Let me preface this by saying that I did not enter the cinema wanting or expecting to dislike this film. I had heard nothing but praise for it as a film, and despite my usual preference for less mainstream fare, I decided to take a chance in the hope that it might indeed be a great work of cinema.

Furthermore, I should add that this may well be one of the best superhero movies ever made, and indeed, may even be one of the best action films ever made.

So perhaps it is unfair for me to criticise this movie too heavily, inextricably bound by its genre as it is. That is to say, perhaps it would be unfair, if it were not so seemingly unanimously lauded by critics and fans alike. Of course, we all know that the Internet Movie Database top 250 is not necessarily a great reflection of quality, but even so, you would think that the film that now heads this list should at least be in the ballpark of the greatest movies of all time.

In my humble opinion, it is far from it. Indeed, even for what it was, and what it was trying to be, I don't believe it was entirely successful. Sure, 146,000-odd IMDb users might disagree with me, but you've got to factor in the massive hype surrounding this film when viewing the critical reaction. It is worth asking, how will this film be viewed in 12 months? 20 years, even?

Either way, let me address what, in my opinion, are the major flaws of the movie.

It might seem unfair to criticise it for the genre to which it belongs, but I believe that the cinematic art has far, far more potential than the action movie genre allows it. For example, however well "Road Trip" compares to other films of its kind, it is still justly recognised as a poor film. Returning to this movie, I don't think you would find much argument in defining the action genre as depending upon explosions, cheap suspense, cheesy dialogue and formulaic/contrived plot lines. Can one fault such a successful and popular mix? I believe so, because popularity does not necessarily amount to artistic merit, and film is, after all, an art form.

One of the cornerstones of a great film is acting. Heath Ledger's admittedly excellent performance aside, the acting in this film is not that great. Maggie Gyllenhaal is wasted in a poorly written role that does not allow her much to do, while Aaron Eckhart is never convincing, and even approaches hamminess once the big plot twist has been revealed (Which, while a good idea in concept, is made to look silly due to poor dialogue). Christian Bale, in the title role, is utterly uninspiring, Michael Caine (himself a great actor) is given a clichéd and predictable role, and Morgan Freeman's character seems to be there for little reason whatsoever.

The plot, meanwhile, often appears contrived. There were several confusing moments ("Why is he here now? When did that happen?"). Sure, further viewings might serve to explain these apparent shortcomings, but my first impression was that of an average script. As for the ending, I'm torn between commending it for its idea, and condemning it for its silliness and blatant preparation for another sequel.

Of course, the film is not completely flawed. As stated above, Heath Ledger is an unusually convincing movie villain, and I commend the film for avoiding gratuitous violence. The dialogue and acting, while at times poor, are probably at a far higher standard than most movies of this kind, and the story itself has some interesting concepts, and unfolds nicely at times.

Therefore, in the realm of action films, it deserves praise. Even in the realm of Hollywood film, perhaps, it deserves praise. However, as a representative of the cinematic art form, it does not - and that, in the end, is a true measure of a film's overall quality.