What do you think?
Rate this book
Batman
Batman: Año dos
¡NUEVO AÑO, NUEVAS AMENAZAS!
Con apenas un año de experiencia como el nuevo protector de la Ciudad de Gotham, Batman ahora se enfrenta a una pesadilla del pasado... un deformado reflejo de sí mismo, el Segador, que solía cazar a los criminales de Gotham. Sus métodos eran directos, crueles y extremadamente violentos. Ahora, con una nueva camada de criminales alzándose, el Segador regresó para impartir su salvaje versión de la justicia. Para detener a este vigilante asesino, Batman deberá aliarse con el hombre que destruyó su vida... ¡el asesino de sus propios padres!
¿Podrá el Caballero Oscuro soportar la oculta verdad acerca de sus muertes? ¿O acaso las revelaciones del Segador le costarán su cordura?
Autores: BARR • DAVIS • McFARLANE • NEARY • ALCALÁ • ROY
INCLUYE 4 CARTAS DEL JUEGO DC OVNIVERSUS DE REGALO.
Recopila Detective Comics #575-578 y Batman: Full Circle.
Formato: Libro | 17x24 cm |
500 grs.
176 págs.
ISBN: 978-987-819-117-1
Con apenas un año de experiencia como el nuevo protector de la Ciudad de Gotham, Batman ahora se enfrenta a una pesadilla del pasado... un deformado reflejo de sí mismo, el Segador, que solía cazar a los criminales de Gotham. Sus métodos eran directos, crueles y extremadamente violentos. Ahora, con una nueva camada de criminales alzándose, el Segador regresó para impartir su salvaje versión de la justicia. Para detener a este vigilante asesino, Batman deberá aliarse con el hombre que destruyó su vida... ¡el asesino de sus propios padres!
¿Podrá el Caballero Oscuro soportar la oculta verdad acerca de sus muertes? ¿O acaso las revelaciones del Segador le costarán su cordura?
Autores: BARR • DAVIS • McFARLANE • NEARY • ALCALÁ • ROY
INCLUYE 4 CARTAS DEL JUEGO DC OVNIVERSUS DE REGALO.
Recopila Detective Comics #575-578 y Batman: Full Circle.
Formato: Libro | 17x24 cm |
500 grs.
176 págs.
ISBN: 978-987-819-117-1
176 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
127 people are currently reading
687 people want to read
About the author
Mike W. Barr
830 books73 followersMike 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 181 reviews
June 24, 2013
I realise I don’t have the worst life in the world, that there’s probably some poor sod in the third world eking out a single meal to feed his family today, and if the worst thing that happened to me today is that I read a bad Batman book, it’s still streets ahead of what that guy’s going through - but Batman Year Two: Fear the Reaper makes you feel worse than that guy while you’re reading it. It’s a book so bad you lose perspective on everything and start howling out your frustration at the injustices of the world far more effectively than any infomercial showing stick thin children with bugs crawling over their open eyes and swollen bellies could ever hope to accomplish.
This is going to painful to write because if I were less in control, that is if I still had this book to read, I might just record myself throwing up and post that as the review for Year Two - and it would get across my point far more clearly than this review would otherwise - but here goes nothing. And it’s a big nothing - Year Two is about the world’s shittiest villain called the Reaper. He’s clothed in a red gimp outfit, a black cloak, and wears a silver skull mask, minus the jaw. His hands though are what kills me - giant question mark-sized scythes protrude from balled spikes in which house twin handguns. I had to go online immediately to see if Rob Liefeld had designed the Reaper, it was that outrageous - but no, this particularly insane creation was dreamt up by Mike Barr and Alan Davis.
The Reaper aka Judson Caspian (say that name out loud - Judson! Incredible) is also a geriatric. He’s ancient! This old guy dresses up like Poe’s Red Death but with ridiculously unwieldy blades for hands and heads out into the city’s red light district to carve up prostitutes, Ripper-style baby! And he also thinks Batman, who, this being Year Two, is still green around the ears, is his protegé and will replace him when he’s gone. He is a godawful villain. His 2 page origin is laughable, his appearance screams 90s chic, and every single aspect of him is cringeworthy.
Oh and he has the most hilarious catchphrase ever. Every single time he shows up he says some bullshit and then says “Have you learned yet to Fear..the Reaper?” That phrase “Fear... the Reaper” is done the same way every time with the ellipses following the word fear. Every. Single. Time.
Batman meanwhile has fallen in love with Judson’s daughter in the most forced romance you’ll ever read - I forget her name and everything about her because I kept being distracted by her mom hair. Seriously if you were a kid in the early 90s you’ll recognise your mom or your schoolteacher or at least a couple of women who had the same look as Bruce’s sweetheart in this book. Oh and Batman is also using guns in this book. Yeah. I can sort of forgive him because you could argue it’s early in his career and he’s not totally forsworn against guns - even though, duh, he should be! - but it’s still a shitty move by Barr and co.
While Batman fights the Reaper, there’s a pitiful subplot about Joe Chill and Batman facing Joe for killing his parents, and then when Joe gets offed, we get his son and his grandson going after Batman and oh god make it stop!
I was having such a hard time getting through this crap that I had to look up what Mike Barr looked like so I could visualise my hatred of him. Then I dozed off for half an hour and during that nap I imagined Mike Barr with Year Two books for hands coming after me like the Reaper does after Batman, saying “Have you learned to Fear...My Shitty Book?”. Oh yes. The one thing you will learn to fear when reading this is picking it up to keep reading.
It’s not just that it’s filled with bad characters, a contrived plot, stupid dialogue, crap writing/art and forgettable scenes - it has all of that but it’s unlike other bad Batman books in the sense that those things aren’t the reason why it’s so bad. No, this book is crushingly BORING. It’s so, so boring, that’s what makes reading this such a chore. Every single thing that happens makes you shrug, “so... what.”.
It’s amazing how much of a polar opposite Year Two is compared to Year One. Year One is a masterpiece, Year Two is utter garbage. Seriously, if you see this on the shelf, flip it off and move on.
This is going to painful to write because if I were less in control, that is if I still had this book to read, I might just record myself throwing up and post that as the review for Year Two - and it would get across my point far more clearly than this review would otherwise - but here goes nothing. And it’s a big nothing - Year Two is about the world’s shittiest villain called the Reaper. He’s clothed in a red gimp outfit, a black cloak, and wears a silver skull mask, minus the jaw. His hands though are what kills me - giant question mark-sized scythes protrude from balled spikes in which house twin handguns. I had to go online immediately to see if Rob Liefeld had designed the Reaper, it was that outrageous - but no, this particularly insane creation was dreamt up by Mike Barr and Alan Davis.
The Reaper aka Judson Caspian (say that name out loud - Judson! Incredible) is also a geriatric. He’s ancient! This old guy dresses up like Poe’s Red Death but with ridiculously unwieldy blades for hands and heads out into the city’s red light district to carve up prostitutes, Ripper-style baby! And he also thinks Batman, who, this being Year Two, is still green around the ears, is his protegé and will replace him when he’s gone. He is a godawful villain. His 2 page origin is laughable, his appearance screams 90s chic, and every single aspect of him is cringeworthy.
Oh and he has the most hilarious catchphrase ever. Every single time he shows up he says some bullshit and then says “Have you learned yet to Fear..the Reaper?” That phrase “Fear... the Reaper” is done the same way every time with the ellipses following the word fear. Every. Single. Time.
Batman meanwhile has fallen in love with Judson’s daughter in the most forced romance you’ll ever read - I forget her name and everything about her because I kept being distracted by her mom hair. Seriously if you were a kid in the early 90s you’ll recognise your mom or your schoolteacher or at least a couple of women who had the same look as Bruce’s sweetheart in this book. Oh and Batman is also using guns in this book. Yeah. I can sort of forgive him because you could argue it’s early in his career and he’s not totally forsworn against guns - even though, duh, he should be! - but it’s still a shitty move by Barr and co.
While Batman fights the Reaper, there’s a pitiful subplot about Joe Chill and Batman facing Joe for killing his parents, and then when Joe gets offed, we get his son and his grandson going after Batman and oh god make it stop!
I was having such a hard time getting through this crap that I had to look up what Mike Barr looked like so I could visualise my hatred of him. Then I dozed off for half an hour and during that nap I imagined Mike Barr with Year Two books for hands coming after me like the Reaper does after Batman, saying “Have you learned to Fear...My Shitty Book?”. Oh yes. The one thing you will learn to fear when reading this is picking it up to keep reading.
