Read Batman: Year Two by Mike W. Barr Alan Davis Todd McFarlane Paul Neary Mark Farmer Alfredo Alcalá Online


The Batman story continues in Batman: Year Two, exploring the relationship between Batman and Commissioner Gordon. Their vigilante efforts to rid Gotham City of crime and corruption while confronting demons within themselves will thrill fans old and new....

Title : Batman: Year Two
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780446391917
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 176 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Batman: Year Two Reviews

  • Sam Quixote
    2019-06-07 07:02

    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.

  • Carol Storm
    2019-06-12 13:52

    I was never a superhero fan as a kid -- strictly horror comics here! (EERIE, CREEPY, 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.

  • Jack Gattanella
    2019-05-27 07:22

    2 1/2 starsThis 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).

  • Arturo
    2019-06-01 09:58

    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.

  • Cescuschrist
    2019-06-20 11:10

    Отжать Готем!

  • Angela
    2019-06-27 15:10

    "...Siempre encuentro el camino en la oscuridad"

  • Mike
    2019-06-01 12:15

    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. (view spoiler)[At the instant Batman is about to make that decision once and for all, Reaper steps in out of nowhere and kills Chill.(hide spoiler)]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.

  • Dan Grible
    2019-06-18 14:04

    Although not as far reaching in its influence/celebrity status as the seminal prequel, Batman Year One, Year Two remains an enjoyable read and a worthy successor.In the first place, I was really stoked/surprised to see Todd McFarlane's name show up on the credit list for this series. Although his talents don't hop on until the second or third issue (I don't remember) his unique art style really shines as does his representations of Batman with a style highly reminiscent/redolent of Spawn. And this is a good thing because his style fits the personification of Batman perfectly.Next, (although admittedly not as fleshed out as much I'd like it to have) the antagonist of the series, The Reaper provides for a really cool foil to the titular Batman. With a really fierce presentation alongside equally devastating weaponry (with a cool twist) he'll always remain as one of my favorite villains. Moreover, with motivations not all too different from another standby, Ra's al Ghul, The Reaper fits in perfectly in this world. Thirdly, there are some less than perfect aspects that will undoubtedly leave fans groaning at best, ticked off at worst. The Batman's usage/acceptance of (a) firearm(s) seems unusual as it could be out of place for a character that has had a universal disdain for guns since the very beginning. However, the particular item in question makes for a cool little closed loop that connects to the series as a whole.While, use of weaponry might be suspect and its place in the series is arguable, I felt the love interest angle to be the most undeveloped, and the weakest part, of the series. With only a few dates, Bruce Wayne already proposes marriage. This lightning fast romance felt somewhat forced yet, does wrap up with a satisfying ending.In either case, now matter the flaws its definitely a fun read that deserves your attention. With solid pacing and equally fresh dialogue, Year Two is a solid read for long time and casual fans alike.Two and a Half Thumbs up!

  • Enzo Nicolini
    2019-06-25 06:56

    Lo más rescatable, el arte. La historia no agrega mucho al mito del Murciélago. Más bien, recupera la figura de Joe Chill en un momento inoportuno, en que se había asentado la versión de que el asesino de los Wayne nunca fue identificado, lo que creo es una mejor elección.

