Rating: 
Summary: Shocking Yes - Challenging No - Missed Opprotunities
Review: Arguably the greatest comic storyteller ever, Frank Miller, misses many great opprotunities to tell a compellling story about the relationship of superheroes, humankind,and the battle for good over evil. Instead, he relies on cheap, childlike (although, most of his story is anything but for children)crack shots at politicians, political pundits, and other modern icons.First, as one can read from a previous review, I have loved most of Miller's work. He is normally insightful with a keen ability to discuss contemporay issues in comic format. Further, he has in the past, made moral statements about society and government in a way that, regardless if one agrees, makes one think and ponder a better world. In this sequel to probably one of the greatest comic stories ever, "The Dark Knight Returns," Miller has trouble connecting the many different story lines and as a result, he goes off on red herrings such as "superherochicks" and pot shots at obivious renditions of John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfield, George Will, and the list goes on and on. The inital or main story, that Batman comes out of his hiding place after three years of self-imposed exile, to fight the system ran by villians like Brainiac and Lex Luthor, is all but distracted by the multiple subplots and pot shots. The possibly potential stories of use are brilliant, but there is not enough focus to warrent real interest. Also, the finale between Batman and Robin (Dick Grayson) lacks any real power and I personal came away disapoointemnt that this route of despair (Robin) was taken. The Superman rival Batman plot line is old and though somewhat developed, one wonders if Miller could not have put more creative work and taken another route with these two loved characters. I think this may be one reason why the three books, though highly anticpated and recieved large amounts of pubilicty before release, has received little attention during the release. It just is not that good. The art work is at times interesting, but is often distracted. There are some good one liners, but that does not make a story. I hope Miller seeks a retro-path next time out and writes with substance and not for shock - it is neither challenging.
Rating:
Summary: Lots of payoff, but no setups
Review: I simply did not enjoy this. Not because it wasn't like the first DK, and not because Batman wasn't in it very much. But because Miller throws so much at you without really setting it up or allowing you to find even the smallest scrap of emotional involvement. I understand that there were strong feelings and a need to express them that went into this work. But that doesn't necessarily translate into a successful piece of art. Characters show up without introduction to simply act as ways to push the story forward (hello, Saturn Girl and Martian Manhunter). Some show up so they can die in confusing and poorly set up conflicts (a big shout out the the Martian Manhunter again). The ones that do stick around don't seem to have any strong motivations. Sure, you can find them between the lines, in some cases, but the lines in this story are so dense and confusing, it's not really worth the effort. Rereadings have merely given me a headache. If there is a deeper story here, it's told in a way that lacks resonance. The ending seems tacked on from a different story. There would be more of a surprise from the villain the authors obviously hoped you'd be shocked by if he'd been foreshadowed a bit more. The final conflict just doesn't seem to fit. Finally, the satire. Miller is shooting fish in a barrel here, and he's using the biggest gun he could find. Agree with him or not, the hamfisted attempts at satire are a bit embarassing. Howard Chaykin did this sort of "media commentary over the story" much better in his American Flagg. There are some spectacular scenes. Some ideas I would have liked to see explored. Some great payoffs. But without any real set up, a payoff is just... well.. sound and fury, signifying not much of anything.
Rating: 
Summary: Lacks the richness of the 1st Dark Knight series.
Review: Did I like this comic series sequel??? Yeah, it was okay. I enjoyed book number 1 the best with the introduction of the Atom and his rescue from a petri dish. I enjoyed the concept of The Flash running inside of a generator, like a gerbil in a wheel, supplying the world with electricity. I enjoyed seeing Carrie Kelly grow up and take charge of Batman's growing army like the good little soldier she is. Seeing Superman get his butt kicked again by Batman and finding solace in the arms of his former lover and the mother of his daughter, Wonder Woman. The rest of the stories were, in my opinion, all over the place. Going from one sub plot to another and then another. What is sad about that is that it made the character Batman just another figure in his own story. I wanted to see more of him and his struggles with his aging body, his ever calculating mind, his leadership towards others and that never ending fight inside him to fight crime. That is why the 1st series, The Dark Knight Returns, was so succssful. I knew what Batman was going through at all times and it was like I was also going through the same thing with him. Oh, yeah... what is the deal with making Dick Grayson a bad guy Joker wanna be who is upset over being fired by Batman all those many years ago??? Kinda came out of left field with that sub plot. As I stated in my title... this Dark Knight series lacks the richness of the 1st Dark knight series.