It’s not just that it’s filled with bad characters, a contrived plot, stupid dialogue, crap writing/art and forgettable scenes - it has all of that but it’s unlike other bad Batman books in the sense that those things aren’t the reason why it’s so bad. No, this book is crushingly BORING. It’s so, so boring, that’s what makes reading this such a chore. Every single thing that happens makes you shrug, “so... what.”.
It’s amazing how much of a polar opposite Year Two is compared to Year One. Year One is a masterpiece, Year Two is utter garbage. Seriously, if you see this on the shelf, flip it off and move on.
September 24, 2025
Despite so many classic and legendary Batman graphic novels, a lot of average Batman comics are mid. So goes Batman Year Two, a kind of sequel to the seminal Batman Year One that reads like just another 80s Batman comic. This may be disappointing to some readers, but in truth most of them were like this.
The art by Alan Davis is always good. There is even early Todd McFarlane work, not as good as say Spawn vs Batman but it's interesting to see how his style was developing back then before he found stardom in Spider-Man in the 90s.
The mystery by Mike Barr about a vigilante killer called the Reaper didn't turn out to be iconic, and doesn't really need to take place in Batman's early years other than the absence of Robin. Batman having to team up with Joe Chill was a good idea, but the tragic and rushed love story didn't work. This volume does include a follow-up tale Full Circle, which was a prestige one-shot in its time, that reads better and has art by the returning Alan Davis.
Worth reading for the Batman completist, but I wouldn't recommend to a novice who just likes the dark movies and cartoons. For that matter, don't expect much from Batman Year Three either featuring the origin of Robin and also doesn't live up to the high quality of Frank Miller's Year One...
The art by Alan Davis is always good. There is even early Todd McFarlane work, not as good as say Spawn vs Batman but it's interesting to see how his style was developing back then before he found stardom in Spider-Man in the 90s.
The mystery by Mike Barr about a vigilante killer called the Reaper didn't turn out to be iconic, and doesn't really need to take place in Batman's early years other than the absence of Robin. Batman having to team up with Joe Chill was a good idea, but the tragic and rushed love story didn't work. This volume does include a follow-up tale Full Circle, which was a prestige one-shot in its time, that reads better and has art by the returning Alan Davis.
Worth reading for the Batman completist, but I wouldn't recommend to a novice who just likes the dark movies and cartoons. For that matter, don't expect much from Batman Year Three either featuring the origin of Robin and also doesn't live up to the high quality of Frank Miller's Year One...
September 29, 2020
Feels like a comic book from the 40s, only it had no excuse to feel this way because it was written 80 years later. Even the Reaper from the 40s looked better than this one for God's sake.
So this has nothing to do with Year One, it is more like a one-shot about a stupid villain called The Reaper and how Batman HAD TO work with Joe Chill (the killer of his parents) in order to take him down.
The Reaper happens to be the father of this lady that Bruce\Batman is flirting with, this direct relation is another 40's detail but it definitely isn't the worst thing about year two. This man is a brutal vigilante seeking to clean Gotham, just like Batman, except he doesn't mind killing people in order to achieve this purpose, including law enforcement if they stand in his way. Even if we were to overlook this unoriginal concept and how bad his original story was, the character design itself would still be a flaw. He covers his hands with two huge scythes that have spiked balls for grips and he is wearing a skull mask. This is by far the stupidest looking villain I have seen.
This version of Bruce, unlike any other version, doesn't only act like a playboy to trick people, but it actually is an authentic playboy. It is pretty funny how even Alfred comments on how Bruce is acting unlike himself, yet he is and there is no reason for it. He keeps acting like a prick around this lady (The Reaper's daughter) and then he asks her for her hand in marriage. Batman acts like a prick around Gordon as well, forcing Gordon to attempt arresting him at one point.
Batman's partnership with Joe Chill is forced into the story. It also comes with Batman's stupid decision to use a gun and some cheep drama about his parents' death and how he must fight criminals using their own methods in order to beat them. I am honestly glad that Joe Chill became an ordinary thief in the new continuity, as this might -hopefully- prevent bad writers from using him in stories such as this one.
In the end, The Reaper falls willingly to his death, and his daughter decides to leave Bruce in order to become a nun, which is obviously the natural thing to do.
So this has nothing to do with Year One, it is more like a one-shot about a stupid villain called The Reaper and how Batman HAD TO work with Joe Chill (the killer of his parents) in order to take him down.
The Reaper happens to be the father of this lady that Bruce\Batman is flirting with, this direct relation is another 40's detail but it definitely isn't the worst thing about year two. This man is a brutal vigilante seeking to clean Gotham, just like Batman, except he doesn't mind killing people in order to achieve this purpose, including law enforcement if they stand in his way. Even if we were to overlook this unoriginal concept and how bad his original story was, the character design itself would still be a flaw. He covers his hands with two huge scythes that have spiked balls for grips and he is wearing a skull mask. This is by far the stupidest looking villain I have seen.
This version of Bruce, unlike any other version, doesn't only act like a playboy to trick people, but it actually is an authentic playboy. It is pretty funny how even Alfred comments on how Bruce is acting unlike himself, yet he is and there is no reason for it. He keeps acting like a prick around this lady (The Reaper's daughter) and then he asks her for her hand in marriage. Batman acts like a prick around Gordon as well, forcing Gordon to attempt arresting him at one point.
Batman's partnership with Joe Chill is forced into the story. It also comes with Batman's stupid decision to use a gun and some cheep drama about his parents' death and how he must fight criminals using their own methods in order to beat them. I am honestly glad that Joe Chill became an ordinary thief in the new continuity, as this might -hopefully- prevent bad writers from using him in stories such as this one.
In the end, The Reaper falls willingly to his death, and his daughter decides to leave Bruce in order to become a nun, which is obviously the natural thing to do.
December 22, 2021
Collects the original Batman: Year Two arc, from Detective Comics 875-878 (maybe it's 575-578) and the Batman: Full Circle graphic novel. Well done, although not quite as heady as Batman: Year One was.
February 1, 2022
Year One is timeless. Year Two is written & illustrated like a bad Saturday morning cartoon.
This story is quintessential 90's: a cheesy bad-guy spouting tacky catch phrases like "Fear the Reaper". Cheesy writing that tries to be "dark" while also being dumbed down for 12 year old boys to understand. If you came expecting a well written mature comic like Year One - which this is supposed to be a sequel to - then you've come to the wrong place.
Alan Davis provides great pencils for the first and last issues of this collection, but he can't save the mediocre writing of Mike W. Barr. The middle issues are drawn by Todd McFarlane, whose art style actually fits much better with the writing: both are cartoonish and mediocre.
Without spoiling too much, this story actually has some interesting themes that are wasted with poor writing and dialogue. The villain "The Reaper" has a similar backstory and motivations as Bruce. However, a central conceit of the Batman character is his refusal to use guns or kill people, limitations not shared by The Reaper. Thus, The Reaper is like a dark reflection of Batman, and these themes are played with (poorly) throughout the story.
Some (mildly spoiler-ish) things to expect in this book:
*Robin encourages Batman to kill someone
*Batman teams up with the Mob for no apparent reason
*Batman starts using a gun for no apparent reason
*Batman uses an overly convoluted and unneeded plot to defeat the bad-guy
*Batman gets engaged
*Batman's identity is outed
*Horrible 90's costume design for The Reaper
*The Reapers cheesy catch phrase "Fear the Reaper" is repeated A LOT
*A white haired old man in a leather suit beats up Batman
*A white haired old man in a leather suit beats up the GCPD
*The final story contradicts the previous story-arc
Despite all the above, Batman is right back to status quo at the end.
Skip this if you like well written & mature comics... like Year One.
This story is quintessential 90's: a cheesy bad-guy spouting tacky catch phrases like "Fear the Reaper". Cheesy writing that tries to be "dark" while also being dumbed down for 12 year old boys to understand. If you came expecting a well written mature comic like Year One - which this is supposed to be a sequel to - then you've come to the wrong place.
Alan Davis provides great pencils for the first and last issues of this collection, but he can't save the mediocre writing of Mike W. Barr. The middle issues are drawn by Todd McFarlane, whose art style actually fits much better with the writing: both are cartoonish and mediocre.