  • stratospherus
    2019-06-05 12:20

    Spoilers ahead!This review is only for Year Two storyline and not the sequel - Full Circle (as I never read it).Mike W Barr has never been good Batman writer to me. All of his stories I read were mediocre at best. Son of Demon included, IMO overrated mess with anoying romance subplot. This one has romance sublot and it's not any good either.Year Two, takes ofcourse Caped Crusader after events in Year One, and despite it provided some references to Miller/Mazzucchelli masterpiece, Barr's treatment is in sharp contrast with the former. While Year One was dark and grity and realistic, this one has elements from Golden Age Batman in attempt to fit with the aforementioned prequel. Quite honestly, I believe that can work (isn't that what Miller did in TDKR), but here it failed immensely - mostly for gaps in narrative structure. Overall premise and plot sounds promising, but only on superficial level. And it is from there that problems keep endlessly falling down. Someone, known as The Reaper, is responsible for slaughter of criminals two decades prior and has somehow vanished since (is it TDKR reference?) Now he has returned to continue the bloodbath. His brief two page origin story is largely symmetrical with Bruce Wayne's/Batman which is something that Barr tried couple years prior (in Batman Annual '84 I think). And guess who crosses paths with him? Throughout Bat universe, many villains trooped in rogue-gallery, but The Reaper (or Judson Kaspian in real life - what a name) has to be, on that we can all agree on, one of the most forgettable ever. Just a leather costume, with cape and skull mask, armed with two large sickles and hidden small handgun. But, it is not the design that makes him so unappealing. It's his character, he is old and has the repeating and by time weary phrase: "You need to learn a lesson; Fear The Reaper". After repeating so many time, I can agree with him. Lesson learned.And since he is returned, his m.o remains the same, but Gordon is covinced it's some copycat, while Batman is umistakenly knows that the old, original Reaper is back. How he deduced that, we will never know, 'cuz he is the Batman. Never mind. Next, Batman and Gordon turn against each other again (like in Year One), since Batman devised the plan to (ostensibly) work with the criminals in order to lure and catch The Reaper. He even briefly mentions this to Gordon, who apparently was deaf, either dumb at the moment. Now, this when the story gets better.Offering his service to a mob, Batman finds himself working, or becoming the partner, with Joe Chill (we all know who). It's from there that Batman starts planning to kill him, soon the job with Reaper is done. And their subsequent ludicrous partnership is nothing like you've already seen. Determined to break his golden rule for the first (and quite possibly) the only time, it is revealed that Batman/Bruce Wayne is in a possess of the pistol that has been used by Chill to ice Thomas and Martha Wayne! I wonder if Chill deliberately gifted the young Bruce a dreadful weapon. However, the idea of Batman carrying a gun (which he does here, but never kills) is not anything new, neither it can be claimed as an act out of character. In fact, we have to thank soul caretakers who in year of 1954. proclaimed that Batman must be much nicer than he was and from then on we got his "no-killing and no-arm-holding" rules. As I said, Barr is evoking Golden Age, but here it turns out entirely useless as he never kills anyone.Meanwhile, subplot involves romance between Reaper's daughter Rachel and Bruce, both unaware of her father's shady night prowling. For the record, I do not have anything against Bruce dating, having love interest and all, but the fact that the title is Year Two, meaning there is Year Four, Five, etc. you simply know their love is doomed. Another dip in Barr's plot. Bruce proposes her and she accepted, but upon realization that her father was (dead by then; in the end) The Reaper she takes her nun habits back (before Bruce proposed her she wanted to become a nun) and Bruce cooly lets her go and returns to his usual night jaunts. While engaged, he even mentioned the permanent break in his crime-fighting career once he gets married. Whole subplot is meaningless. Not to mention Batman's realization that the way of gun is not for him; after all, Batsy in not a killer.Year Two is skippable. It generally sounds decent, but has many small hair-tearing things. It provides glimpses into Batman psyche and the overall purpose of his crusade, but falls many steps backwards. The greatest thing Year Two about is the negative backlash it received from fans. Seriously, if every Batman comic continued ordeal like this, to save myself, I'll just have to erase Batman from my memory and if it needed it, to burn all Caped Crusader stories.

