Perhaps the key point used in promoting "Batman: Assault on Arkham" was that it was a tie-in to the highly successful "Arkham" video game series. To be fair though, this isn't the first time the Arkham universe has been seen outside the games. DC has done some comic book series, including a prequel and epilogue to Arkham City, an anthology series called Arkham Unhinged, and an upcoming prequel graphic novel to Arkham Origins. I have read them all (except the Arkham Origins prequel), and while I have enjoyed them on some level, they don't leave much of an impact as the video games, probably due to actually being involved in the events in a way. Ultimately, the same can be said for "Assualt on Arkham".
Let me start out by saying that this is a very unique entry in DC's line of animated films. To start out, this movie is essentially a hybrid of an action movie and for a good portion of it, a heist movie. There's even a rundown of the team, showcasing their talent or state of mind in some way. In a way, it's similar to running down the assassins in Arkham Origins. The team in question is the Suicide Squad, a secret government team of supervillains who work to have time shaved off their sentences, who have to follow orders, or they get their heads blown off from the implanted explosive in their heads. In conjuntion with mostly being a heist movie, for a good portion, this is a Suicide Squad movie with Batman characters involved, but it eventually becomes more Batman focused around the third act. I guess to be fair though, DC had talked about doing a Suicide Squad video game, with such an idea hinted at in the Arkham Origins post-credits scene. But I sense that they may have found it troubling to promote a Suicide Squad game and make it successful, so this movie tie-in to a video game is probably their way of getting that idea out of the way. It's like how Fox took portions of the "Magneto" movie script and used them for "X-Men: First Class." I would have at least called it "Batman vs. the Suicide Squad: Assault on Arkham". I know it's a long title, but so is "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice."
Given its more action focus, there isn't much in character development, but it doesn't mean the characters aren't interesting. You got the love trianlge between Joker, Harley, and Deadshot, Deadshot's rivalry with Captain Boomerang, and the potential relationship between Killer Frost and King Shark. Plus, the characters act like you would expect. Batman (voiced again by Kevin Conroy) and Deadshot are badass as usual, Riddler is a know-it-all, Waller is a vindictive bitch (and once again greatly voiced by CCH Pounder), and Harley is the psychotic comic relief showing why she's DC's female equivalent of Deadpool. But just like in Arkham Origins, I must give mad props to Troy Baker's performance as the Joker, who again proves himself as a worthy successor to Mark Hamill.
I mentioned before in my review of "The Flashpoint Paradox" that even though their films are rated PG-13, in animated form, DC and WB have the oppurtunity to push the envelope when it comes to graphic violence that if it were in live action, would get an R rating. "Assault on Arkham" is just as violent, featuring people's heads exploding and Joker stabbing Deadshot many many times, but in addition to that, it gets pretty raunchy as well. For example, Harley solicits Deadshot for sex, who declines, but when Captain Boomerang says he's interested, Harley rebukes, and the scene is full of double entendres. Eventually though, Harley shows up naked in Deadshot's bed and he figures "What the hell?". But I guess since a naked Harley (they don't show anything just to be clear) wasn't enough fanservice, Killer Frost went topless for awhile as well. The point here is that I'm just giving parents a warning. Just because it's Batman and just because it's a cartoon, doesn't mean it's for kids. Movies have ratings for a reason.
One thing I really want to applaud the film for is its attention to detail. Being a tie-in to the Arkham games, they really wanted to make sure they used the same designs for characters and locations. When you look at characters like Batman, Riddler, and Joker, they look a lot like they did in the games. In Batman's case, it was a little odd to actually see his pupils through his mask in animated form. As for locations, the designers did good when it came to the Iceberg Lounge and many of the locations on Arkham Island. It brought back some memories from playing Arkham Asylum. I do have to take some points off though, because Amanda Waller appears as her classic larger self, whereas in the Arkham Origins post-credits scene, she's thin like she is in the New 52.
While I'm sure we're meant to watch the film on its own or as non-canon, I couldn't help but pick apart some things based on my knowledge of the Arkham games. I'll just start with the biggest one, which is the appearance of Bane. During the third act of the film, Joker lets loose everyone in the Asylum, including Bane. For one thing, Bane being in Arkham makes no sense; since he's not insane, he belongs more in Blackgate, which Gordon even stated in the first game. What makes even less sense is why he's hooked up to his Venom pack and even had some ready for use. Let me just put it this way: the Bane in this movie is essentially the hulking thug from "Batman & Robin." Take that in, try to recover from your memories of that film, and then we'll move on.
The next thing that bugged me was that Poison Ivy once again had her giant plant, which was used in a boss battle in the first game. What doesn't make sense there is that Ivy only had that big of plant in the game because Joker was experimenting on plants with the Titan formula. Eventually, Ivy was able to use said plants to her advantage. Considering both that Titan shouldn't exist yet and that in the film the giant plant seemed to just be created out of nowhere, it just doesn't make sense.
One last thing: there's one scene where Joker gets stuck in a falling helicopter, laughing all the way down because he's Joker of course, and it explodes once it hits the ground, but it's later stated that his body wasn't found. Okay, there have been numerous occassions where we see Joker get into a no-escape situation where he totally should have died, but eventually he rears his ugly head again. Now I could have just ignored that like any other time, but let's remember that this Joker is the same one that dies in Arkham City from the effects of the Titan formula in the first game. So you're telling me that this version of Joker can survive being trapped in an exploding helicopter, but he can't get better from a disease? I'll be honest, when I first played through Arkham City and watched Joker die, it freaked me out, because that's something that was never done before. I just find it hard to believe that the Arkham Joker could die so easily.
To sum things up, "Assault on Arkham" kind of has a problem trying to decide what kind of movie it is, especially during the third act. But like other non-game tie-ins to the Arkham universe, it does a good job using the source material and expanding on it, while not necessarily memorable. If it has anything going for it, it's essentially the characters, both in personalities and interaction with one another. Overall, it's kind of all over the place, but if you like the characters and just want to watch something fun and not include anything real significant, this film is right up your alley.
RATING: 6.5/10
