intervención del nieto de Chill puede que resuelva esa duda.
El dibujo de Alan Davis es más consistente, tiene un mejor acabado y un uso narrativo un poco más complejo que el de McFarlane, autor este último, adecuado por su rasgo expresionista que no expresivo, para una serie de tintes violentos como esta. Sin embargo, el dibujante canadiense lastra bastante la obra, resolviendo atropelladamente las situaciones; (véase el escape del Segador del avión o sus escenas de acción), su dibujo es más estéril, vago, que no sencillo. Algunas viñetas están resueltas con un nivel de dibujo poco profesional.

[Ian · Rating 2 out of 5]

Early in Batman's crimefighting career he is confronted by the return of a far more violent vigilante from Gotham's past, the Reaper. In order to stop the Reaper's murder spree, Batman reluctantly allies himself with Gotham's underworld, including the man who killed his parents, Joe Chill.

The introduction to this book by the author explains that he had the idea of retelling Batman's early days years before the opportunity arose. That is the single way that Barr gets one-up on Frank Miller's 'Batman: Year One'.
This certainly isn't a sequel to 'Year One' and is far inferior to it in just about every possible way, including weight, depth and tone. In short, just go read that other book.

If you want a few more specifics about this book's failings then they include, but are not limited to: a villain who is supposed to be dark and threatening but just comes off as silly and disposable; out-of-character behaviour for all of the more familiar characters and a total failure to show us anything new or insighful about Bruce Wayne.

The worst element of this book, however, is all of the horribly contrived plot tension. For example, not only is the Reaper the father of Bruce Wayne's latest love interest, but that love interest is also on the verge of abandoning love and becoming a nun. Neither of these things proves particularly relevant to the plot and are just there to create false tension.
Far worse is the fact that Batman is forced to become partners with Joe Chill (for no logical reason) but is secretly planning to kill Chill with the very gun that killed Thomas and Martha Wayne. For starters, it's never explained how he came by that gun or why he's keeping it like some sick memento, but anyone who has every heard of Batman will know immediately that there's exactly a 0% chance of him actually using it to murder Chill. The whole subplot is therefore pointless and, honestly, the version of Bruce's confrontation with Chill originally told in a comic from 1947 is far better (whilst still not being very good itself).

* More reviews here: https://fsfh-book-review2.webnode.com/ *

[Andy Lind · Rating 2 out of 5]

The story that inspired the great movie "Batman: Mask of The Phantasm" is anything but great.

The only reason why I am giving this story two stars is because Todd McFarlane's artwork is amazing. Otherwise, it would only be getting one star.

The story revolves around a villain named "The Reaper," who always says, "Fear The Reaper" before he kills someone, which isn't original but that doesn't bother me. What does bother me is there are a few things in this story that don't make sense.

Why does Batman need a gun to fight a villain who is basically bulletproof?
And why does Batman need to use the gun that murdered his parents to do it?
How did Bruce Wayne obtain his parent's murder weapon?
Why does Batman need to team up with Joe Chill (the man who murdered his parents) to take down this specific villain?

Another thing that doesn't make sense is Barr keeps reminding us that the story takes place twenty years after the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, which would put Bruce Wayne around thirty years old, but yet in Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One," Miller tells us that Bruce Wayne is twenty-five when he starts his "career" as Batman, so if this is "Year Two," does that mean that Bruce Wayne was five when his parents were murdered? Or should this story be called "Batman: Year Four" or "Batman: Year Five"?

Barr even says in his introduction that this story was originally going to be called "Batman: 1980" and maybe it should have stayed that way because, from the end of the first chapter to the end, this story keeps messing with our heads.

After reading this story, it just proves even further that the writers for "Batman: The Animated Series" really do know what they were doing because if they can take a forgettable story like this and turn it into a masterpiece like "Batman: Mask of The Phantasm," then they really should be writing Batman forever (pun intended).