Without spoiling too much, this story actually has some interesting themes that are wasted with poor writing and dialogue. The villain "The Reaper" has a similar backstory and motivations as Bruce. However, a central conceit of the Batman character is his refusal to use guns or kill people, limitations not shared by The Reaper. Thus, The Reaper is like a dark reflection of Batman, and these themes are played with (poorly) throughout the story.
Some (mildly spoiler-ish) things to expect in this book:
*Robin encourages Batman to kill someone
*Batman teams up with the Mob for no apparent reason
*Batman starts using a gun for no apparent reason
*Batman uses an overly convoluted and unneeded plot to defeat the bad-guy
*Batman gets engaged
*Batman's identity is outed
*Horrible 90's costume design for The Reaper
*The Reapers cheesy catch phrase "Fear the Reaper" is repeated A LOT
*A white haired old man in a leather suit beats up Batman
*A white haired old man in a leather suit beats up the GCPD
*The final story contradicts the previous story-arc
Despite all the above, Batman is right back to status quo at the end.
Skip this if you like well written & mature comics... like Year One.
October 15, 2017
I just gave this a second read, I thought it was boring the first time around (when I was a teen) and now i see that this a complete travesty, this is not Batman. ...Or unless he's such a rookie.. So inexperienced that he makes about the dumbest mistakes and comes up with the dumbest plans.
Hmmm.. Nope, he can't be that stupid and that cowardly to need help. This is a bad plot. Avoid.
On the plus side.. Alan Davis and Todd McFarlane on art.
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm animated movie semi based on this.
Batman: Full Circle PF added in the end, was a good story.
Hmmm.. Nope, he can't be that stupid and that cowardly to need help. This is a bad plot. Avoid.
On the plus side.. Alan Davis and Todd McFarlane on art.
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm animated movie semi based on this.
Batman: Full Circle PF added in the end, was a good story.
January 27, 2022
I’m sitting here side-eyeing this book in pure judgment. Batman teams up with the guy who killed his parents? What.
First, how did Bruce not rage kill this guy years ago? You know, like back when Batman actually killed people. He has all this trauma from his parent’s deaths, which molded him into a violence machine, and he turned his daily self, Bruce Wayne, into his alter-ego. This guy is so dedicated to Batman that he swears Batman is his true personality and Bruce Wayne is an image. He even went to great lengths to ruin Bruce Wayne’s reputation permanently.
And how is he now having civil convos with Joe Chill like they’re partners, allies? What am I reading at this point? Trash. I don’t believe this storyline for a second.
Next up is the problem of an elderly man wearing a costume and fucking up Batman. How does that make sense? Reaper was active when the man was in his prime and now he’s out of retirement 25 years later. What’s he got in that suit? An exoskeleton? Nanotechnology? A super strength potion? A bite from a radioactive bug? Oh wait, this isn’t Marvel.
So, since the beefy Batman can’t beat the old man Reaper, he decides (rather quickly and without much rational thought, tbh) to rely on guns. This makes me laugh. What’s he gonna do with a gun, kill people? Don’t make me laugh harder. Nope, he’s going to pretend he’s at a makeshift shooting range and hit baseball bats out of hands. Yes, that’ll help him beat the Reaper!
Now, the romance aspect was poor. Bruce falls in ‘love’ with a woman set on becoming a nun. One kiss and she’s changed her mind. Does Bruce just fall for anyone he donates his time to? Next thing you know he’s professing his love to her father. They’ve had maybe two conversations and there’s no chemistry, but okay, get married.
Shoutout to dumbass Commissioner Gordon. Batman literally tells him that his upcoming actions will look shady but whatever happens, they’re still friends. Batman then partners up with the mob and Gordon’s immediately turning on him. Shocked Pikachu face when Gordon finds out Batman was only pretending to work with the mob. How did Gordon become a detective?
Two more things. One: forcefully inserted into this story was Bruce’s origin story. It’s so overused just in this book alone that I hope I will never have to read it again. The horse has been long dead and they’re still beating it. Stop.
Two: Robin really encouraged Batman to drop the Reaper wannabe into a pool of acid. I thought Robin was family friendly, how odd.
Full Circle showcases Alan Davis’ art since he up and quit after one issue (due to a non-consensual cover) of the Reaper arc. I missed it and it’s brilliant. I really enjoyed the colour scheme. But, alas, the nice use of pigment can’t mask this turd.
First, how did Bruce not rage kill this guy years ago? You know, like back when Batman actually killed people. He has all this trauma from his parent’s deaths, which molded him into a violence machine, and he turned his daily self, Bruce Wayne, into his alter-ego. This guy is so dedicated to Batman that he swears Batman is his true personality and Bruce Wayne is an image. He even went to great lengths to ruin Bruce Wayne’s reputation permanently.
And how is he now having civil convos with Joe Chill like they’re partners, allies? What am I reading at this point? Trash. I don’t believe this storyline for a second.
Next up is the problem of an elderly man wearing a costume and fucking up Batman. How does that make sense? Reaper was active when the man was in his prime and now he’s out of retirement 25 years later. What’s he got in that suit? An exoskeleton? Nanotechnology? A super strength potion? A bite from a radioactive bug? Oh wait, this isn’t Marvel.
So, since the beefy Batman can’t beat the old man Reaper, he decides (rather quickly and without much rational thought, tbh) to rely on guns. This makes me laugh. What’s he gonna do with a gun, kill people? Don’t make me laugh harder. Nope, he’s going to pretend he’s at a makeshift shooting range and hit baseball bats out of hands. Yes, that’ll help him beat the Reaper!
Now, the romance aspect was poor. Bruce falls in ‘love’ with a woman set on becoming a nun. One kiss and she’s changed her mind. Does Bruce just fall for anyone he donates his time to? Next thing you know he’s professing his love to her father. They’ve had maybe two conversations and there’s no chemistry, but okay, get married.
Shoutout to dumbass Commissioner Gordon. Batman literally tells him that his upcoming actions will look shady but whatever happens, they’re still friends. Batman then partners up with the mob and Gordon’s immediately turning on him. Shocked Pikachu face when Gordon finds out Batman was only pretending to work with the mob. How did Gordon become a detective?
Two more things. One: forcefully inserted into this story was Bruce’s origin story. It’s so overused just in this book alone that I hope I will never have to read it again. The horse has been long dead and they’re still beating it. Stop.
Two: Robin really encouraged Batman to drop the Reaper wannabe into a pool of acid. I thought Robin was family friendly, how odd.
Full Circle showcases Alan Davis’ art since he up and quit after one issue (due to a non-consensual cover) of the Reaper arc. I missed it and it’s brilliant. I really enjoyed the colour scheme. But, alas, the nice use of pigment can’t mask this turd.
August 17, 2022
I was never a superhero fan as a kid -- strictly horror comics here! (Paul Neary worked on this tale, and I remember his outstanding artwork for EERIE, CREEPY, and VAMPIRELLA. Warren magazines forever!) But when I was required to read a few graphic novels for a course in library science -- think about that for a minute -- I picked this one up and I really liked it.
As you all know, these DARK KNIGHT graphic novels are nothing like the colorful BATMAN TV show late boomers of a certain age grew up watching! No Burt Ward, no Adam West, no fun and games, no ZAP! and POW! Instead everything is Terribly Sad. And also Terribly Serious!
Still, this story was pretty good. It wasn't so much BATMAN angsting away about his dead parents, it was all the other characters that held my interest. I liked Joe Chill, the small-time hood who discovers a Reaper costume and becomes a hero to his little boy. There's such a melodramatic (rather than tragic) irony to the idea that Batman will kill his father's killer in front of a little boy. Who thinks his criminal father is a hero. ("Get him, dad! Get him!") I liked the very prim and proper miss who kept getting in Batman's way, trying to help him right wrongs, all the while looking sexy and virginal at the same time! And I even liked the crusty old lady Batman kept dumping the prim virgin off on at every turn -- like, here go have tea with my aunt, you crisp little virgin you!
A very old-fashioned tale, but I liked it. The fight scenes are great and so are the villains. All THE DARK NIGHT really needs is more sex (much, much more sex) and less angst.
As you all know, these DARK KNIGHT graphic novels are nothing like the colorful BATMAN TV show late boomers of a certain age grew up watching! No Burt Ward, no Adam West, no fun and games, no ZAP! and POW! Instead everything is Terribly Sad. And also Terribly Serious!
