I'm sure this is about to become my least popular opinion.

Ok, yes, it's a classic. It's legendary, and I get why. But I'll be honest... Frank Miller's particular brand of cynicism has never worked for me, and I don't think it works well for Batman. Despite his infamous dark brooding, for Batman to make any sense at all, he's got to have at least a little bit of hope that what he's doing will bear itself out; that he's not fighting an endless battle for no reason. And while you get a bit of that Batman here and there, what you see more often is just [b:Watchmen|472331|Watchmen|Alan Moore|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1442239711l/472331.SY75.jpg|4358649] but with disrespected DC mainline characters (and speaking of DC characters, the less said about Miller's Superman the better). It's either a lack of understanding or intentional disrespect for the character.

So what's good about it? Commissioner Gordon. Carrie Kelley. Alfred Pennyworth. Ellen Yindel. As characters, they're interesting, compelling, flawed, uniquely well-written. The story was an interesting concept, too; its attempt to explore an older Batman, trace the edges of his motivations and limits...good idea. The last few pages were great. And Varley's coloring was tops; especially the contrast intentionally drawn between the more garish and more subdued frames. Excellent craft. All of this could've carried any comic book to greatness.

So what's bad about it?

-Batman, for one. Is he insane and obsessive or not? The book wants us to be unsure about his motivation, but if you're unsure the story's ending doesn't work. It's playing around disrespectfully with a character who would've fit perfectly into this story without the meddling.

-The villains. While the mutants are good, the classic Batman villains who show back up are underused. Pick one: trust your original villains to carry the plot, or go back to the old classics. Don't try to have it both ways. And the villain of the final volume...was frankly inscrutable.

-And yeah, Superman was bad. Clearly written by a man with no respect for the character. If this was considered Elseworlds I could accept it, but I don't see any indication this was intended to be anything but the canon universe Kal-El.

-Janson's inking. Muddy, hard to follow, especially at the start. Is that Bruce Wayne or some other random old dude? I can't tell because he's tiny and way back in the frame. Am I supposed to care about this kid? Yes? No? Oh, no, Batman is kicking babies! No wait, they're...robots? And in a close up that's very clear? If it reinforced the themes it would be understandable, but I don't see any indication that it was intentional at all. I so glad this art style fell out of fashion 30 years ago.

-The incessant cutting back and forth. If this were a film, it would feature five minute long scenes where the shot changed between three different locations every two seconds. It was exhausting and mostly unnecessary. Dozens of pages had identical, overstuffed layouts of tiny little boxes.

As I wrote the review, my opinion of the book continued to fall. I like Batman, but this seems like the Batman that every neckbeard who thinks he's edgy because he loves Batman wants to be like (even though the Sons of the Batman are obviously digs at that particular fan).

Its weakness is in its squandered potential, frankly; and its incessant hype, and the way that Alan Moore did it better. But mostly in the way it could've been good, if only Miller had given the lead some respect.