I'm with Meeple. I've read maybe 6 comic books in my lifetime, but it includes The Dark Knight Returns, and... while I can intellectually see why it was an *influential* book, that doesn't mean it's actually good. The good: the bravery to actually have Batman age (as this was super-rare at the time, and apparently is still rare), and the fact that Batman has his own cult which is something that more actual superheroes would likely have (and the fascist nature of the vigilanteism is treated at least as appropriately scary here). Okay, I guess the first Two-Face plot was okay if against my leanings - someone who's been a villain for that long is, well, a villain. (This is why the idea of Two-Face only works for a short period of time, like a movie. Once you've been a villain for too long all the nice things start just becoming a cover.) Look at silly liberal Bruce Wayne believing that criminals might be reformed, they have to be fought, etc. All three of these plots can ring true - yes it's a comic book, but it's a comic book treating things at least SOMEWHAT seriously rather than doing the old slapdash style "stuff happens whee then everything gets better and is reset." People age, actions have consequences, "successful" vigilantes will spawn imitators and admirers.
As for the bad: everything else, which rang false, but even worse was in a story that was acting all serious and thus surrendering the usual excuse of "it's mindless entertainment relax." I'm sort of okay with Miller pushing his, well, fascist story about how one man with courage cuts through all the flabby bureaucracy of an inept government that only makes the problem worse by going out and directly doing what the people need, which is to fight the Bad People who are the cause of all of our problems. Not my politics, but you can still write a good story from that perspective (I must admit I like some of Yukio Mishima's novels, and he's totes a bring-back-the-Japanese-Empire guy.) However, he could have done it in a way that didn't have beyond ridiculous strawmen. An evil gang known as the Mutants are just wrecking shit and killing people, because that's totally what those crazed urban types do, and one of the few female characters, the chief of police, knows that the real threat is that Batman who's daring to enforce justice on his own. Batman single-handedly beats them up and arrests their leader, but the mayor, some wimpy liberal, decides that he has to uh "negotiate" with the Mutant leader. Who is in jail and facing 9999 years in prison. And negotiate means "enter the cell unarmed with no guards." And then the mutant leader tears the mayor to shred despite all the witnesses, and gets away with this, rather than getting summarily executed. Then liberal psychologist types come on TV to tell us all that this is all Batman's fault and these psychotic criminals who murder for fun are just misunderstood. This is like some kind of grotesque parody of the worst kind of flaky 1970s liberal, in a totally incongruous context, combined with some kind of fever dream of how the 1970s crime-ridden inner city works. Ayn Rand would be positively jealous of this level of strawmening. And then suddenly we see that Superman, the person who "follows the rules," is just a tool of the man, and does the weak government's bidding, because they FEAR a man of bravery willing to do what they can't, and Batman could totally beat up Superman and does so to let him know he's the better man (because better in combat = better in life), but then spares him 'cuz the Mighty Batman is merciful as well as magnificent. Yeah whatever dude.
And oh yes. The art sucked. Seriously, comics should be fun to read. The art I recall being grey, drab, and uninspiring. They should have at least gone for something like Sin City (Note: I only saw the movie) which shows that you can be gritty and hard-boiled but still be stylish.