Still, this story was pretty good. It wasn't so much BATMAN angsting away about his dead parents, it was all the other characters that held my interest. I liked Joe Chill, the small-time hood who discovers a Reaper costume and becomes a hero to his little boy. There's such a melodramatic (rather than tragic) irony to the idea that Batman will kill his father's killer in front of a little boy. Who thinks his criminal father is a hero. ("Get him, dad! Get him!") I liked the very prim and proper miss who kept getting in Batman's way, trying to help him right wrongs, all the while looking sexy and virginal at the same time! And I even liked the crusty old lady Batman kept dumping the prim virgin off on at every turn -- like, here go have tea with my aunt, you crisp little virgin you!
A very old-fashioned tale, but I liked it. The fight scenes are great and so are the villains. All THE DARK NIGHT really needs is more sex (much, much more sex) and less angst.
October 25, 2020
Přečteno čistě na základě toho, že miluju film Mask of the Phantasm a tento komiks z něj částečně čerpá. Film je naprosto úžasný a tohle? Ne tak docela. Kromě názvu to nemá vůbec co dělat s Frankem Millerem. No a jinak je to celkem hloupý, tedy abychom si to vyjasnili, tak když to někdo psal hodně nad tím přemýšlel a je tu vážně hodně dobrých nápadů, ale ty vole to provedení je občas strašný peklo. Důvod použití zbraně? Jasně dávalo by to smysl kdyby to bylo DOBŘE napsaný což tady platí o většině věci. Celý komiks je dost 40s ale zase je strašně zajímavý sledovat tu Todda McFarlana který v jistých pasážích vypadá úplně jinak než jej známe. Je to asi ok ale hrozně to zestárlo ale zase jde o zajímavou sondu na čem byl postaven MoTP a musím jen žasnout jaký je Dini genius.
February 1, 2023
Issue 1 was solid, a interesting look at a new enemy yet similar foe to Batman. The Reaper.
Then issues 2-4 happen and I see why this is rated 2 or below.
The art is solid throughout. The first issue enjoyable. Then it gets stupid. Batman acts SO out of character it fucking hurts. For a followup of year 1, this is shit. A 1.5 out of 5.
Then issues 2-4 happen and I see why this is rated 2 or below.
The art is solid throughout. The first issue enjoyable. Then it gets stupid. Batman acts SO out of character it fucking hurts. For a followup of year 1, this is shit. A 1.5 out of 5.
January 30, 2024
A Gem of a Batman Book
I think I missed Year Two while rifling through my brother's comics all those years ago, but something about the art and story are so.comfortably familiar that I think I must have read it and forgot. So glad I picked up this collection, though! And extra points for seeing where Mask of the Phantasm drew its villain inspiration.
I think I missed Year Two while rifling through my brother's comics all those years ago, but something about the art and story are so.comfortably familiar that I think I must have read it and forgot. So glad I picked up this collection, though! And extra points for seeing where Mask of the Phantasm drew its villain inspiration.
July 26, 2014
2 1/2 stars
This was... okay. I guess.
I dunno. I know that following up Batman Year One is a pretty daunting task (maybe Nolan in his version could do it well... for the most part), but... what's telling is the intro to the book, which is a collection of four issues mostly drawn by S is for Spawn auteur Todd McFarland, where writer Mike Barr says he wrote about 75% of this series originally for a REJECTED series called Batman 1980 (albeit Barr says this was before Frank Miller came along and salted the earth with his Dark Knight series). How he retrofitted it into Miller's universe... well, you shall see here.
And yet, this actually isn't a disaster, or AS bad as I expected from some of the reviews on here. Though Jim Gordon is a little too quick to flip into "fuck Batman, get em!" to his squad after one thing Batman does, the stuff with the cops is generally well written. and I actually kinda dug McFarlanes art... in a retro way I guess. Some of it is messy, but some of it is just having trashy fun drawing this guy (and its not AS over the top as Leifeld... ok, maybe the hair is..) and Gotham. it's like a cool training ground for Spawn. and Alan Davis' art for the first issue is probably better than McFarlane too. So, stylistically, solid.
But what sucks here? Well, let's put it this way - I have a strong feeling that Bruce Timm and his team read Batman Year 2 and thought to themselves "You know, this whole thing with a second masked vigilante with horror-movie over-the-top overtones and challenging Batman with his own tactics of vigilantism is okay... But let's do it better with this new character, PHANTASM". That movie is the best criticism of Year Two possible, which also has the same ingredients minus the Joker (which made that story better by the way) and minus the whole aspect of Batman deciding at the end of the first issue to use a gun to fight his villain here (a fight fire with fire approach).
That also isn't as bad as what I had dreaded from just seeing the cover. They do make an attempt, even if it's shallow, to explore why Batman is better than that in his Bat-shit crazy approach (I mean that no pun intended and as a compliment), and he doesn't really use the gun too much anyway, still striking from the shadows, and its not annoying in and of itself as a concept... but the resolution of this, and especially with the killer of his parents Mr Joe Chill, is lame in a predictable way that also shouldn't make too much sense (well... no, I guess they do have to reveal who Reaper is, as if we don't know and as if it'll really have a strong impact on Bats).
Oh, and the fucking Reaper. Holy shit. just thinking about his constant refrain - "its time for you to fear... fear the REAPER!" makes me lower the rating as I type this. I mean, come on, and it could be believable if there was a little more development of the man behind the mask, and how such an old(er) man has such abilities aside from a Halloween skull for a mask (I know it's only Year Two, but Batman should've handed this guy's ass in one issue), and why hes such an old dope. Its a case where this series is too short and yet... would anything extra be that pertinent?
certainly Rachel (not to be confused with the Rachel of the Nolan films by the way, this one's a nun... sorta, not really, maybe) is a disposable female, something else Timm and his team decided to correct with Phantasm. Overall, there's enough good artwork and some fine dialog to make it not a failure, but it is a weaker book and you also need to have a familiarity with Batman runs before this one but not Year One persay (the character of the older woman, Leslie, was apparently a bigger deal in previous issues, but if you jump right from year one to year Two on continuity you won't know that).
This was... okay. I guess.
I dunno. I know that following up Batman Year One is a pretty daunting task (maybe Nolan in his version could do it well... for the most part), but... what's telling is the intro to the book, which is a collection of four issues mostly drawn by S is for Spawn auteur Todd McFarland, where writer Mike Barr says he wrote about 75% of this series originally for a REJECTED series called Batman 1980 (albeit Barr says this was before Frank Miller came along and salted the earth with his Dark Knight series). How he retrofitted it into Miller's universe... well, you shall see here.
And yet, this actually isn't a disaster, or AS bad as I expected from some of the reviews on here. Though Jim Gordon is a little too quick to flip into "fuck Batman, get em!" to his squad after one thing Batman does, the stuff with the cops is generally well written. and I actually kinda dug McFarlanes art... in a retro way I guess. Some of it is messy, but some of it is just having trashy fun drawing this guy (and its not AS over the top as Leifeld... ok, maybe the hair is..) and Gotham. it's like a cool training ground for Spawn. and Alan Davis' art for the first issue is probably better than McFarlane too. So, stylistically, solid.
But what sucks here? Well, let's put it this way - I have a strong feeling that Bruce Timm and his team read Batman Year 2 and thought to themselves "You know, this whole thing with a second masked vigilante with horror-movie over-the-top overtones and challenging Batman with his own tactics of vigilantism is okay... But let's do it better with this new character, PHANTASM". That movie is the best criticism of Year Two possible, which also has the same ingredients minus the Joker (which made that story better by the way) and minus the whole aspect of Batman deciding at the end of the first issue to use a gun to fight his villain here (a fight fire with fire approach).
That also isn't as bad as what I had dreaded from just seeing the cover. They do make an attempt, even if it's shallow, to explore why Batman is better than that in his Bat-shit crazy approach (I mean that no pun intended and as a compliment), and he doesn't really use the gun too much anyway, still striking from the shadows, and its not annoying in and of itself as a concept... but the resolution of this, and especially with the killer of his parents Mr Joe Chill, is lame in a predictable way that also shouldn't make too much sense (well... no, I guess they do have to reveal who Reaper is, as if we don't know and as if it'll really have a strong impact on Bats).