  • Justin
    2019-06-24 10:09

    While the Batman: Year Two storyline from 1987 is not tied to Batman: Year One in any way other than chronologically, it is hard not to compare it to Year One. Released earlier that year, Frank Miller and David Mazzuchelli's Year One storyline was nothing short of a masterpiece, and redefined the origin of the Batman. Following in those footsteps could not have been easy for the folks behind Year Two.Writer Mike Barr crafts a tale in which a young Batman encounters the Reaper, a vigilante killer who terrorized Gotham's criminals decades earlier. Meanwhile Bruce Wayne begins a romantic relationship with a woman who turns out to be the Reaper's daughter. In his quest to end the Reaper's comeback, Batman chooses to work with the mafia, who assign one of their top hitmen to work with Batman. The man is none other than Joe Chill, the mugger who killed Bruce Wayne's parents!There's enough going for the story that it could have been a real winner. Unfortunately the handling is a bit sloppy. The dialogue is over the top at times, even by comic book standards, and coming so soon after Year One, Batman fans couldn't help but expect better. There are also some plot points that defy logic. Batman resorting to using the very gun that killed his parents is perhaps believable, but to do so after a single loss to the Reaper? Is Batman that much of a quitter? Since when does a single loss make the most driven character in all of comics take the easy way out? Bruce Wayne's sudden willingness to abandon his war on crime in favor of marriage to a woman he just met also stretches belief.The artwork is better than average, and helps redeem Year Two somewhat. The first part was drawn by Alan Davis, who would go on to successful runs on Excalibur and Uncanny X-Men. The final three issues feature artwork from a young Todd McFarlane. Remember way back when he used to draw comic books? His work here isn't as good as his later Spider-Man work, but it is still pretty dynamic, particularly when it comes to Batman and the Reaper's huge flowing capes. Unfortunately his pencils were hampered by sub-par inking until the final issue, when he inked his own work. Still, when compared to David Mazzuchelli's unique take on Batman and Gotham City, both artists fall short.In 1991, Barr and Davis revisited the Year Two storyline in a prestige format one-shot called Full Circle, which is also included in this trade paperback. The story took a look at the legacy left by the events of Year Two. It suffered from many of the same weaknesses as the original story, but Alan Davis's more mature artwork was a big improvement.On its own merits, Batman: Year Two is a decent Batman story. The problem is that it brings to mind Batman: Year One, which is superior in every possible way.NOTE: While Year Two was something of a disappointment, some of the better elements of the story were incorporated into the excellent animated movie Batman - Mask of the Phantasm.

  • The_Mad_Swede
    2019-06-08 11:18

    This volume collects Detective Comics #575-578 from 1987 and the follow-up to that arc,from 1991. The original arc, and the creation of the older vigilante, the Reaper, who serves as its main villain, was published quite soon after Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli's groundbreaking story arc, Batman: Year One had seen the light of day and taken the world by storm, by taking the Dark Knight back to his roots and grounded him in a gritty realistic crime fiction setting. Writer Mike W. Barr, who is no stranger to Batman, and his collaborator UK artist Alan Davis set out to tell another foundational Batman story, but knowing that Miller and Mazzuchelli's arc could not be beaten in its own game, upped the ante in a manner of speaking, by attempting (arguably very successfully) to bridge the gap between the former's gritty noir realism and the more fantastical elements and tropes related to the character.Barr's story is a tour de force of Batman storytelling, and the dilemmas with which the plot presents the character are quite brilliant narrative devices: the need to deal with the return of a preceding generation of vigilante; the (delayed) confrontation with his parents' killer; and the looming shadow of a gun and how it will impact on the career of the still fledgling caped crusader. This arc, in and of itself, could well have warranted five stars, thus matching Year One's strengths with a new set, but its execution is somewhat flawed in its slight rupture in artistic style and storytelling. I am by no means a Todd McFarlane hater, and will readily confess to having enjoyed my fair share of his material (including his early Spawn stuff), but when he is matched against Alan Davis here, the result leaves something wanting. It is not that it is bad; rather, it is just a sense that the piece is not as good as it could have been if given a stronger stylistic cohesion.As such, the follow-up story, set later and including a young Dick Grayson as a fledgling Robin, offers not only a strong narrative but almost a glimpse of what could have been. The return of the Reaper, seemingly from the great beyond, is a great achievement that adds layers to Barr's original story and allows Davis to bring a certain closure to the character he helped create.All in all, and despite my complaints (which are minor ones in the greater scheme of things), this is a fundamental Batman story, and in its beats, if not fully in its execution, it most certainly is a match for Year One. Warmly recommended.

