First off, I'm angry at you. Yes, you. Don't turn your head and act like you weren't part of the problem. You're the very reason I fought every instinct I had and wasted 2 hours of my life on this cinematic afterbirth masquerading as "the best film of 2008." It was you after all who sang its praises and hailed it as a "dark masterpiece." Shame on you! I would have much rather been forced to projectile vomit infant wolverines (while being systematically kicked in the genitals) than to sit through this complete and utter waste of money. How many starving children could have been fed instead of funding this pitiful excuse for entertainment?

By now, I'm assuming that you know I was not a fan, so without further delay; let's jump into why your former friend Simon hated this film.

1) The Dark Knight - Really Christian Bale? That's the best you can do for a brooding, dark tone? I would have rather heard Fran Drescher after an all-night bender than that raspy, gravel-toned mess you expelled. I was so hoping those attack dogs would have punctured your larynx so I wouldn't have to hear you utter one more piece of dialog in that affected and completely moronic timber.

2) Two Face - Chemical burns are amongst the most painful punishments a human can endure (not quite as excruciating as watching this movie mind you, but in the same stratosphere). We're supposed to somehow swallow that Harvey amazingly can not only speak (and check out those sparkling white teeth post-accident! Screw Crest White Strips, get me some chemical sludge a.s.a.p) but also perform the incredibly stupid task of flipping a coin ad nauseam? Golly, the guy seems more energetic post-injury than he did before the "tragic," loss of...

3) Rachel Dawes - Lord help me, but I couldn't help but think of Droopy the Dog every time she filled the screen. DO NOT tell me how much better her performance was than Katie Holmes. I was under the impression that I paid money to be entertained. Dame Judy Dench is a much better actress than Scarlett Johansen, but I know who I'd rather see topless.

4) Heath Ledger - Sssshh. Let's be very quiet and not knock the performance of the dearly departed. Yes, the saving grace of the film was the performance of The Joker (except for that licking of the lips shit. Enough already!), but let's not dilute ourselves. I challenge you to be objective for a moment. Are we simply giving him a "Brandon Lee" pass because of his untimely death? His turn has been hailed as the top villainous performance of ALL TIME. Was it truly a better performance than:

1) Anthony Hopkins in "The Silence of the Lambs"
2) Anthony Perkins in "Psycho"
3) Ralph Fiennes in "Schindler's List"
4) Jack Nicholson in "The Shining"
5) Robert DeNiro in "Taxi Driver"
6) Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction"
7) Dennis Hopper in "Blue Velvet"
8) Louise Fletcher in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"
9) Linda Blair in "The Exorcist"
10) Malcolm McDowell in "A Clockwork Orange"

Since opinions cannot be proven as fact, it's entirely pointless to debate. My criticism is not with Mr. Ledger's performance, but rather with society's instant stamp of perfection when a famous individual passes.

5) Underutilization of assets - So Christopher Nolan, you've procured the talents of Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman. Spot on!

Now let's see what delicious material you've given them to chew on.....Oh, WTF? What ignominious drivel, Christopher. Poorly played indeed.

Two of them are Academy award winners and one should have been many times over! (The fact that Oldman wasn't nominated for his turn in True Romance is an outright robbery, but that's another article.) If that was the best you could design for that trio, why did you waste their time and ours? Damn, any high school performer could have stepped in and delivered the same resonance. You simply don't need such "cool toys," if all you're going to do is let them collect dust. Should I really have been shocked since you stooped to.....

6) The "surprising" reveal...not once, but twice! - (Spoiler warning - I'm not sure who I'm spoiling this for considering this flick has been viewed more than the phenomenal ass on the hot tramp at your local pub.)

Maybe some of you didn't make the immediate connection that The Joker was in on his own little game during the bank robbery opening. I'll forgive you for that one (maybe you were distracted by the 25,765 teens in the theatre who were casting their unique ambiance by texting until their digits bled).

But the second one? How could it be any more obvious that it was Jim Gordon during the second reveal? If this one "rocked your senses," perhaps you should be watching some other edge of your seat mind benders like the TV show "Bananas in Pajamas." Have we become so dense as a society that we can't even predict the simplest of twists? Memo to you: The writers are NOT going to kill Jim Gordon (and I'll bet contractually they couldn't anyway). So logically, if he's not dead, and you suddenly have this masked baddy whose the antithesis of verbose, please deduct that the Commish must be the hoodlum.

7) Sometimes length is not a good thing - 152 damn minutes. Excruciatingly long for a flick I simply abhor, but that's also too long for a film that I hold with the highest esteem. Hell, I don't even want to bang a chick for 152 minutes (plus all I'm doing is guaranteeing her a bladder infection, but I digress).

Mr. Nolan's inability to chop this thing down to a palatable hour and a half was superciliousness at its worst. Chris, save the pomposity and get back to making films like Memento.

Speaking of taking too long, I'm out; although I leave you with this quick thought: If I write an article that everyone disagrees with, did I really write it?