I’ve been sat in front of the computer screen for a number of hours now. The shiny cursor was flashing across the screen at the same point it had been opened with at the beginning of the endeavour. And you know what, I am stumped. I’ve watched repeats of Top Gear in that time, been and had a shower, which would shock people alone, and done some washing all the time that cursor has stayed in the same place on the screen.

I couldn’t put it off any more. I had to sit back down at the wireless keyboard with the crumbs of bread and marmite stains all rounded off with the dust of neglect and just begin typing whatever came into my head, hence this opening few paragraphs.

I suppose the issue about this particular brand of bloggers’ block, came about when I decided to write about the summer blockbuster film known as the Dark Knight.

The first things that kept popping into my head were two questions: Hands up who hasn’t seen the Dark Knight yet? One,two,three…. OK forget that. Hands up who thinks Heath Lodger has got an Oscar. Ok, that’s everyone then.

That’s the problem with the film, there is a little lingering feeling that I went to watch the film, not only for the fact that it was a sequel to one of the best Batman movies in quite a number of years, but the fact was that this was Heath Ledger’s last full film before he left this mortal coil on a blaze of pills.

Some have said that it was the fact he played the Joker so well, and his method of acting was so deep that he became depressed about the entire thing and that resulted in his untimely demise.

Nothing but praise has been levied at the deceased actor from his fellow actors, the critics out there on the internet and on television, and the mystery of the actor’s death and other circumstances have given this an even bigger stage than you would have thought possible.

That shouldn’t have an impact of the viewing of this film but it does, no matter what anyone would say and the simple fact is here, that because he died, Hollywood are so much for the mock accolades to make itself feel better that he is going to get an Oscar for the performance anyway.

Which means that the focus when I meandered down to the Cineworld at West India Quays, was to see if this was truly the case, had the man done enough to truly secure such a meaningless piece of metal, meaningless in the sense that he would never be able to pick it up, or indeed even know what he had achieved?

This task alone was enough to take away from watching the rest of the film in it’s entirety, which is not a bad film at all.

For a start, there has been care taken for the continuity from the first film in the guise of the scene re-introducing Batman to the masses where the man with the funny sackhead finally gets his comeuppance with the help of men who also think they are Batman as well. You start learning what happens to the Mob family who were losing the battle in the first film when the caped crumpet turned up.

We don’t see Wayne Manor at all, the building having been burned down of course, so the locations are different, the Bat cave is not a cave, but a car showroom. “Excuse me, do you sell any tanks with a gas fire at the back?” Well you’re in luck, this model just came in sir.

All the people who matter are back in their roles and decidedly more comfortable, with the exception of Kate thingy-cruise, who was rubbish as Reclining Doors in the first film, so the people responsible for the money chucked her out in favour of Maggie Gynaecologist, brother of Jake Gynaecologist, and I bet they were picked on at school for silly spelt names.

But of course we get introduced to new people with new ideas, and to be fair, the moment when we see the Joker with the group of criminals and also Eric Roberts was there, the presence the Joker has, and the trick with the pencil was such pure brilliance and lunacy, that I wanted to clap there and then, thus disrupting everyone else and that would be rude. So I simply farted in silent applause and carried on watching.

It does get better that the good guys are winning and now perhaps there is no need for the Batman to be about at all, thanks to the introduction of Hardy-boy Bent, Golem City’s new DA. Perhaps Batman can retire? Not with the Joke about it appears.

What follows is basically a fight to see who will come out on top, despite the fact you know that already, deep down in your gut.

What is more interesting, are the scenes with both the Joker and the Batman, both perhaps opposite sides of the same coin. Everything is cool and calculated with Batman, while it seems the Joker will be just some numpty who does whatever for s**ts and giggles and the story bore that out.

It’s actually quite difficult to describe anything further and explore what went on without revealing even more than what’s been written already, and there’s so much in it, I am struggling to contain myself, and I will fail badly.

So for those who haven’t seen it, all three of you, watch out for spoilers from here onwards. If you don’t want to know more, go look at a basket of kittens and then imagine them on fire.

There are two complaints to be levelled at the film, both of which will more than likely to cause some debate as to whether or not I have gone off the bridge shouting “WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE” as my bulbous body falls to the ground. And no, it’s not the length of the film as you might expect. That was actually fine.

First off, why introduce Harvey Dent at all as the man with two sides to him at all? We really had enough with the Joker as it was, without a second evil doer being thrown in towards the end for good measure? Perhaps it was because he was supposed to be the man to save us all and the Joker changes all that, that was the true purpose he was meant to serve.

And second, I thought the Joker would actually be in it a lot more. That’s the impression I got from the complete avalanche of advertising for the film on the TV, the tube, and previews shown elsewhere. It appears to have been one of those things to capitalise the fact that Heath is in the film, this was his last, go and see it because of that.

So all in all, did he steal the show? He certainly stole the write-up on the post, given the fact that next to no space has even been given to the likes of Mr “It’s private” Bale, the cool Mr. Caine, the even cooler Mr. Freeman or even Mr. “I’m not being naughty any more like in Leon” Oldman, who all did well in their performances.

Well, perhaps I’m being a wee bit generous to Mr. Bale, after all, all he had to do was talk in a angry gruff voice and do a lot of fancy stuff taken care of by stuntmen, so I’m inclined to be a little more critical there. And no, it’s not because he’s Welsh. In the first film, I thought he was brilliant, made the character his own. This time, well, perhaps it’s all in the eye of the beholder.

The Joker did come close stealing the show, as he had presence in every scene he was in, but as for stealing the show, he had already done that with his death. On screen, there wasn’t enough to be 100% sure, great performance, but he also had to contend with Jack Nicholson’s version of the Joker from the 1989 version with Michael Keaton as the man with the bat fixation.

And I think, Mr Ledger got it, but not by miles as you would expect. This joker was just allowed to go more nuts than in 1989 and it showed. A scary individual only by made more scary by wearing a nurse’s outfit before blowing up a hospital. Strange but true.

As it stands, the Dark Knight was a great thrill ride, with actually a good story, not one that was just there, except perhaps in the case of Harvey Lent, it did continue on the work began in Batman Begins. The length was one that was good enough for what they included, and all the actors did play a great part when they were on screen in bringing across whatever it was they were supposed to.

And yet, as I said at the beginning, there is that tinge that it’s success was helped by an overdose. Why do I get this feeling?