What bothered me the most that he didn't even have any venom. What's Bane without his venom? I understand that they didn't make him massive because they wanted to make it realistic, but taking away Bane's venom is like taking away Superman's cape.
Sadly, I think that's the point. All the die hard comic fans want the movie to match the comics but Nolan wanted to make the series much darker and more believable. I know there's still a lot of fiction in the movie, but Nolan's attitude towards CGI (or lack thereof) is a good example of where he tried to impart a sense of realism.
The scene that comes to my mind was in the second movie when Batman tries to cut into that guys van and his saw get's snagged and he slams into that cement column. That didn't go smooth at all did it? It almost seemed like batman, or his tools, failed a little there. These types of event draw the viewer into a world where there is the possibility that Batman might fail. And also what made the second movie so good.
The third movie got a little weird in general, yeah batman can fix a broken back by hanging from a makeshift traction. Or the idea of that odd bomb. It was definitely a little cheesy, but they could have made it a lot less believable.
They didn't make Batman a superhuman hero, just a guy trying to bring justice to a city spiraling towards the darkness.
The themes were as followed:
Batman Begins: Fear
The Dark Knight: Causality with chaos, and the duality of batman
The Dark Knight Rises: Hope
It's definitely going to be different with the new Batman & Superman. I don't really watch Pete Holmes', but this sketch is dead on