  • Beckiezra
    2019-06-04 14:16

    Okay, probably this deserves a 2.5 but the presence of adorable young Richard Grayson in a book makes me round things up. They weren't terrible stories, it was the late 80s/early 90s so the stories were probably different from what I'm more familiar with now. I'm not a fan of Batman with a gun, I can see it as a bit of a homage to the very early comics when he did have a gun sometimes, before his mythos and morals were really cemented. I am kind of confused how an 8 year old hid a murder weapon from the police, I mean I get Batman originated in a time before a lot of forensic science but it seems like murder weapons would be important to keep track of and also that you'd take note of a mysterious bulge in a little boy's coat. :pI don't know if this is the origin of Joe Chill as killer of the Waynes comes from, but if it is then I feel like I could ignore it and go back to my previous belief that part of who Batman is involves being tortured by not being able to see their murderer face justice because he had no idea who it was.So some extra suspense of disbelief is required while reading this book. An old man who hasn't been a vigilante for 20 years is really beating Batman up. Just base on how busy Batman is I have to assume he had most of his fighting training BEFORE he actually became Batman and sure you pick up more as you go along but I think even in only his second year of crime fighting he could take out a 60 year old... You also have to ignore the Spawn-like qualities of Batman's cape in the first 2/3 of the book. I give some poetic license to the artists who want to give some dramatic flare to a cape but this was pretty ridiculous, trying to look like an actual bat or not.The last story, Full Circle, I probably can't judge fairly because the presence of the first Robin skews my perceptions. :) I liked some of the art better (the cape was under control at least...) and the story seemed a bit less ridiculous, other than that pillar of death in a vat of acid on a shopping mall construction site. I'm all for attempting psychological torture via drugs and grainy film but when you put it on a pillar in acid with the hopes the torturee will decide to throw himself off thus hanging himself I think you're taking things a little too far.

  • Alayne
    2019-06-02 10:02

    Buen cómic, quizá algo criticado y despreciado por llamarse "Año Dos", como buscando parecerse a la genialidad de "Año Uno", pero no por eso es malo, es bastante bueno.Es más corto de lo que pensaba y que Año Uno si no me equivoco. Se trata de Batman y su lucha contra el Segador. Al mismo tiempo, lo vemos muy cercano a la doctora Thompkins, quien lo aconseja y cuida, al mismo tiempo que se preocupa, y por quien conoce a Rachel, hija del Segador (sólo que ni ella ni Bruce lo saben). Además, para derrotarlo, deberá aliarse con delincuentes, especialmente con el asesino de sus padres, lo que da lugar a una serie de reflexiones internas suyas y con Leslie, al mismo tiempo que va a hablar con su padre (a la tumba o en su mente, pero se entiende)Tú me enseñaste padre. Te pregunté qué debía hacer para asustarles y me lo dijiste. Debo convertirme en un murciélago, en una criatura de la noche para entrar en su mundo... incluso he asumido su arma de sangre y muerte, el arma que acalló tus gritos de moribundo. Puedo aceptar sus armas padre, sus armas... ¿pero convertirme en uno de ellos? ¿Debo unir fuerzas con tu asesino para que se haga justicia?Además de aliarse con los delincuentes y distanciarse de Gordon, haciendo que éste crea que ya no está de su lado, comienza una relación amorosa con Rachel, que terminará cuando ella se entere la verdad sobre su padre y decida hacerse monja, que es lo que tenía planeado antes de conocer a Bruce. Yo diría que está bueno, a mí me gustó bastante, no me pareció nada malo como algunas personas quieren hacer parecer. Recomendable.

  • Jesse
    2019-06-07 13:18

    What can I say? It's a Batman story in which Batman acts entirely out of character throughout the entire four chapters--from using a gun, to getting engaged, to teaming up with his parents' murderer. His personality is horribly off, as is every choice he made. I'm a fan of Mike W. Barr for the most part, but I have to say, this is probably the worst Batman story I've read besides Sam Keith's "Through the Looking Glass." Not to mention, it doesn't even feel like a Batman story--it feels like a mishmash Moon Knight and Punisher piece regurgitated on a hundred or so pages of horribly off-centered and ill-focused guesswork and "we can make that work, readers will buy it" moments. As for the art, well, it's decent. In Chapter Four, however, McFarlane is given full reign, taking on penciling, inking and colouring duties. It's one of the first moments you learn why he had never been given that privilege before; his line work is terrible, and his panels, as a result, are a barely coherent mess of dashes and thin lines which don't really lend the artwork any presence or grandiosity, and make for a messy, ill-defined jumble of barely separated colours. He winds up turning his potentially menacing artwork into college sketchbook junk. On the whole, if you want a Batman book where Batman acts nothing like Batman, makes choicely non-Batman-like decisions, goes against his very nature and even acts out of character when Bruce Wayne-ing it up, then you'll enjoy Year Two. But, if you want a Batman book without these things, look elsewhere.

