Heath Ledger is every bit as good as you've heard, the movie isn't.

I gotta start off by letting you know a couple of things. First off, I think Christopher Nolan is great. Memento is outstanding, Insomnia is great, and The Prestige is one of my favorite movies of all time. The second thing I have to get out there is that I don't typically like movies based on comic books. The only comic book film I've actually really been impressed by is X2. There are a few I consider to be at least worth seeing, like Batman (the one with Jack Nicholson) and the first X-Men, but typically I just don't like them. (As an aside: I haven't seen Iron Man yet, even though everyone raves about it.)

All that said, I have a soft spot for Batman. I used to watch the old series with Adam West after school. And the animated series was a cartoon staple for my generation. I think Batman Returns is alright, and though it's not that good I enjoyed Batman Forever. Batman and Robin, on the other hand, is on my list of the five worst movies ever made (hey, there's another blog topic); it may be the absolute worst.

So you put Christopher Nolan together with my favorite comic book franchise, I ought to like the product right? You'd think so.

The fact is, I do like Batman Begins and I do like The Dark Knight. I just don't love them, and I certainly don't think they're as spectacular as everyone keeps saying. I don't have anything more to say about Begins because it's been a long time since I've watched it. But let's examine The Dark Knight:

Like I said, Heath Ledger is incredible. I was skeptical, honestly. I thought everyone was just raving because he died after filming the movie. And I thought the idea of a posthumous Oscar nomination was preposterous. Boy, was I wrong. The guy's amazing and I'd give him an Academy Award any day. It's truly an awe-inspiring performance.

The pacing is good and only seems to drag in a couple of places. And running just over two and a half hours, it really doesn't feel it's length. But with about ten minutes left, it does feel like it's taking its time wrapping things up.

The story's decent, and even interesting. And while the role is just a really weak one, Maggie Gyllenhall is far better than Katie Holmes as Rachel. But how could she not be?

So why didn't I like it?

I did.

But why didn't I love it?

It should be better. Christian Bale's good, but his low, gravelly Batman voice is really irritating. The development is good from act one, all the way through act two, and even into act three. But there's the problem. Act III. It builds and builds to a terribly disappointing climax, where little gets resolved. Now I can't give things away here; so without proper context, the only word I dare use to describe the way things wrap up is "unnecessary."

I really, really, really hated the ending. I was so disappointed.

It's a good movie, but it should be better than it is. And it doesn't deserve all the four-star reviews.