There are few movies I have looked forward to more than “The Dark Knight.” That’s why this hurts more than most other reviews I might give.

I didn’t enjoy “The Dark Knight.”

Not only did I not enjoy it, it makes me angry that a movie this dark and this sadistic is being targeted toward kids. Some of you may say that I am somewhat of a hypocrite because of other films that I like, such as “No Country for Old Men” or “Blade Runner.” Well, allow me try and pull my reputation up and explain why I feel the way I do.

I am a huge fan of “Batman Begins.” I love how Christopher Nolan reinvented Batman and brought a new complexity to the series. It had become a farce after several misfires with poor casting choices and even poorer scripts. Technically speaking, “The Dark Knight” surpasses its predecessor. The script is tight, there is little wasted dialog and the effects are amazing. The story crackles with all the complexity of a true crime saga in the vein of “Heat.”

So why did I leave the theater feeling soiled?

I suppose ever since the arrival of Poppy and Pete I have hardened quite a bit on what I want to take in or what I want my children to take in. Now, I know I can’t be every child’s parent (and I don’t want to be), but I have a real problem with “The Dark Knight” being advertised to children. And don’t tell this movie isn’t being targeted to kids, because it is. No matter how many reviewers or critics say, “Don’t take your kids to see this,” the Trix Rabbit is a much louder advocate to 7-year-old boys than Gene Shallit. And if the box of Trix shows a picture of Batman exploding from the front of the box with cereal blazing behind him, then you better believe that’s what little Jimmy is going to pester his parents to see. There’s a reason those cereal boxes are on the lower shelves. Have you ever seen a box of bran flakes on the second shelf from the bottom? I didn’t think so.

“The Dark Knight” should have an R-rating. I have no doubt of that. The language isn’t bad enough to warrant it, and really neither is the amount of blood we see on screen. What pushes this movie over the edge from summertime frolic to horror — which it really is — are the themes and dilemmas this film turns on. The moral complexity of this film is not something a 9-year-old really needs to deal with. The cruelty the occurs in this film, both seen and alluded to, is nothing short of sadistic. “The Dark Knight” walks up to a line and then continually steps over. Do I really need to see Harvey Dent torture Jim Gordon’s family to understand his duality?

There were times during the film when I thought I might wind up enjoying myself. But I kept coming back to the fact that I was surrounded by kids and these kids were seeing things that they really couldn’t reconcile.

I know some people will read this and think that I can’t appreciate the intricate aspects of the film and that I don’t understand it — that I “missed the point.” No, I got the point. And I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone. The Joker represented anarchy, chaos — a disruption of the order, which is what makes him truly frightening. His character is actually very similar to that of Anton Chigurh from “No Country For Old Men.” They both do what they do without any regard for the code that the rest of us seem to follow. They aren’t driven by money or greed or lust for material possessions. As Alfred puts it, “They just want to watch the world burn.” And I am aware that people like that exist in this world and pose a threat.

But “No Country For Old Men” wasn’t targeted to kids. The face of Josh Brolin was never emblazoned on a chocolate bar wrapper.

Here’s what I am starting to realize: If I don’t want my kids to be exposed to something, maybe I shouldn’t be exposing myself to it. Just because I’m older and supposedly wiser, do I need to watch something that I wouldn’t want my 10-year-old nephew to see? Just because I can deal with the subject, does it mean I always should? For me these are important questions, because I have loved film for years. But I find more and more that the effects of a “great film” aren’t worth it.