  • Arjun Mishra
    2019-05-29 15:08

    The choice of a nontraditional villain with a flair of "this is who you are" is intriguing. One of the strengths of Batman as a series is the wide swath of villains it has to choose from, for the strength of stories and for the sake of variety. It is also pleasant as a reader to take a break from Batman and Commissioner Gordon from feuding with each other. It is easily worn out and tiresome. My criticisms of this particular graphic novel are mostly pertaining to Joey and his son. The story itself is a fine idea; the execution is blisteringly poor. There is no need to go for a feel good ending and Batman essentially seems to be setting up the young son for failure, all while grooming his ersatz son - Robin - for success. Seeing Batman try to parent, or at least nurture, provides an unseen dimension to his character, especially in juxtaposition with his flirtation to husbandhood. Also, apparently Alfred is a master ace baker with chocolate cake. Dr. Leslie easily solidifies my hatred of her. She is that rare character who elicits more ill will than villains. I understand her necessity and the role she plays, but she is irksome.

  • Sean
    2019-06-21 08:13

    This tale of Batman's second year on the job has the unfortunate title of Batman: Year Two. This, of course is a take off of Frank Miller seminal Year One storyline. Sadly for the creators here, there will be comparisons. Miller's story is remembered as one of the best while this story likely won't be remembered. If so, not for good reasons. The biggest problem here is characters acting completely unlike themselves. Batman falling for a woman in two panels and professing his love is insane. The villain wasn't out of the ordinary yet Batman thought he would somehow have no choice but to work with Joe Chill, the man who killed his parents. This doesn't make sense on so many different levels. Wow! Then the zaniness continues in weird familial ways that I can't type without fits of laughter and that isn't what Barr was going for. The art was pretty good for the time especially given what they had to work with. Neither Davis nor McFarlane are known for their Batman work but this is good. Overall, this is just an implausibly bad story with pretty good art. Skip it.

  • Javi
    2019-06-09 10:52

    No está mal, le daría 3.5 estrellas. El dibujo la verdad es que no me ha convencido, en algunos tramos es tremendamente plano y en ningún momento destaca. La historia tiene algunos puntos flojos. Pero El segador me ha encantado como villano, aunque creo que se le podría haber sacado más partido. Es una capítulo interesante, más que de Batman, de la historia de Bruce Wayne.

  • Jeff
    2019-05-30 08:18

    The concept of Batman squaring off against an earlier costumed vigilante protector of Gotham sounds good on paper, especially when the Reaper seems to be built off the mold of creepy 40s pulp heroes like the Spider. But the Reaper's nihilistic view of dispensing justice wears thin very quickly and the sequences too repetitive to be as enjoyable as it should be. Some art leaves the sequence of events murky and undecipherable - notes when a character near the end is killed and from one panel to the next he seems to have shifted 180 degrees - despite being collared by Batman in the first panel.

  • Lukasz
    2019-05-30 13:19

    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.

  • Mario
    2019-06-24 06:58

    Batman: Year Two is an event that takes place after Batman: Year One.The story was okay, the villain was a nice addition and I hope they will bring him back, but the artwork was quite terrible; It was hit and miss-which took me out of the story. Now, Alan Davis is a great, great artist, which he did the first two issues. But, Todd McFarlane did the rest. Personally, McFarlane is hit and miss. I like certain aspects of McFarlane's art style. For instance, I really like a few of his shadings and a few of his cover arts.but I abhor his superhero's cape and facials. I much preferred Alan Davis to do the rest of the series, his art style was much, much better.