[John Bolido · Rating 2 out of 5]

The cover rubbed me the wrong way when I picked this up, and after reading through the book, rightfully so. Under no circumstances should Batman be using a gun, even in the most dire of situations. I realize he used one to take down Darkseid in Final Crisis… but that was freakin Darkseid not some hood in a Halloween costume. Speaking of, thee Reaper has an okay design but the story made him and his motivations too simple. Felt like the story could’ve done more to flesh him and his relationship with his daughter and the city of Gotham further. The whole Joe Chill team up thing was needless as well as I felt like Batman could’ve figured a way to deal with the Reaper without the help of the freakin guy who killed his parents, but what do I know. Admittedly, the book started off relatively well but fell off really quickly, and considering it’s “Year Two” title, it’ll inevitably draw comparisons to the legendary Year One. Art is very up and down as well, loved McFarlane’a art style in Spawn but he phones it in here, Davis’ art was more consistent at least. Overall, a big missed opportunity to expand the Batman lore in my opinion, especially since this period of Batman’s career produced some of his best ever stories…

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Honestly, kind of mixed feelings about this book. Seeing Batman actually using a gun and considering killing just seems… not very Batman. There are perfectly fine heroes who fit that mold, like Red Hood for instance, but this… just felt wrong. And I’m not entirely sure that Batman was desperate enough in this book to spiral that far downward. The Joe Chill stuff was interesting, but really the guilt of Batman not confronting him is more interesting—as well as that time he was in that cosmic-chair-thing and told him that he had created Batman. All in all, a lot of the ideas in this I’d read in better stories that were more fleshed out and thought-provoking. That said, it was still an interesting conflict and it was worth reading, especially since it was a short, in-one-sitting sort of book. (Also the romance was unbelievably fast. I couldn’t feel anything for Bruce and Rachel in this.) Not terrible, but more of a if-you’re-curious read than a must-read.

[Jim Loftus · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was probably the worst Batman story I’ve ever read. I saw a lot of negative reviews but decided to give it a chance anyway thinking that it couldn’t be that bad. I was very wrong. The art is decent but the story is horrible. They are no likable characters. I found myself not even liking Bruce/Batman all that much . I feel like they tried so hard to go it another direction after Year One but it fell so flat. I’ve been trying to read as many Batman stories I can, even the lesser know ones but I wish I had left this one alone.

[Aimee · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn’t find this graphic novel horrible like all the other reviews were saying, but I also haven’t read Batman Year One so I wasn’t comparing it. I’m sure if I had, I’d be singing a different tune. It was an interesting story, but there were a lot of things that didn’t work for me like how Batman was defeated so easily by a 70-year-old man, how after one butt-kicking Bruce decides he needs to use a gun and work with the guy who killed his parents, how quickly Bruce fell in love and convinced Rachel to not become a nun… Yeah. Wasn’t buying any of that.

[Julia · Rating 1 out of 5]

Frankly, this sucked. I had to force myself to finish it. The art was fine, but the story was so awful. Bruce ignored his morals and promises at a whim, was willing to murder at a whim, Gordon lost any of his detective skills and trust at a whim, Bruce was willing to settle down romantically at a whim- long story short they abandoned established character personalities and behaviors in order to manipulate them into the plot they so desired. As many have said before me, this should not be in any way construed as a sequel to Year One.

Do not read is my advice

[Rebecca · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a big meh. The art style was gorgeous throughout (despite being drawn by two separate artists??) but the story line was a little funky for my liking. Cool concept ig and the dilemma between batman and comissioner gordon was very on-brand for batman and I think the ending explains batman’s whole ‘i work alone’ mantra, however, the plot itself was a little far fetched. ‘Year two’ does a good job in filling out batman’s character and morals but if you’re looking for a fun batman read, this is not it.

[Shyue Chou Chuang · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a comic from the 1980s and the writing and artwork reflects that. However given how excellent Batman: Year One is, the contrast could not be more staggering, this comic reverts to the old simplistic days of comics of the past, and there is little to recommend here. The artwork is also of that period, being simply drawn without any artistry involved.

The main villain here is the Reaper who goes around muttering, "Fear the Reaper", possibly a reference to Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't Fear the Reaper". Corny.

[Fabio · Rating 1 out of 5]

terribile.
il titolo mi aveva illuso che questo Anno Due potesse essere paragonabile al capolavoro di frank miller ma questo paragone risulta soltanto come un insulto ad anno uno.
non ho trovato neanche una cosa positiva
- batman caratterizzato malissimo va contro tutto ciò in cui crede e addirittura si allea con l’assassino dei sui genitori,
- la storia romantica si sviluppa così velocemente che è del tutto irrealistica
- i disegni non sono per niente la mia cup of tea in quanto appaiono troppo pesanti anche per il tipo di storia che accompagnano