Rating: 
Summary: A starkly individual vision of American authoritarianism
Review: Unlike a fair number of people, I enjoyed Frank Miller's return to the world of his groundbreaking Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. It's not the same work, it's not even the same world, but Miller hasn't lost his ability to be both provocative and interesting. This is a true example of the DC "Elseworlds" concept--this is not the Bob Kane Batman, nor is it the Siegel and Shuster Superman. Instead, every character here is revisioned and recreated by Miller to fit the story and the themes that he wants to explore. The problem with this graphic novel, and what has turned a lot of Miller fans against this book, is that it breaks down in the last book, delayed in its original publication because of the events of September 11. Maybe it's because I didn't read the book as it came out in its installments that this didn't feel like that much of a break to me, for even in the earliest moments of this graphic novel, Miller's disdain for authority, especially that of governmental "big brotherness," is readily apparent. If it becomes even more over the top at the end, why that seems just a natural extension of how the book starts. What The Dark Knight Strikes Again reminds me the most of is Howard Chaykin's wonderful 1980s comic, American Flagg!, that was quite prescient in its vision of a world of reality TV and police-for-hire. Miller's extrapolation of current news-as-entertainment and rock-stars-as-political-gadflies doesn't seem all that wild in comparison. Outside of comics, the quick comparison for this volume is to John Varley's thinly veiled diatribe against the Hollywood system in the third volume of his Gaia trilogy, Demon. Like Varley, Miller's got a hefty axe to grind, and he swings with some impact against such easy targets as John Ashcroft and the television media. With each successive project, Frank Miller's artwork has gotten more crude and yet more expressive. I believe his writing has as well. There's a rawness here that is quite emotional and yet so raw that you wonder if it ever saw an editor. It's rare to see such an individual expression of belief in a superhero comic, where most of what we see is company-produced on the assembly line. I hope we get to see more of this kind of thing, even if it produces the kind of mixed response that has greeted this particular work.
Rating:
Summary: An entertaining book, but not as good as the original.
Review: When Frank Miller unleashed The Dark Knight 15 years ago, he took the world by storm with his nihilistic view of Batman and Gotham City. The World's media took notice, and Comic Books were thrust into the Mainstream of American culture. The Comic industry isn't in such great shape right now, so it's only appropriate that Miller revisit The Dark Knight. (Except The Dark Knight makes barely a cameo appearance in the first book, but that's neither here nor there.) The story in the first issue mainly concerns Carrie Kelly, the young female Robin from The Dark Knight Returns, now known as Catgirl, as she leads a team of young Batmen in a quest to free a group of Imprisoned heroes. (I won't spoil their identities; that's half the fun.) Miller keeps Batman under wraps until the end, and whan he finally makes his grand entrance, it's very impressive. The problems I had with the book are mainly artistic: The original Dark Knight was lushly illustrated by Miller; the smallest background nuance was lovingly rendered. The Dark Knight Strikes Again has little more than character art; It seemed like Miller wanted to give Lynn Varley a blank canvas to computer color, which I found kind of cheesy, to be honest. And on the writing front, faithful DC Comics fans will see the Lex Luthor twist coming a mile off....Frank, in the current DC Universe, Lex is the President of the United States! Making him the puppet-master of a hologram President isn't much of a shocking plot twist. I don't know if this book isn't as good as the original, or if I'm just more mature than the 15 year-old that devoured the Dark Knight the first time around, or what...I just know that I kind of felt let down. The book was good, but nothing special. I'll stick around for the conclusion, though....I think Catgirl is the cat's meow.
Rating:
Summary: What a complete and total letdown.
Review: This book was supposed to break all the rules and make everyone geek out. This book was supposed to be the next step in comic book storytelling. This book was hyped to be maybe the best graphic novel of all time. Do you know what we got instead? A played-out plot about governmental conspiracy that has more to do with the DC universe than it has to do with Batman, followed by sloppy art with various sorts of digital colors thrown messily onto the pages. What the hell???? Frank Miller's drawing style has evolved since his first big drawing gig on Daredevil. He started off a bit normal, then went to the Dark Knight grittiness and then to where he's at now -- cool black-and-white Sin City formula. The problem with his drawings in this book, however, is that he's using the Sin City formula instead of the Dark Knight style. And he's not even using the formula correctly; the art seems rushed (and it's not in black-and-white. Miller plays off the shadows in this book, but it's contradicted by the coloring). Speaking of the coloring, it is perhaps the worst part about this book. Rather than using colors that make sense for a book, the colorist takes rather normal computerized colors -- a lot of them, at that -- and seems to just put them in various places on top of the artwork, hoping that it'll look good. Sometimes the colorist likes to make a design here and there, thinking that it'll be pretty. It doesn't work. And it's not pretty. Avoid this book, I'm begging you. Don't give DC more money for this "effort." This is an insult to their customers and to their fans. For making this book, Frank Miller and all involved should be ashamed of themselves. They've delivered awesome works before...but they just got lazy this time around. This gets two stars for the decent plot.
