"Dinner for Schmucks"

Don't worry and don't be alarmed. I'm going to say a couple of things that maybe you haven't considered or perhaps you haven't read. These are negative things about what is considered by many to be a perfect film. It doesn't mean I didn't love "The Dark Knight." There just wouldn't be any purpose to me writing this article if I didn't have sentiment about it that differed from the general consensus.

This picture is flawed. Distinctly flawed. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It is the type of flawed picture that comes from trying too hard to do too much, meaning that the roots of the problems are affable and ignorable, but believe me they are there.

The first problem comes with editing that at times is head-scratchingly shoddy and jarring to the audience. It's very easy to ignore when you are sucked into the next scene so easily, but I've seen the picture a couple of times now, and the editing really stands out. While not in itself a deal-breaker, it can separate a great film from a really good one, because every time I see "TDK" it will become ever more apparent. By contrast, I can watch Terrence Malick's "Days of Heaven" over and over again, and never get that feeling. For a film that is so dedicated to its own technical excellence, this shouldn't have been an issue.

The second problem comes from imposing political issue. This is a minor part of the movie, but it is out of place and should have been cut. In case you don't know what I'm talking about (which you probably should) the segment in question is the one that causes the tension between Bruce Wayne and Lucius Fox. This was not necessary to the story and with so much other content, was merely extraneous.

The third, and perhaps most important problem is that while Batman Begins was very clear as to what world it was taking place in (the real one), "TDK" muddles the environment. While Begins was a little far-fetched at times, it didn't require too much suspending of disbelief. It played Batman as straight as he could have been played, made him human, and showed real technical flaws in his growing to become a crime fighter. "The Dark Knight" asks you to take some fairly large leaps of faith. You do, of course. And willingly. It's so much more fun that way. But what you are left with is something that is unclear about its vision. Consider Tim Burton's "Batman" films for a moment. They made no attempt at human depth or reality, but instead wanted to showcase the spectacle of the Batman character and his villains. They were unflinching in their ambition and stand alone as compliments to the recent pictures rather than competing with them. I believe that Goyer and the Nolan brothers chose at times to forget what made their near-perfect original so shocking and standout. It was believable. The Dark Knight isn't. It sits in the middle of Begins and Burton 's films, and the middle is never a place you should aspire to be.

All of this said, it sounds like I'm crapping on the movie, which is just not the case. I loved it. I found it enthralling and entertaining. And intelligent. Everything you've read about Ledger's performance is true. The character of the Joker will never be depicted on film any better than this. There are actors who have won Academy awards for far less. My boy Aaron Eckhart was better than I expected. At 2 ½ hours, it doesn't feel like a long movie at all. There is even a great classic car chase scene, which harkens back to the action films of old. This is the best Hollywood movie of the summer, no doubt about it. But you already knew that.