As much as it pains me to say it, but this really was inferior to TDK in pretty much every way. Perhaps that's to be expexcted but I felt that Nolan would still come a lot closer to it than this.
As strange as this sounds, I think the main problem with it is the fact that it suffers from too many of the typical summer comic-book blockbuster trappings. We have the hero, quite literally, in a pit of despair before being reborn and redeeming himself, a ridiculously overblown threat, theatrical dialogue, heavy-handed exposition and the kind of sentimental conclusion that feels at odds with the rest of the Nolan franchise.
I'm not suggesting they should actually have killed Batman off at the end, but the whole, 'you thought I was dead but actually I bailed out thanks to the auto-pilot and am living happily elsewhere' seemed like the kind of thing you'd find in a Captain America or Iron Man film, not here. Plus every appearance of The Bat just pulled me out of the film, I don't know what it's doing in Nolan's universe, other than because The Caped Crusader needs a new toy.
In general, the best superhero movies, and certainly the most critically acclaimed, are those that work to deny their comic-book roots and anchor the thing in a far more recognisable reality (The Avengers may have been massive but you couldn't really call it relevant). That's what TDK did so well, it resisted the whole comic-book sensibility and refused to acknowlege any of the rules which usually apply. So you end up with an allegory about post-9/11 counterterrorism, a villain who feels like the guy you might just meet walking down the street one day(if you're unlucky) not some super-fiend who only lives and breathes for the duration of the movie, a central love interest killed off halfway through, a decent cop made to endure the trauma of his family being held at gunpoint and a hero making the biggest of sacrifices for the greater good.
TDK is so striking because it breaks the rules, there's a genuine sense of jeopardy and risk about the whole thing (much of this comes from Ledger's Joker of course, who invests the movie with real nervous tension) but TDKR doesn't feel anywhere near as audacious, in any sense.
Tom Hardy's a fine actor, but the script doesn't really allow him to do much with Bane. He certainly looks fearsome, but as written, he's disappointingly one-note and almost vague, nowhere near as nuanced, textured, multi-facted or even as terrifying as The Joker. Ledger made me genuinely uneasy, Bane just kind of lumbers around. Being made to act only with your eyes is problematic enough, but when coupled with the 'audio-issue', you really are fighting a losing battle.
The thing is though, Bane had the potential to be every bit as resonant as his predecessor, maybe even more so, I felt the script missed several opportunities to make him into a genuinely foreboding presence. Imagine instead of Gordon diving off into the sewer stream and getting shot, he was down there alone and being stalked throughout the tunnels by Bane. You really would have had a sense of his vulnerability and the kind of punishment Bane would mete out when he finally found him. Maybe had Hardy's body language being far more frenetic or rampaging he would have been more impactful.
Speaking of Gordon, why did they keep him confined to a hospital bed for such a large stretch of the movie? Why was Michael Caine so under-used and where did Alfred go? While we're at it, why did they remove Bruce Wayne from Gotham altogether? When your main character isn't at the heart of the story pushing the drama forward you know something's wrong.
The great thing about TDK was that Wayne/Batman was so intrinsic to every moment of the story. His tireless efforts to stop The Joker gave the movie real urgency and momentum. Character and plot were in complete synchronicity at all times, we didn't just stop for a bit and run on the spot.
Hathaway was brilliant, she just about the stole the show for me and should have been in it far more. Her interactions with Bale had real frisson and finally injected some sex into a strangely clinical trilogy. Plus one or two set-pieces reminded me of just how exhilarating a director Nolan can be, it'a pity he wasn't able to sustain the effect throughout the entire thing.
The bones for a truly great movie are here and I've no doubt Chris and Jonathan Nolan have the talent to do it, but for me, it's the weakest of the three.