  • J.M. Hushour
    2019-06-01 12:56

    Batman doesn't use guns and this tale tells you why! It's also is the tale of the guy who killed Bruce Wayne's parents and Batsy's confrontation with him. It's also the tale of a bloodthirsty vigilante called the Reaper who returns to Gotham City after a 20-year hiatus and starts killing mobsters with giant scythe-gloves. The book is very early in Batman's career, when the Commish is still suspicious of him, there's no Robin and Bruce Wayne is still unsure about doing all this. Even better, 3/4 of this story was pencilled by Todd McFarlane, pre-Spawn, so there's lots of awesome panels with jagged-edge cape Batman careening through the night. Retconned out, now retconned back in apparently.

  • sixthreezy
    2019-06-21 14:01

    This is an excellent Batman book that I'm surprised I've missed over the years. The Reaper returns to Gotham and reminds Batman that there is more than one way to run vigilante justice. When The Reaper proves to be a problem for the Bat, he is then through a series of events partnered up with Joe Chill, the murderer of his parents, to hunt The Reaper. Also, the one shot collected at the end of this volume is another great story all its own that develops straight from the pages of Fear the Reaper. Highly, highly recommended Batman reading.

  • Luis Reséndiz
    2019-05-29 12:21

    para la colección de "peores secuelas de la historia": dibujada a veces con una mano que en efecto parece del mejor todd mcfarlane y otras con un trazo que no saldría ni de un aprendiz de una casa de la cultura local; escrita sin mucha idea de cualquier cosa, incapaz de distribuir información de forma eficaz o siquiera de asomarse a la psique de sus personajes (la exploración de batman es puro atole con el dedo). un fraude.(la compré porque casi casi me la regalaban al comprar año uno. supongo que para la colección está bien.)

  • Vicki-shawn
    2019-06-18 14:06

    Not the greatest story ever told, but It was entertaining. In this story Batman teams up with his parents killer (joe Chill) to stop a deadly killer called the Reaper. What I didn't understand about this story is why would Batman ever team up with his parents killer and how is it that an old ass man with little training is able to smack Batman around like a little girl? What I kept thinking while reading this book was "where is the Batman I know?" Id say only bother with this book if you like me are a collector otherwise, there are better Bat tales out there.

  • Annette Jordan
    2019-06-22 09:06

    The moral dilemma at the centre of this story is what makes this book an interesting read - can Batman work with the man who killed his parents to take down a threat to Gotham, and when the time comes will he be able to take the fatal shot - yes I said shot, this is a Batman who uses guns, who feels forced to do so when he comes up against the Reaper, a deadly vigilante who is ruthlessly cleaning house in Gotham, and who has fighting skills unlike any foe Batman has faced before. The artwork definitely looks quite dated , but the story makes up for it

  • Dante
    2019-06-27 14:52

    I am a fan of Batman. Year One was one of the three best Batman stories ever written. Batman: Year Two is good too. But the story and the character of the Reaper had too many parallels to the animated movie of the 1990's, Batman: The Mask of the Phantasm. Psychologically, I could not get over the similarities so that got in the way for me. But Year Two was still a good story and Bat-fans should read it.

  • Russell
    2019-05-27 10:11

    Yeah, couldn't really wrap my brain around the idea of Bruce teaming up with Joe Chill and running around shooting a gun. The obvious draw to this series is some early DC work by Todd McFarlane...and drawing BATMAN! He's still the best artist ever (along with Bob Layton & Art Adams!). Bruce almost gets killed by some old geezer vigilante called The Reaper. Not a bad storyline, but the villain is constantly saying, "you will soon know to Fear...The REAPER!!". Queue Blue Oyster Cult.

  • J
    2019-06-09 13:20

    Meh. There's literally no reason to call this Year Two as it doesn't build on Year One and it doesn't contain much story development to seem like a continuation. Instead, the name comes off as a marketing ploy to capitalize on Year One's sales and critical reception. They chicks just as easily left the Year Two off the title and called it Batman: Fear the Reaper and be fine with it.

  • Oscar
    2019-06-20 11:55

    It's not really a great follow up to Year One, though as I understand it there was a deliberate choice to do something quite different. The Reaper character is interesting, but the story itself isn't so much - and it all feels very 90s edgy. This story inspired the Batman: The Animated Series film Mask of the Phantasm, which is significantly better.