Review: Batman: Year One (2011)

An almost word for word adaptation of Frank Miller's supremely influential run on Batman, Batman: Year One is an interesting and enjoyable feature that, in many ways, plays as an almost beat for beat parallel to Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, which was heavily influenced by it.

Released in 2011, Batman: Year One is yet another entry in Warner Bros direct to dvd line of DC Animated Original Films, and, in many ways, this is one of the better entries in a series that has had some incredibly well made films. In this case, we go back to the raw basics of Batman, focusing on the first year or so of Bruce Wayne's time as Batman, while paralleling/contrasting it with James Gordon's first year on the insanely corrupt Gotham Police Department.

Now, given that this is a film that is near word for word in its screenplay from the original Frank Miller run, it plays very much like a noir piece, with both Gordon and Wayne having elaborate voice over monologues, and a Gotham that pays a heavy debt to such films as Taxi Driver. The city of Gotham is a festering pit of crime and depravity, and pretty much every law enforcement officer and authority figure is an unrepentant jerkass who gleefully manipulates the system to achieve their own selfish ends.

The voice acting is quite good, with props to Bryan Cranston as Jim Gordon, and Ben McKenzie as Bruce Wayne. The rest of the cast is quite good as well, but the focus is firmly on McKenzie and Cranston, which is good. They give the best performances, and their character arcs are interesting and worth watching.

Of course, this is based on a Frank Miller work, so it does have its share of flaws. For instance, Catwoman here is shown as a prostitute who takes up the mantle of Catwoman after being inspired by Batman's work. Now, I suppose I can understand the logic of this move, but since her subplot is rather diversionary, and doesn't really influence the main story, so I can't exactly say WHY its here. Add to that Jim Gordon having an adulterous affair (that is at least addressed as BAD), and the subplots aren't quite as interesting as the main plot.

Also, the dialogue, which works great on paper, is a bit cheesy to hear aloud, mostly due to Miller's love of long, flowery internal monologues. But it isn't enough to sink the film, and in many ways, contributes to the film's charm.

Of course, being a direct to video adaptation of a Batman run, its obvious that this is by fans, for fans. To an average, uninitiated viewer, however, it still a good film, and plays out as a more simplistic snd straightforward version of Batman Begins, which borrowed quite a bit from the comic of Year One.

4 out of 5 stars

Comments

[nightcrawlerfan]

Yeah, I've read sources that claim that Chris Nolan's trilogy, including Batman Begins, was trying to be more about the broad strokes of Batman's history instead of specific stories, and I've always called bull on claims like that. Nolan's trilogy was one of the most referential Bat-Projects I've ever seen.
We've already discussed Gordon's affair with Sarah, so I'll tackle the Catwoman issue. As this was a follow up to Crisis on Infinite Earths, explaining Batman's new origins, I think Miller felt compelled to tackle the new backstory of Gotham as a whole, instead of just doing a Batman origin. And in the case of Catwoman, she had had a couple of origins up to this point. Including an amnesic flight attendant, an abused housewife who divorced her husband and became a thief. Miller's origin was the first to connect to her extreme sexuality, and the first to establish her lower class roots, both of which are very important aspects to the character. Plus, later writers have slightly revised that origin to claim that while, yes, she was a prostitute when Batman first came to Gotham, she already has both fighting training and thieving experience.
And, yes, Frankie loves his purple prose. His work from the '80s, though, are usually the more skillful uses of it.