When i was a kid, there were those Japanese shows with costumed heroes who were fighting very seriously villains in real cities. With this choice of putting Batman in the same vision, i reached the same conclusion: it's unbelievable and funny. This Batman seems totally tiny in a huge Gotham, all the more than he does now his job in plain daylight instead of being a force in darkness.

As a batfan, i don't really find my character as well: putting away the hood as his beloved dies is OK but living as an old hermit isn't true to this icon: as Miller felt, the old Bruce is a man who is driven mad by his strong drive to put the hood back. The Batman is bigger than Bruce Wayne: it's an urge, a need that seems totally forgotten here. On the other hand, i haven't read "Knightfall" or "No man's land" but those plots were interesting to adapt: The scenes of having the elites assaulted and being put on trial were the more dynamic of the movie but they would have been more impact if this rebellion has a more charismatic leader with a vision (as in "the cult").

Beyond this, the movie doesn't leave the actual trend of blockbusters movies: it's a sequel for followers only because contrary to TV shows, there isn't a few seconds for "previouly last movies". The dialogs worth nothing and it's always the far-west in a democracy where it's about fighting opponents with guns and violence. If there's a good cast (Bale, Cain), there's a lot of transparent participation (Hathaway, Cotillard,...).

In conclusion, there's nothing Dark in this knight and the movie is totally overrated for its anticipation and Oscar run.