I have pondered over what I think about the latest Batman film for a couple of weeks now. I saw it the day after release, and have not been able to stop thinking about it. Firstly, is it a great film? Hmmmm. Maybe. It’s definitely a good film. But it leaves you with an odd feeling. Many people just rave about it, and most notably Heath Ledger’s performance, but it takes more than an immediate reaction to analyse what exactly Christopher Nolan has done with the Batman franchise.

The film is epic to say the least. From the opening shot over the skyscrapers of Gotham City, you get the impression of scale. The brief sojourn to Hong Kong gives you the impression, this is real. Gotham is real. Could Batman be…real?

Reality is the keyword, I reckon. At no point during this film do you have to suspend your disbelief for too long. They even open up the real world scenarios of what is and isn’t possible by name dropping the U.S. military Skyhook (actually called the Fulton surface-to-are recovery system). OK…so Bats is a little more flashy than your average stranded G.I. Joe, but there is still the possibility that binds the Dark Knight to the audience.

Each character is very well used, and notably not over used. Unlike many superhero films, the characters serve a purpose, and give us a sense of history. You know just enough of even the new characters for you to become involved in their drama, and this applies especially to Harvey Dent. I love what is done with this character from start to finish. I expected not to like him, and to relish his downfall into the Two-Face persona, but I wish it didn’t happen. Harvey is in many ways the emotional centre of this film, and not Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Not that the main character is sidelined at all, but it doesn’t seem like Batman is the main character of the piece (if that makes any sense…probably not). The film is an ensemble of intertwining personalities, each with an agenda and a path to travel. And the moment you realise this, is the moment the curtain comes up, with an ending that leaves you gasping for more, while pondering if it was an ending at all.

In many ways (and maybe deliberate) this is the Empire Strikes Back of the franchise. I cannot see the Nolan brothers going for a fourth film, nor Bale et al. to be honest. I think there is an end point in sight. It’s another couple of hours away…but it is there in the distance. And speaking of which, the 2 and a half-ish hours that were spent did not drag…but neither did they fly by. I felt the screen reached out and held me just long enough to experience the film, and I don’t think I have felt like that since Lord of the Rings.

Heath Ledger is damn good in his role of the Joker. And no one will ever play it the way he did, which is a very good thing. A problem with it is that his character obviously has a future in this Batman universe, so how they are going to fit that in I don’t know. Probably lock him up in Arkham Asylum for the fourth instalment when all the original cast and crew have vacated the plot, which will inevitably happen (an inevitably disappoint). But does Heath deserve an Oscar? No. Probably not. He did well, but it isn’t the sort of role which would merit an Oscar. It doesn’t matter how good he was, the Joker is not Oscar material. He may be one of the most menacing, evil and anarchic silver screen villains in history, but Oscars don’t go out to that type of character.

One thing to pick up on is the reference in the media that this is not a “comic book” movie. It’s a “crime thriller” or something like that. Mark Kermode on Radio 5 was taking great exception to this, but as per usual I think he missed the point. In a similar way to referring to Road to Perdition as a comic book move doesn’t really fit, neither does The Dark Knight. There has never been a superhero film like this, and the tone is one of a human drama in amongst some mighty technological gadgetry and amazing characters. It breaks the mould, and gives the genre something new to aim for (which even Batman Begins could not do). So I think it is fine to call it a thriller or a crime story or a comic book movie. You don’t have to take exception to it not being called a comic book movie as the end result is one of many things.

One thing I do take exception to is the presence of children in the screening. This is not a film for children. Most of the content will go over their heads, but this argument that “it’s only comic book violence” is tosh. When Batman interrogates the Joker, he might not leave much of a mark on him, but he leaves a hole in the wall behind him. Violence is violence, and if there is no consequence, no explicit context then it is unsuitable for children. And by saying that, I believe the The Dark Knight has these things present and correct. There are scenes in this film which are ultraviolent. You might not see the aftermath and gore, but the intent is there. But it just seems that a lack of blood is just fine with the BBFC to pass it as a 12A and as I’ve said before with this fantasy violence argument: children are not stupid. It just seems the BBFC are.

So after all this babble, is it good. Yes. Is it great? Still thinking on that one (…maybe yes). Batman’s gruff voice might get on your nerves after a while, but nothing can deny this is a work of art in many ways. It is the way cinema should be, and sits neatly alongside its peers of Alien and Blade Runner as something to savour.