Who's Afraid of The Dark Knight?

I'm sure there has already been loads written about TDK, seeing as it is smashing box-office records and all. I've read a fair amount of TDK reviews (and, of course, seen the movie several times) and there's one criticism that has been made of the movie that I find, well, curious (to be charitable).

And that criticism seems to boil down to: The Dark Knight isn't Hamlet.

Surprisingly enough, I've actually seen this criticism in several reviews, but it was particularly glaring in a piece written for the Daily Mail by Chris Tookey (review can be found here). Now, I'm not here to debate the merits of whether Batman in general, or more specifically TDK, has the depth of Hamlet, or even whether TDK deserves to be taken seriously as a work of art (I think it does, but that is a debate for a different time). What I am here to do is criticize this particular argument, as I think it misses the mark.
In criticizing TDK for its lack of real depth, Tookey writes:

"Nolan and his co-writer brother Jonathan evidently think Batman is a figure whose tragic qualities have Shakespearean depth.
But he isn't - mainly because his problems aren't universal enough.
How many of us face the problem of having a split personality, or unlimited wealth, or the responsibility of being solely able to fight the worst kinds of crime?
You can take a character out of a comic-strip, but you can't take the comic-strip out of the character.
Batman is not a tragic hero at all, but an adolescent action-figure with the kind of problems most of us can only dream of having."

Given that the main point of his argument is that "Batman isn't Hamlet," I find this argument rather odd. After all, few of us will ever be in the position Hamlet finds himself in--none of us will ever be a Prince of Denmark, and few amongst us will have our fathers killed by conniving and ambitious uncles. Of course, as most people realize, we don't need to experience the exact same situations as fictional characters in order to find something similar there, to find something that relates to us in a deep way. Much in Batman (and, indeed, in all of superhero lore) touches on issues associated with leading secret lives, alter-egos, and so forth. Even if this isn't "universally relevant" (and I am sure many do find the idea of leading a secret life relevent to their own lives), there is much in TDK that seems certainly universal.
So while none of us may have the wealth that Bruce Wayne has, or the mastery of martial arts, and so forth, it just seems false to say the moral issues dealt with in the film (being a real hero vs. being a perceived hero, what means are appropriate in fighting imjustice and terrorism, being an outcast for doing what is right, to name a few) aren't universal merely because the particular hero Batman isn't universal.

I am also unclear as to what point exactly is being made when we learn that Batman doesn't have the depth of Hamlet. Let's say we grant this, for the sake of argument... so what? Is a novel or play not good, or not art, just because it isn't as good or artistic as Hamlet? There are many works of art that have value--and many deep and interesting protagonists--that don't have the depth of Hamlet.

So is TDK a deep and meaningful work? Maybe, maybe not. But if we're going to even have such a debate, the actual movie and its themes deserve serious scrutiny, rather than the careless dismissal that Tookey gives TDK because it is about a superhero.