Somebody said The Dark Knight just may be one of the top ten movies ever made.  So I made sure I saw it on the Big Screen, expecting to be blown away.

If you haven’t seen it already, let me do you a favour by lowering your expectations somewhat.

It is a good movie.  A very good movie.  And I use the word “very” knowing full well that it is the whore of the English language, as my old English teacher Mr. Arsenault used to say.  But is The Dark Knight one of the ten best movies ever made?

No.  It may be one of the ten best comic book adaptations ever made.  Maybe even one of the top three.  ’Cause Spiderman Two was better.  And Batman Returns was pretty darned good too.

Now a part of this might just be my own personality.  I’m a big fan of humour myself.  Not Batman the Television series kind of humour, just humour.  Anything funny.  It doesn’t have to be all funny, but a few chuckles never hurt anything.  And to be fair there are two or three subtle chuckles in The Dark Knight.  Intelligent chuckles too, that not everyone watching got, I don’t think.  I appreciated those chuckles.  I could have used a few more.

Here’s the thing: in my view critics are all over this movie because it’s a serious movie.  It’s without a doubt the most serious comic book adapation ever made (at least until The Watchmen comes out).  They’re calling it a dark movie.  But it really isn’t so much dark as it is SERIOUS in big bold blinking letters.  And that’s why the critics love it, because it’s so stinking serious.  Covering some seriously serious themes, such as, how do you beat the bad guys when they don’t play by the same rules as you do?  And it’s fine all this seriousness, it’s fairly intelligent and not goofy and definitely way closer to the spirit of the original Batman.

But in my view the seriousness, the earnestness of the movie also tanks it a little bit.  Who likes to hang out with someone who’s so friggin’ serious all the time?  Even Heath Ledger’s much vaunted Joker is pretty serious.  A little more wit from the man wouldn’t have hurt, and would have added to the entertainment value.  ‘Cause the movie wasn’t quite as entertaining as it could have been.  It was thought provoking, and interesting, but entertaining?  Silence of the Lambs wasn’t all that entertaining either, come to think of it; it was a movie (and a performance) I appreciated more than enjoyed.  I’m not sure you can be both grim and entertaining.

The curious thing about The Dark Knight is that it was so adult and so serious and yet so full of plot holes at the same time.  Now, I’m not that much of a stickler for plot holes; I kind of subscribe to Hitchcock’s notion that if the ride is exhilarating enough the odd plot hole shouldn’t bother you.  And The Dark Knight certainly had its share of exhilarating moments.  But in a movie so ostensibly adult and serious I had trouble getting past the following question: (Spoiler alert) How the heck did the Joker place all those bombs everywhere without anybody spotting them?  How did he manage to walk away from Gotham General without some sharpshooter or even beat cop plugging him in the chest?

Yes, I know it’s a comic book adaptation and HItchcock would decry me for a “plausible.”  Sorry, Hitch.

I did enjoy the movie.  But I wish I’d seen it with my expectations properly managed.

You’re welcome.