Rating:
Summary: Not what I expected
Review: Just to let you know where I stand, I'm a former comics collector who tired of the excesses of the medium and its perpetual recycling of characters and storylines. However, I admired Frank Miller's "Dark Knight Returns" for its cinematic storytelling, sharp wit and unexpected vision of a world that no longer wanted superheroes. Set three years later, "The Dark Knight Strikes Again" presents this world in an even more nightmarish fashion that I found both intriguing and repellant. Here, a grotesque Lex Luthor has quietly siezed control of the presidency (for what ends, we're not yet sure), Superman plays his pliant pawn, and the exiled Batman decides he must upend this future society drunk on prosperity and a soft form of fascism. This first chapter begins as Batman and a band of Bat-themed revolutionaries free several imprisoned heroes. And as an old fan, I found Miller's reimaginings of stock DC characters fascinating. The Flash now is bitter and cynical. The Atom, long a third-tier character, is recast as a gutsy tough guy. And I was pleased that Miller allowed Superman to state a convincing case for siding with the despots (which still fit the character's more simplistic, utilitarian philosophy). What I found even bolder--and, in the end, most difficult to swallow--was Miller's deliberately crude drawing style. He no longer delineates characters as much as simply suggests them with scratchy etches and thick blotches of shadow, and pays only lip service to realistic perspective. At its best, this style brings a weighty and disquieting quality to the book that you rarely find in comics. I occasionally was reminded of Picasso's late-period pen-and-ink work. And it certainly is appropriate for capturing the corruption of this future world and the moral ambiguity of these characters. But I also found that this jarring style impeded the storytelling; I often had to puzzle over panels to figure out what I was looking at or how one image related to the next. (And I don't even know how to address Miller's apparent fetish with humungous shoes.) However, I have to admit that I want to pick up the next issue. To find any work in the superhero medium so original and deeply unsettling is, in the end, a compliment.
Rating: 
Summary: I don't get it, I thought it was great
Review: I just finished this book and can't help but wonder at all of the bad reviews it's getting. I thought it was just terrific. Maybe it helps that I bought the trade edition rather than reading the story in individual books and maybe it helps that I didn't have any preconceived notions about it. I know a lot of people anxiously awaited this and felt let down when it wasn't another Dark Knight Returns. That story made Batman the most popular character in comics and changed the genre forever. That fact that this is just a good story shouldn't be held against it. Maybe it's just a generational issue. I bought the first few trades of the Preacher series on ebay and thought it was drivel. In my opinion, Frank Miller, Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman are the best this genre has ever had to offer and I wouldn't miss a thing they did.
Rating: 
Summary: Frank Miller....
Review: ...disappointed millions of Bat-fans and comic fans in general in one of two ways. He was either A.)Sitting in a room by himself, counting the future bucks he was to make off of this highly anticipated project, and thinking, "You know what? I'm a highly praised and respected writer. If I've come this far, why should I even make an effort to write a sequel if I didn't even want to do one anyway without some gushing EIC shaking green in my face? If they slap my name on the book that'll be enough." or B.)Broke out some kilos of crack cocaine and consumed the whole stash, staying up and writing/illustrating the entire story in one night. But, to be more respectful, I still consider Miller to be one of the finest and most influential comic writers in the history of the business, among others. For him to write this was a complete shock. I shelled out my twenty dollars for this featured collected piece like everyone else, and when I eagerly jumped into the first half, my jaw dropped. The remaining hundred or so pages mired me even deeper in the story's utterly confusing and catastrophic mess. The art was the least of my worries, but I still couldn't understand why Batman was suddenly bald, why it was more about The Atom, Catgirl, Lana(Superman's daughter), and Plastic Man, or why Dick Grayson started showing up out of the blue as an indestructible Joker imitator. Why people were gushing over it in the first place escaped me, maybe they hadn't even read it yet, but I had never been so dissatisfied with a comic until I picked this up. My apologies for ripping it apart, but I still cherish the first installment which was done marvellously, along with the work he did on Daredevil, Ronin, and Sin City, even 300. I advise any Batman fan not to spend their hard-earned bucks on it.
Rating:
Summary: A Poor Sequel
Review: BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is a great graphic novel. I am sad to say that the sequel, BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN, falls far short of reaching the stature of its predecessor. To be blunt: it stinks, and it stinks for the following reasons: 1. The art stinks. I like Frank Miller's style, but something is just out of whack here! There were a couple of panels that I had no idea what was happening it was that big of a mess.
2. The public commentary is way overdone . . . and it stinks! The commentary from "the public" that was so enjoyable in DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is reduced to unnecessary babble, and the way "the public" are often drawn reminds me of how I used to draw when I was in the fifth grade.
3. The plot? Yep, it stinks, too! At some points, the storyline is completely out of control. There are too many sub-plots that seem as though they were just tossed in to give face-time to old favorites. The whole Martian Manhunter thing was a waste of time and ink. Dick Grayson? Not a convincing villain.
4. Reducing Batman to basically a cameo role in his own story? That really stinks! In conclusion, I leave you with the following quote from Jay Sherman: ...It stinks!...
| 
