"The Dark Knight" is not a masterpiece.

** PLOT SPOILERS EVERYWHERE **

Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is one of the better films in the history of its genre, however, it does not qualify as a masterpiece. In fact, it's quite far from such a distinction. It falls short of unquestionable excellence because of a ridiculously high number of plot holes, most of which regard The Joker and his criminal exploits.

It is a given that Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker leaves us with a character who is thoughtful, unpredictable, ruthless, unrelenting, and arguably insane. That is to say, some inconsistencies in the villain should be accepted, if not embraced. But others, to be frank,
are unacceptable because of their stupidity. For example: In the film's opening sequence, a clever bank heist spearheaded by The Joker, the crazed clown kills off his partners as the caper progresses. At the time, it made sense. Pretty simple, the more colleagues he kills off,
the more money that leaves for him. But later on in the film, The Joker burns his half of the criminal underworld's combined fortune. He makes it overtly clear that he is not motivated by money. Not in the least bit.

So why was the money a factor in the opening scene? It shouldn't have been. Uneven scripting there.

But that's nitpicking in comparison to the film's greater faults. The ultimate reason why "The Dark Knight" falls short of the masterpiece label is because there is absolutely no way, under any circumstances, at any time, on any planet or in any solar system, that The Joker could execute so many complex plans in such a short period of time.

OK, here is where people start saying: "But it's a movie! It doesn't have to be possible." I know, thanks. I agree, it doesn't have to be possible. But, and this is a huge BUT, a film as ambitious and lengthy as "The Dark Knight" wants to be taken seriously. Not only does it want to be taken seriously, I think director Christopher Nolan wants Oscar consideration for the work he has put in here, and cast members have been saying regularly that they don't want this to be considered as a mere "superhero movie," or "action movie." Well if you want to elevate to the level of serious drama, then you have to explain a few things to me.

(1) How does The Joker continue to find willing participants in his escapades when all of his previous crew members end up dead or in jail? The guys he's finding to work for him have to be true idiots. Totally brainless. And that doesn't work because The Joker's plans are meticulous and require precise timing and execution. If these goons are dumb enough to work for him, they aren't smart enough to be effective as help. It's a perpetual contradiction throughout the film, particularly the second act.

(2) Sure The Joker is swift and tricky, but c'mon, he doesn't exactly look like a normal citizen. If city-wide security has been heightened to a level never before seen, how the hell is this maniac with a painted face and wacky hair not being spotted? Does he have an invisible transportation machine or something? He doesn't have supernatural powers, so he shouldn't have a supernatural aura.

(3) When did he have the time to wire the hospital with bombs? Even if one of his goons did it, how did no one in the hospital notice suspicious activity? What about the assassination attempt on the Mayor? The other cops on the firing line didn't notice the most infamous villain in the city standing right next to them? Why? Because he crouched over a little and tried not to make eye contact with them? Please. I could go on for days, too many plot liberties were taken.

I'd actually like to discuss the performances a bit. I think the separation between the strongest part and the rest of the cast is the largest ever with an ensemble of this size and magnitude. Meaning, Heath Ledger's performance was far and away the best in this film, better to the point where it bothered me that no one else was in his realm. The scenes where Ledger was off screen lacked the magnetism and intrigue of the ones in which he appeared. Although appeared is probably not the best word, more like dominated.

Christian Bale was OK as Batman, but he's almost too stoic for a character with such strong morals and opinions. He's also a little bit stiff when he's in playboy mode as Bruce Wayne. I think his performance in "The Prestige" was more emotional, effective, and polished.

Aaron Eckhart was all right as Harvey Dent/Two-Face, but the problem was that the vast majority of the time I was seeing Eckhart on screen, not Dent. The same Eckhart we saw in "Thank You For Smoking." Also, a man with a finely tuned social philosophy, like Dent, would not totally flip his ideology after the loss of a close loved one. Hopefully the angle is that the toxin causing the disfigurement messed more with his brain than we were led on to believe.

Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman were believable as always, but of course they are underused as Alfred and Lucius Fox. Gary Oldman probably contributed the second strongest performance in the film as Commissioner Gordon, and Maggie Gyllenhaal (as Rachel Dawes) was a step up from Katie Holmes as far as execution and timing -- but that's not saying much. The scene in which The Joker meets Rachel may have been more effective with Holmes.

I really could go on for days, but I'll spare you. All in all, I liked the film because it had some thought-provoking sequences involving moral dilemmas and intriguing societal questions, and in having such "The Dark Knight" succeeded in escaping the "superhero movie" label. But it's not a masterpiece.

Plain and simply, it has too many holes.