Acknowledgements. Then I'll blather about 'Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker.'

Well, shit, it's been more than two months since my last entry that concluded Another Top 50 Films of the 2000s List. I told several people--hopefully not more than several--that I would write a follow-up to the list. You know, mention some movies that didn't make the list (e.g., no Clint Eastwood films!) and thank people and so on. I'll just stick to the thanking.

I extend a hearty thank-you to everyone who read the list (including friends at Facebook, Comic Book Resources, and Anime Forums), to those who commented on the entries, and to those who encouraged me to continue writing (my girlfriend is certainly part of this long list). Special thanks go to Ray R. from CBR (I quoted him here) as well as other members of that forums site. Special thanks also go to IcareAlot from A4 (because I did steal a line from him for the "Save the Green Planet" review) as well as other members of that forums site. If I do another list, I hope it's as rewarding as this one.

Alright, I'm done being a nice guy. Now I am going to give a negative review to a direct-to-video film, "Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker." Why should anyone read or write this shit? We have to start somewhere.

But seriously, "Mask of the Phantasm" is a very good movie. Perhaps the best Batman film yet. It also didn't make back its small budget during its theatrical run. Ouch! That doesn't give me dollar signs to use as a fucking crutch while I pontificate about how "Mask of the Phantasm" is better than every comic book movie--and certainly most movies ever made.

I have determined that the preceding paragraph is the product of poor transitional thought and anger, but the point I wanted to make is that perhaps "Return of the Joker" could have been very good, just like "Mask of the Phantasm." Paul Dini is a solid writer, and "Batman Beyond" refers to a new Batman who uses futuristic technology and hangs out with an older, grumpy Bruce Wayne ... fair concept. Hell, it even sounds fun. Here's the problem: "Return of the Joker" should be fun, but it's not.

But could we call "Mask of the Phantasm" fun? It was serious most of the time, but Joker attacking someone with bologna? Yeah, that's worth a laugh.

"Return of the Joker" has nothing to laugh about. That's because--and yes, I'm about to spoil this no-theatrical-release mofo--the Joker in this film is actually Tim Drake. The guy who used to be Robin. The really young guy. In the film, we get a dark flashback involving Batman, Drake, Batgirl, the Joker, Harley Quinn, torture, death, and insanity ... maybe I could let you fill in the blanks. It shouldn't be too hard. Just think of an obvious way to make the young Robin fucked up. Like, Robin gets tortured by the Joker and Harley Quinn, but Batman and Batgirl come to the rescue, and Joker and Harley Quinn die, but Batman did not kill them, thus making their deaths Rightful Punishment, and Drake, though rescued, is insane.

So fuck it, that's all I have to say about the story. I can't enjoy this morbid nonsense. I'm just wondering why this movie contains the phrase "Batman Beyond." After all, Joker doing fucked up shit to people and Batman dealing with the consequences are not beyond my expectations.

And then a thought comes, and none of this matters! Ding, ding, ding! It's a nearly 10-year-old straight-to-video Batman film! Jeezus, what was I thinking?