Do I look like a guy with a plan?

7.54: Standing in a queue to get a good seat in my local flea pit for what seems to be the movie event of the year so far; Nolan’s first and much talked about sequel: The Dark Knight.

I liked it. I never doubted I wouldn’t, I love the cast, I love Nolan’s style and directing prowess, and I love the subject matter. It was unconventional and complex, there was a real world feeling, as if this could be going on somewhere. The script is slick and unpredictable, but helped along by a great story with lots of left field, non-traditional stuff. As Slo Mo Jo said, this isn’t a superhero film; this is a dark psychological thriller. And he’s right. You could change most of the characters for London gangsters in the 70’s, or set it in space with a robot army. The story transcends the setting – as all good script writing should.

However, as much as I enjoyed it something didn’t lie right. Something has been keeping me up at night, it’s not Ledger’s sinister portrayal of a demented anarchic clown. Nor is it the showering of continuity errors or Nolan’s odd editing decisions throughout Knight that made the hero’s swallow or stumble over some choice lines. One notable line was the ‘A little fight in you. I like that.' 'Then you're going to love me.’ exchange. A great one-liner delivered before someone gets punched in the face. I was looking forward to that one, but it felt as if Batman had tripped on his cloak as he delivered it off screen. Similar to Indy’s delivery of the ‘Part time’ line in Crystal Skull, lost with no impact. But let’s not mention The Dark Knight and Indy 4 in the same post.

Back to my point. Indy was a disappointment in the same way Star Wars Episode 1 was. The hype and excitement of seeing a new episode of a childhood fantasy is just too big, nothing could fulfil such expectations. Short of me being Indy’s sidekick or getting to ride shotgun with Solo, these are just films. 20 years of imagination has the ability to make something bigger than it can ever be on screen.

It’s only been a couple of years since Batman Begins. So what’s my problem with Batman 2 or 6? (Other than not being involved with it’s production, although through a strange turn of fate I did get to visit the location used for Gordon’s police headquarters. The George Farmiloe building in Farringdon; an old disused plumbers merchants, totally unrelated job, but very cool.) It's only been a couple of years and the new franchise is looking good - I was a Burton fan, and just as Nolan he breathed new life into a tired territory - remember Adam West's 60's rainbow monstrosity? Burton brought the dark, as has Nolan. Bale is a fantastic Batman and Oldman's Gordon really delivers. Cain as the wise, caring Alfred couldn't be more perfect. Less said about Holmes the better. Although I didn't like the Gyllenhaal replacement, she's not worth saving in my view - not strong or feminine enough to hold Batman's gaze. A minor point.

I'm still troubled.

I think my uneasiness with DK is that it is different. Iron Man was good; good FX, good performances. It delivered a tech superhero in a comic book wrapper. But Downey Jr.’s Stark didn’t keep me up all night chewing over the fat in my mind. Why can’t I shake Bale and Ledger’s end confrontation from my brain? And it’s not about where those scalloped fin flechettes went. There is something more, something fundamental missing.

It’s the unstoppable force meets an unmovable object idea, Batman is not a superhero. He is a comic book character created by Bob Kane, he’s not a Stan Winston abomination, there’s no radioactive bats or a botched military experiment, he’s a paranoid schizophrenic. He's DC, not Marvel. As Frank Miller put it: ‘A dionysian figure, a force for anarchy that imposes an individual order. Dressed as a bat, Batman deliberately cultivates a frightening persona, sometimes even torturing people, in order to aid him in crime fighting.’ He’s a fucking nut job, as are most of his enemies. He's not bubblegum, he's not popcorn. The reviews had misled me, I'd lost sight.

As a child he watched his parent’s get murdered in cold blood for a few bucks.

This comes out, stronger than ever in DK, but also present is Nolan’s ability to make you think. He made the choices in DK to get the response he wanted. It’s supposed to be uneasy and jarring. It’s not Hollywood, it’s Gotham, and it sucks. I had a lump in my throat and a knot in my gut, not because of honor or the love of a father for a child - but because he’s done it without me realising. I've been led down the dark alley without thinking and I'm taking sweets from a stranger and getting in his car.

We know the story, we know the city, we know the characters. But I didn’t know this film. This isn’t Keaton in the snow delivering a slick line about change, this is the shit going down, this is Bale beating up his family in a hotel room, this is Ledger kicking the bucket on a cocktail of drugs, this hurts and it hurts good. Batman Begins touched on the dark that was needed to wake the beast, showed us where it could go. The Dark Knight goes there if you want to or not.

Brilliantly, Nolan has set lots of key scenes in the day, with bright sunlight. Batman Begins was a dark film in lighting but easy to watch. DK is a sunny film, but dark in tone.

No one likes change, but it is necessary, without it we get more remakes and more watered down versions of the greatness that has gone before. This is how ‘reimaginations’ should be. Joel Schumaker can go jump, this isn’t easy watching this is the new order. I didn’t like it and that’s good. You’re not supposed to, this isn’t entertainment this is a kick in the teeth. I am Jack’s raging bile duct.

This is the kind of film that makes you think. I don’t like what I think, but thinking is good. The more I see the more I want. This film is gonna be the kind you can watch for years to come and still get a kick. Who enjoyed The Shining the first time round, or Seven or La Haine? Not eye candy, but brain booze.

I just can't wait to see what Nolan does next...

Woof.