Oh, and the fucking Reaper. Holy shit. just thinking about his constant refrain - "its time for you to fear... fear the REAPER!" makes me lower the rating as I type this. I mean, come on, and it could be believable if there was a little more development of the man behind the mask, and how such an old(er) man has such abilities aside from a Halloween skull for a mask (I know it's only Year Two, but Batman should've handed this guy's ass in one issue), and why hes such an old dope. Its a case where this series is too short and yet... would anything extra be that pertinent?
certainly Rachel (not to be confused with the Rachel of the Nolan films by the way, this one's a nun... sorta, not really, maybe) is a disposable female, something else Timm and his team decided to correct with Phantasm. Overall, there's enough good artwork and some fine dialog to make it not a failure, but it is a weaker book and you also need to have a familiarity with Batman runs before this one but not Year One persay (the character of the older woman, Leslie, was apparently a bigger deal in previous issues, but if you jump right from year one to year Two on continuity you won't know that).
April 6, 2019
Um... one of the more crazier Batman stories I've ever read. There's just a lot of...questionable actions that Batman does over the course of this book that really make you just shake your head and sigh. Batman.... wielding guns? Working with the killer of his parents to take down a middle age villain with no superpowers? (I mean the dude literally just carries some guns and a some scythes.) Totally obsessed with killing said killer of parents/ally? Being a complete and utter jerk to Alfred and Sister Leslie?
Bruce/Batman, you done crossed several lines.
Craziness aside, the story was just OK. Too many plot holes for my taste. Ultimately, if you want a unique look on what a younger Batman could have been if he was....oh I don't know, an emotional man child, then definitely pick this up.
Bruce/Batman, you done crossed several lines.
Craziness aside, the story was just OK. Too many plot holes for my taste. Ultimately, if you want a unique look on what a younger Batman could have been if he was....oh I don't know, an emotional man child, then definitely pick this up.
September 19, 2019
I just wrote a long detailed review, but the internet seems to have eaten it. Boo. Since I don't want to write it again I'll summarize. This book has a lot of problems including Batman not acting like himself, a really stupid weapon, an extremely unconvincing romance, an old man who should be out of practice kicking everyone's asses, and some really questionable character motivation. It struggles with trying to combine the modern dark tone established in Year One with some old fashioned goofiness. Also, it really has nothing to do with Year One.
October 17, 2014
Batman Year Two: Fear the Reaper has a lot of problems. So many problems. First and foremost, it does not feel like a sequel to Batman: Year One. I understand that Mike Barr set out to tell a different kind of story rather than mimicking the style of Year One. That sounds like a good idea, but Frank Miller is a hard act to follow, and Barr just didn’t seem up to the task. It’s only a good idea if it pays off. Year One is great because the reader sees the young Bruce Wayne and Jim Gordon growing into their new roles, making mistakes and learning from them. Year Two has almost none of that. It has a very generic feel, and could be set in any era of Batman’s career. The Joe Chill subplot is probably Barr’s failed attempt to give the story a “young Batman starting out” feel (but more on that later).
Jim Gordon is sadly underused in this story. In the opening scenes we read that he has now been promoted to Police Commissioner. He had only just joined the Gotham police force the previous year, and would have served as a police captain less than year before these events, so this seems like an extraordinarily fast promotion (especially for an honest cop in a corrupt department in a corrupt city). How did this happen? What’s the story behind his meteoric rise through the ranks? I don’t know, because Mike Barr doesn’t tell us.
Gordon is not the only character that would benefit from some additional exposition. Dr. Leslie Thompkins is dropped into the reader’s lap with no introduction. Despite having no role in Year One, she appears to be the only person other than Alfred who knows Batman secret identity (I guess during Year One Jim Gordon figured it out, too. But he seems to have forgotten it by Year Two). Near the end of the story, we see in a flashback that Dr. Thompkins had comforted and/or treated Bruce on the night his parents were killed, but what’s happened between them in the intervening years is not explained. Perhaps their relationship is better explained somewhere else in the Batman canon, but if one reads this as a direct sequel, her presence is perplexing.
Speaking of unknown backstories… Did you know that Batman wasn’t unique after all? Apparently, there was this guy in Gotham City twenty years ago who wore a black cape and mask, stalked the alleyways at night and hunted down criminals. He called himself… The Reaper! Weird… so Batman’s not the first masked vigilante to try to clean up Gotham? But for some reason, no one has previously bothered to mention the other guy who tried the exact same thing years ago? Of course, that’s because Mike Barr invented the character out of whole cloth just for this story. Now, that sort of retroactive changing of the background is so common in comics, it even has a name: “retconning.” I could forgive this particular retcon if the Reaper made even the slightest bit of sense as a character. Unfortunately, he does not.
The Reaper’s real name is Judson Caspian, and he looks like Abe Vigoda. I’d estimate his age at somewhere in his sixties. What he does (other than masked vigilante) is never explained, but he appears to be wealthy. He left Gotham City and gave up his Reaper identity many years ago, for reasons not explained. Why does he take up the Reaper mantle again at age sixty? We don’t really know; it’s not explained. How can a sixty-year old vigilante beat a twenty-six year old Batman nearly to death? We don’t really know; it’s not explained. Maybe He knows super-secret martial arts moves that Bruce doesn’t? Maybe Bruce is a bit of a tool? I don’t know.
I do know that the Reaper is completely irrational. He runs down and kills criminals brutally without a second thought. He murders prostitutes for sullying the city’s reputation (such as it is). In fact, he murders anyone who gets in his way, including police and bystanders. I’m intrigued by the idea of the Reaper as an dark side version of Batman. And in fact, their origin stories are similar in order to intentionally draw this comparison. But as the story bogs down in silly action and unnecessary subplots, this idea gets lost in the shuffle and is never developed. I would have loved to see a flashback of the Reaper in the old days, as a kind of “proto-Batman.” Was he always this brutal and insane? Or did something happen to push him over the edge? Did Judson know Bruce Wayne’s parents? Were they murdered because the Reaper failed to protect them? Did Bruce Wayne model his nighttime vigilante persona after Gotham’s original nighttime vigilante? Again, we never find out, because Barr doesn’t tell us. An examination of these questions could have made for a fascinating story, but that’s not what we get.
What we do get is Batman allying himself with Gotham’s organized crime bosses to set traps for the Reaper. Batman’s motivation for teaming up with sworn enemies is flimsy. Why he can’t set a trap for the Reaper on his own, I don’t know. In another unlikely plot twist, the mob boss places a condition on the alliance. Batman must work with a partner, someone the mobster trusts to keep an eye on things. This partner turns out to be… Joe Chill, the man who murdered the Waynes. And like the other characters previously mentioned, Chill shows up in the story with almost no explanation and no development. Batman clearly knows who Chill is as soon as he first appears. Last year, Batman didn’t know who the murderer was, but now he does. How? Did Batman investigate his parents’ murders? Did the Gotham Police investigate? If so, why wasn’t Chill arrested and charged? Or was he? Was he tried? Did he skip town? Why didn’t Batman go after him, if he knew who he was? When did all this happen? Who knows? Yet again, BARR DOESN’T TELL US! Even the follow-up story “Full Circle,” which specifically focuses on Joe Chill’s earlier life, still fails to fill in any of these details. Instead, we find out Joe Chill was a bad dad. Ho hum.
So Batman passively goes along with Chill, and starts carrying a gun. Which turns out to be Chill’s old gun. The one that he used to kill the Waynes. Because...reasons. And somewhere along the line, Bruce falls in love with and proposes to Judson’s daughter Rachel. After two dates. Thereby causing her to decide not to become a nun. Except she does. (No I didn’t make that up). Oh, and her hair color keeps changing for some reason.
Eventually, we do get a final confrontation between Batman and the murderer of his parents. But like everything else in this trainwreck, the scene is botched. What should be a gut wrenching, emotional moment comes across as flat and anticlimactic. As Batman stands over the defeated Joe Chill, pressing a gun to the forehead of the man who killed his parents, he has a moral choice to make. It is this moral choice that is heart of the Batman mythos: Is revenge ever justified? However, here Barr makes an unforgivable blunder in plotting and characterization. Batman/Bruce Wayne is robbed of that choice. He never gets to be the great man we know he is, and should be. He is instead reduced to passivity, with no choice, no chance to determine his own moral fate. He chases after the Reaper for a pointless standard issue hero/villain fistfight on top of the Wayne Foundation building. In an epilogue we see Batman throw away the gun and renounce revenge. However, it would have been so much more dramatic and emotionally satisfying to see him make his own choice not to take blind vengeance against Chill.
Year Two reads like a litany of bad characterization, plot holes, and lost opportunities. As the sequel to a true classic, it had the potential to be a classic itself, or at the veryleast, a great Batman story. Regrettably, all that potential was squandered.
Jim Gordon is sadly underused in this story. In the opening scenes we read that he has now been promoted to Police Commissioner. He had only just joined the Gotham police force the previous year, and would have served as a police captain less than year before these events, so this seems like an extraordinarily fast promotion (especially for an honest cop in a corrupt department in a corrupt city). How did this happen? What’s the story behind his meteoric rise through the ranks? I don’t know, because Mike Barr doesn’t tell us.
Gordon is not the only character that would benefit from some additional exposition. Dr. Leslie Thompkins is dropped into the reader’s lap with no introduction. Despite having no role in Year One, she appears to be the only person other than Alfred who knows Batman secret identity (I guess during Year One Jim Gordon figured it out, too. But he seems to have forgotten it by Year Two). Near the end of the story, we see in a flashback that Dr. Thompkins had comforted and/or treated Bruce on the night his parents were killed, but what’s happened between them in the intervening years is not explained. Perhaps their relationship is better explained somewhere else in the Batman canon, but if one reads this as a direct sequel, her presence is perplexing.
Speaking of unknown backstories… Did you know that Batman wasn’t unique after all? Apparently, there was this guy in Gotham City twenty years ago who wore a black cape and mask, stalked the alleyways at night and hunted down criminals. He called himself… The Reaper! Weird… so Batman’s not the first masked vigilante to try to clean up Gotham? But for some reason, no one has previously bothered to mention the other guy who tried the exact same thing years ago? Of course, that’s because Mike Barr invented the character out of whole cloth just for this story. Now, that sort of retroactive changing of the background is so common in comics, it even has a name: “retconning.” I could forgive this particular retcon if the Reaper made even the slightest bit of sense as a character. Unfortunately, he does not.
The Reaper’s real name is Judson Caspian, and he looks like Abe Vigoda. I’d estimate his age at somewhere in his sixties. What he does (other than masked vigilante) is never explained, but he appears to be wealthy. He left Gotham City and gave up his Reaper identity many years ago, for reasons not explained. Why does he take up the Reaper mantle again at age sixty? We don’t really know; it’s not explained. How can a sixty-year old vigilante beat a twenty-six year old Batman nearly to death? We don’t really know; it’s not explained. Maybe He knows super-secret martial arts moves that Bruce doesn’t? Maybe Bruce is a bit of a tool? I don’t know.
I do know that the Reaper is completely irrational. He runs down and kills criminals brutally without a second thought. He murders prostitutes for sullying the city’s reputation (such as it is). In fact, he murders anyone who gets in his way, including police and bystanders. I’m intrigued by the idea of the Reaper as an dark side version of Batman. And in fact, their origin stories are similar in order to intentionally draw this comparison. But as the story bogs down in silly action and unnecessary subplots, this idea gets lost in the shuffle and is never developed. I would have loved to see a flashback of the Reaper in the old days, as a kind of “proto-Batman.” Was he always this brutal and insane? Or did something happen to push him over the edge? Did Judson know Bruce Wayne’s parents? Were they murdered because the Reaper failed to protect them? Did Bruce Wayne model his nighttime vigilante persona after Gotham’s original nighttime vigilante? Again, we never find out, because Barr doesn’t tell us. An examination of these questions could have made for a fascinating story, but that’s not what we get.
What we do get is Batman allying himself with Gotham’s organized crime bosses to set traps for the Reaper. Batman’s motivation for teaming up with sworn enemies is flimsy. Why he can’t set a trap for the Reaper on his own, I don’t know. In another unlikely plot twist, the mob boss places a condition on the alliance. Batman must work with a partner, someone the mobster trusts to keep an eye on things. This partner turns out to be… Joe Chill, the man who murdered the Waynes. And like the other characters previously mentioned, Chill shows up in the story with almost no explanation and no development. Batman clearly knows who Chill is as soon as he first appears. Last year, Batman didn’t know who the murderer was, but now he does. How? Did Batman investigate his parents’ murders? Did the Gotham Police investigate? If so, why wasn’t Chill arrested and charged? Or was he? Was he tried? Did he skip town? Why didn’t Batman go after him, if he knew who he was? When did all this happen? Who knows? Yet again, BARR DOESN’T TELL US! Even the follow-up story “Full Circle,” which specifically focuses on Joe Chill’s earlier life, still fails to fill in any of these details. Instead, we find out Joe Chill was a bad dad. Ho hum.
So Batman passively goes along with Chill, and starts carrying a gun. Which turns out to be Chill’s old gun. The one that he used to kill the Waynes. Because...reasons. And somewhere along the line, Bruce falls in love with and proposes to Judson’s daughter Rachel. After two dates. Thereby causing her to decide not to become a nun. Except she does. (No I didn’t make that up). Oh, and her hair color keeps changing for some reason.
Eventually, we do get a final confrontation between Batman and the murderer of his parents. But like everything else in this trainwreck, the scene is botched. What should be a gut wrenching, emotional moment comes across as flat and anticlimactic. As Batman stands over the defeated Joe Chill, pressing a gun to the forehead of the man who killed his parents, he has a moral choice to make. It is this moral choice that is heart of the Batman mythos: Is revenge ever justified? However, here Barr makes an unforgivable blunder in plotting and characterization. Batman/Bruce Wayne is robbed of that choice. He never gets to be the great man we know he is, and should be. He is instead reduced to passivity, with no choice, no chance to determine his own moral fate. He chases after the Reaper for a pointless standard issue hero/villain fistfight on top of the Wayne Foundation building. In an epilogue we see Batman throw away the gun and renounce revenge. However, it would have been so much more dramatic and emotionally satisfying to see him make his own choice not to take blind vengeance against Chill.
Year Two reads like a litany of bad characterization, plot holes, and lost opportunities. As the sequel to a true classic, it had the potential to be a classic itself, or at the veryleast, a great Batman story. Regrettably, all that potential was squandered.
February 11, 2019
I might have read these stories years ago. They sure bring back good memories. A very good follow-up to the Year One classic. Kept me involved during the whole Reaper storyline. A different end to Joe Chill, but still one he deserved. Highly recommended for Batman fans!
January 29, 2019
I wasnt overly fond of the villain. The Reaper just felt subpar.
October 9, 2020
5 🌟
Batman faces off against the Reaper.
Batman faces off against the Reaper.
June 15, 2019
Year Two. Year Two would have been hard set to equal Frank Miller's Batman: Year One. It's hard to tell if it's for the best or worst that it didn't even try. But, it's certainly not to this comic's advantage that it largely ignores Year One. Gordon, recently made a Captain in the previous Year is now suddenly Commissioner, as if Barr just didn't want to deal with any of it. The corruption within the force? The crime lords? The promise of the Joker? All gone. (Oh, except the crime lords appear as random victims. Way to anti-climax that plot!)
Instead we get a very non-nuanced story of a violent vigilante from the past: a rather ridiculous violent vigilante who among other things shoots bullets from his scythes. And we get a wholly ridiculous series of character events. Bruce chooses to use a gun (because he got beat up by an old guy!), then to team up with Joe Chill, then falls head over heels in for a woman that he's known for about three pages. It's all just head-shakingly bad. Then there's some attempted parallelism between the Reaper and Bruce losing parents to violence, but it doesn't have any weight to it. Oh, Barr acts like he could sell it in the third issue, when Bruce talks about using the blood-weapons of his enemies, or some such, but it's too little too late. [2/5].
Full Circle. The main flaw of this sequel is that it builds on the entirely weak Year Two. The actual story is better ... and could have been a great one of if this was Year Two instead of what we got. It's a familial tale about fathers and sons and the violence that runs down the generations. Barr yet again creates a parallel to the death of Bruce's parents, tying it again to the main antagonist ... but this time it works, because it also ties back to Bruce. Sounds pretty good overall, eh? But we still get "FEAR THE REAPER" and Bruce's true love and other unfortunate artifacts of Year Two. At least this new story redeems them a tiny bit [3+/5]
Instead we get a very non-nuanced story of a violent vigilante from the past: a rather ridiculous violent vigilante who among other things shoots bullets from his scythes. And we get a wholly ridiculous series of character events. Bruce chooses to use a gun (because he got beat up by an old guy!), then to team up with Joe Chill, then falls head over heels in for a woman that he's known for about three pages. It's all just head-shakingly bad. Then there's some attempted parallelism between the Reaper and Bruce losing parents to violence, but it doesn't have any weight to it. Oh, Barr acts like he could sell it in the third issue, when Bruce talks about using the blood-weapons of his enemies, or some such, but it's too little too late. [2/5].
Full Circle. The main flaw of this sequel is that it builds on the entirely weak Year Two. The actual story is better ... and could have been a great one of if this was Year Two instead of what we got. It's a familial tale about fathers and sons and the violence that runs down the generations. Barr yet again creates a parallel to the death of Bruce's parents, tying it again to the main antagonist ... but this time it works, because it also ties back to Bruce. Sounds pretty good overall, eh? But we still get "FEAR THE REAPER" and Bruce's true love and other unfortunate artifacts of Year Two. At least this new story redeems them a tiny bit [3+/5]
March 18, 2019
Batman teaming up with Joe Chill A.K.A. the Wayne Family murderer (!) to fight a 90's typical villain with DARRRRRRRRRRRKKKKK AND GRITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTY Image-Type costume while in Bruce Wayne form he bangs a supposedly wanna-be nun (!!).
The nicest things I can say is that it has the same clunkiness and bad plot consistency of its craptastic and schizofrenia-infused chrological predecessor, in facts it has A LOT LESS LOGICAL FLAWS than Batman: Year One. For this reason, I don't understand why several people seem to pass on the similarities between the two with such ease. It doesn't take itself too seriously too.
At least Alan Davis Art was (as usual) very good, unlike Mazzuchelli's absolutely fugly fest on the previous book. Bad, but not in a offensive kind of way by any means, unless you're some sort of Batman totalitarian worshipper.
The nicest things I can say is that it has the same clunkiness and bad plot consistency of its craptastic and schizofrenia-infused chrological predecessor, in facts it has A LOT LESS LOGICAL FLAWS than Batman: Year One. For this reason, I don't understand why several people seem to pass on the similarities between the two with such ease. It doesn't take itself too seriously too.
At least Alan Davis Art was (as usual) very good, unlike Mazzuchelli's absolutely fugly fest on the previous book. Bad, but not in a offensive kind of way by any means, unless you're some sort of Batman totalitarian worshipper.
November 2, 2015
Wow, this story felt soo forced! Pushing it from plot point to plot point without any regard to believabilty. No matter if it's Bruce's romance, him using the gun, Gordon sudden bathate or Bruce just deciding he'll shoot Chill in the end. WTF?! It's like some abridged version of a bigger storyline! Davies art is of course great, Todd is interesting if an aquired taste and Reaper's design IMHO is quite cool in 80s over-the-top grim'n'gritty heavy metal way. Still the story, while looking fairly intriguing is ridiculously realised and I cannot genuinely recommend this book at all. Only for artists fans or bat-completists.
September 29, 2021
Just awful. Terrible. The worst Batman story I have read to date. The plot is so generic you could take any superhero and copy and paste it over Batman and it would still work. The writing is cliche, the characters lack real motivation, and, more angering, they do not behave in the ways you would expect from these iconic characters (in a bad way, which makes the reader think Barr did not understand the characters he was writing). It's complete trash, and if you skip it in a Batman read, you are missing absolutely nothing. Single star for Todd McFarlane's art, which is the only good thing about this mess.
November 20, 2020
Want to read some fun old school (late 80s/early 90s) Batman adventures? This title volume might be for you! Having read some of the recent volumes of Batman from the new Rebirth series I felt I needed a break from things “new” and maybe explore some just good old fashion Batman fight against crime and villain. I’m happy to say this work delivered!
This is the 30th anniversary edition that collects the stories under the story arc of “Batman: Year Two.” That means this was originally from 1987 (since it is published in 2017). It is supposed to follow the famous “Batman: Year One” by Frank Miller. Yet at the same time one didn’t have to know or read “Batman: Year One” to follow this story which is great whether you haven’t read that classic work or you have forgotten the contents in that work. Also both story arc are written and illustrated by a different creative team and also each project has a different emphasis and area they want to explore with Batman’s character.
This book can be divided into two parts with the first being about Batman taking on a notorious character called the Reaper. The Reaper is a death-dealing vigilante who kills people who he considers unjust. Interestingly there are ways the Reaper parallel the Batman with their backstory, background, secret identity and quest for “justice” though there’s also important contrasts: Batman does not have murderous intent and the Reaper also have a perverted sense of justice, killing police officers as well. Another fascinating aspect of this story is the character Joe Chill who was the criminal who killed Batman’s parents when Bruce Wayne was young and so we see in this story a psychological dimension with Batman pushed to the limit of how far he will go to delay justice and also the danger of himself acting beyond the line of what is permitted in his conscience. Excellent story telling. I also saw a parallel and foil of Bruce Wayne with his love interest also as well, who wanted to be a nun. In part two we see the introduction of Robin and the alleged return of the Reaper. Supposedly the Reaper was killed in part one which lead the question what is going on: Is it Reaper being resurrected, or he didn’t die or someone faking being the Reaper? Another fascinating and fun adventure ensue that was captivating. Like part one there is a parallel of heroes and villains going on which each being a foil of each other. I thought it was interesting seeing the criminal having a young child just as Batman has Robin. Fascinating exploration of Batman and his world while also giving us good old fun fight against crime. I recommend it!
This is the 30th anniversary edition that collects the stories under the story arc of “Batman: Year Two.” That means this was originally from 1987 (since it is published in 2017). It is supposed to follow the famous “Batman: Year One” by Frank Miller. Yet at the same time one didn’t have to know or read “Batman: Year One” to follow this story which is great whether you haven’t read that classic work or you have forgotten the contents in that work. Also both story arc are written and illustrated by a different creative team and also each project has a different emphasis and area they want to explore with Batman’s character.
This book can be divided into two parts with the first being about Batman taking on a notorious character called the Reaper. The Reaper is a death-dealing vigilante who kills people who he considers unjust. Interestingly there are ways the Reaper parallel the Batman with their backstory, background, secret identity and quest for “justice” though there’s also important contrasts: Batman does not have murderous intent and the Reaper also have a perverted sense of justice, killing police officers as well. Another fascinating aspect of this story is the character Joe Chill who was the criminal who killed Batman’s parents when Bruce Wayne was young and so we see in this story a psychological dimension with Batman pushed to the limit of how far he will go to delay justice and also the danger of himself acting beyond the line of what is permitted in his conscience. Excellent story telling. I also saw a parallel and foil of Bruce Wayne with his love interest also as well, who wanted to be a nun. In part two we see the introduction of Robin and the alleged return of the Reaper. Supposedly the Reaper was killed in part one which lead the question what is going on: Is it Reaper being resurrected, or he didn’t die or someone faking being the Reaper? Another fascinating and fun adventure ensue that was captivating. Like part one there is a parallel of heroes and villains going on which each being a foil of each other. I thought it was interesting seeing the criminal having a young child just as Batman has Robin. Fascinating exploration of Batman and his world while also giving us good old fun fight against crime. I recommend it!
June 14, 2021
This edition contains both Batman: Year Two and Batman: Fulll Circle.
Rating for Batman: Year Two: 4.5/10
Rating for Batman: Full Circle: 6/10
Final Rating: 5.2/10
Batman: Year Two is supposed to be a kind of sequel to Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli's Batman: Year One story. Unfortunately, the story doesn't live up to the one it is trying to follow. While there are some very interesting ideas being tackled here, the execution overall feels sloppy and a bit too convenient. The idea behind the main villain sounds quite exciting on paper but overall falls flat. Bruce Wayne himself in this story has a lot of potential as well given what he is dealing with, but unfortunately the focus is taken away from those things and moved more towards a rather creepy and unsatisfyingly executed romance story. I think with some tweaks, this could have been a really good story, but as it is it isn't a great follow-up to Year One.
Batman: Full Circle adds another angle to the aftermath of Year Two, and this story is actually executed quite well. Despite being rather short, it is intriguing and a good follow-up to Year Two, and in my opinion even enhances the experience of Year Two. It also offers a more satisfying ending to the story arcs started in Year Two.
Rating for Batman: Year Two: 4.5/10
Rating for Batman: Full Circle: 6/10
Final Rating: 5.2/10
Batman: Year Two is supposed to be a kind of sequel to Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli's Batman: Year One story. Unfortunately, the story doesn't live up to the one it is trying to follow. While there are some very interesting ideas being tackled here, the execution overall feels sloppy and a bit too convenient. The idea behind the main villain sounds quite exciting on paper but overall falls flat. Bruce Wayne himself in this story has a lot of potential as well given what he is dealing with, but unfortunately the focus is taken away from those things and moved more towards a rather creepy and unsatisfyingly executed romance story. I think with some tweaks, this could have been a really good story, but as it is it isn't a great follow-up to Year One.
Batman: Full Circle adds another angle to the aftermath of Year Two, and this story is actually executed quite well. Despite being rather short, it is intriguing and a good follow-up to Year Two, and in my opinion even enhances the experience of Year Two. It also offers a more satisfying ending to the story arcs started in Year Two.
November 5, 2025
Hard pass. Not worth reading even if you are curious in the lesser of Batman’s tales. I was hoping this would be a “it’s so bad it’s good” experience, but it was just bad.
The general idea of the plot has some potential, but it’s bland and repetitive and Bruce/Batman act very strangely for no real reason. Says he loves someone after 1 breakfast, proposes after 2 dates, wields a gun but often just puts it away randomly, and works with the mob and assassins even though it doesn’t help him at all. The main villain acts strange too, just no real
motives for what he does.
The artwork is good for the most part, especially some of the McFarlane stuff. But there is an issue that had really poor inking.
The general idea of the plot has some potential, but it’s bland and repetitive and Bruce/Batman act very strangely for no real reason. Says he loves someone after 1 breakfast, proposes after 2 dates, wields a gun but often just puts it away randomly, and works with the mob and assassins even though it doesn’t help him at all. The main villain acts strange too, just no real
motives for what he does.
The artwork is good for the most part, especially some of the McFarlane stuff. But there is an issue that had really poor inking.
May 13, 2020
Año dos es un poco más entretenido que lo que recordaba. Cuando lo leí siendo un niño, por entonces no me había causado una gran impresión, a diferencia de Año uno. En esta relectura me entretuvo un poco más a pesar de lo atropellado del guion, alguna que otra viñeta absurda y lo lamentable del cambio de dibujante a partir del segundo issue. Eso sí, Círculo Mortal me pareció malísimo, una secuela totalmente innecesaria.
September 9, 2022
Un buen tomo con historias entretenidas y tomo humorístico sazonado con el dibujo de Davis, que siempre es un plus. Batmas se las verá con Joker, el sombrerero y el espantapájaros contando con la ayuda del hombre elástico y nada más y nada menos que Sherlock Holmes x)
July 17, 2025
I’m not saying you can’t write a good Batman story where he teams up with Joe Chill and starts using the gun that killed his parents; no, wait, yes I am. Redeemed a bit by the good sequel story included in this volume, but the original is rough going.
November 29, 2018
Batman: Year Two is famous for two things. One is as the basis for the Batman: Mask of the Phantasm film, which loosely adapted elements of the storyline to tell a much better story. The second reason is that it’s really awful.
While I won’t argue the first point at all, I don’t think it’s terrible. It’s perfectly readable and interesting. It’s just got some awful ideas in it. It’s almost as if someone at DC forced their ideas onto Mike Barr. In fact, all the really bad stuff is introduced in the final pages of each chapter/issue, almost as if someone swapped the last page of Barr’s script surruptiously as a prank to see how he’d deal with the twist next month.
In issue one, Batman has to deal with the resurgence of a pre-Batman vigilante - the reaper, who unlike Batman likes killing criminals. After Batman confronts him, and gets beaten within an inch of his life - he announces to Alfred and Leslie Thompkins that he must become the very thing he is fighting and...get this, pulls THE GUN THAT KILLED HIS PARENTS from a hiding place in his fireplace with the intention of using it. This idea is so wrongheaded and out of left field, and like I said happens at the end of the issue. The second issue recovers a little with Batman’s use of the gun restrained, including shooting the gun from Commissioner Gordon’s hand (in a neat piece of continuity with Year One, Gordon turns on Batman and breaks the pipe Batman gave him in Year One). Just when the issue is wrapping up without falling apart, Batman decides to team with the underworld he usually fights to take out the reaper. The hitman the mob pairs him with? Joe Chill, the man who shot Thomas and Martha Wayne. The issue ends asking us to accept Batman would team up with the source of his trauma, the man who created Batman, to fight the reaper.
This is two awful decisions in a row and the story never really recovers. Continuity with Year One is spotty - there’s no diary narration, Batman is no longer the classic grey and black but now that ugly blue thing he was for much of the 1970s and 80s (and drawn by Todd Macfarlane for much of it), and the feel is all different. But Gordon has just become Commissioner which suggests it takes place right afterwards.
This paperback also includes the follow up one-shot, Full Circle which is a bit better. Alan Davis art is most at home here.
While I won’t argue the first point at all, I don’t think it’s terrible. It’s perfectly readable and interesting. It’s just got some awful ideas in it. It’s almost as if someone at DC forced their ideas onto Mike Barr. In fact, all the really bad stuff is introduced in the final pages of each chapter/issue, almost as if someone swapped the last page of Barr’s script surruptiously as a prank to see how he’d deal with the twist next month.
In issue one, Batman has to deal with the resurgence of a pre-Batman vigilante - the reaper, who unlike Batman likes killing criminals. After Batman confronts him, and gets beaten within an inch of his life - he announces to Alfred and Leslie Thompkins that he must become the very thing he is fighting and...get this, pulls THE GUN THAT KILLED HIS PARENTS from a hiding place in his fireplace with the intention of using it. This idea is so wrongheaded and out of left field, and like I said happens at the end of the issue. The second issue recovers a little with Batman’s use of the gun restrained, including shooting the gun from Commissioner Gordon’s hand (in a neat piece of continuity with Year One, Gordon turns on Batman and breaks the pipe Batman gave him in Year One). Just when the issue is wrapping up without falling apart, Batman decides to team with the underworld he usually fights to take out the reaper. The hitman the mob pairs him with? Joe Chill, the man who shot Thomas and Martha Wayne. The issue ends asking us to accept Batman would team up with the source of his trauma, the man who created Batman, to fight the reaper.
This is two awful decisions in a row and the story never really recovers. Continuity with Year One is spotty - there’s no diary narration, Batman is no longer the classic grey and black but now that ugly blue thing he was for much of the 1970s and 80s (and drawn by Todd Macfarlane for much of it), and the feel is all different. But Gordon has just become Commissioner which suggests it takes place right afterwards.
This paperback also includes the follow up one-shot, Full Circle which is a bit better. Alan Davis art is most at home here.
May 3, 2020
I honestly think this story gets way too much of a bum rap. It’s honestly quite amazing for something that had so much turmoil behind the scenes, and was from an editorial mandate. It has two of the best comic book artists of the 80’s-90’s, Alan Davis and Todd McFarlane on the art, and Mike Barr’s Batman contributions are far more influential than given credit for. Without this book, we wouldn’t have Mask of the Phantasm (though in many ways, it is fairly different, the bones are here) and without Son of the Demon, we wouldn’t have Damian Wayne.
That said, it does make controversial choices (Batman wielding a gun) but I think that’s to its credit, thanking those risks to show an inexperienced Batman finding his way. If I had to give one critique, Rachel Caspian is a bit *too* much like Silver St. Cloud. Despite the shift in artists, it still makes a strong, cohesive impression.
The second story is also quite good, if a bit too “six degrees of separation” for some, maybe. But I like how it’s all about the cycle of violence that drives the caped crusader.
Overall, I’d say both stories are definitely worth a read and having in the collection.
That said, it does make controversial choices (Batman wielding a gun) but I think that’s to its credit, thanking those risks to show an inexperienced Batman finding his way. If I had to give one critique, Rachel Caspian is a bit *too* much like Silver St. Cloud. Despite the shift in artists, it still makes a strong, cohesive impression.
The second story is also quite good, if a bit too “six degrees of separation” for some, maybe. But I like how it’s all about the cycle of violence that drives the caped crusader.
Overall, I’d say both stories are definitely worth a read and having in the collection.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 181 reviews