I used to hate the guts of the plot holes in this movie, but honestly, the only thing that still bothers me ten years later is the infamous Fernet Branca plot twist at the end. The other gaps in logic and weird plot points are actually quite common in Nolan's trilogy from its very beginning, so why should we start caring now?

The tone is much closer to "Batman Begins" than it is to "The Dark Knight", just on a much higher budget and with possibly even more extravagant superhero tropes involved (which can be both a quality or a flaw depending on what you are looking for). It does not live up to the expectations, but it still works as a decent ending for an imperfect trilogy. It was good to see the whole Gotham fight alongside Batman instead of waiting to be saved as usual, and it really felt like the stakes skyrocketed during the civil war chunk of the plot.

The length used to bother me, but I now realize that it's actually much shorter than most recent blockbusters. The set-up is a little too slow, but at least I didn't risk falling asleep like with "Batman Begins".

I enjoyed watching the Dark Knight. They were at least able to keep the same batman from the the last one made too.

"And when it is done, and Gotham is in ashes, then you have my permission to die." - Bane, the Dark Knight Rises.

An epic, amazing end to the Dark Knight trilogy, with great acting, numerous complex subplots, a creepy villain, amazing action scenes and a heart-thumping score. I really love this film and consider it one of Nolan's better works, and I wish more people on the Internet would start giving it more respect.

Oh, also, I really don't care about the small plot holes like the magic mechanical leg and Bruce appearing in Gotham when he was at the desert shortly before - do you really want to see ten minutes of Bruce using plastic surgery to fix his bone, or him in a airport going to Gotham?

I felt like this was a tremendous end to Nolan's Batman trilogy. The Dark Knight Rises may very well have been the weakest of all 3 films but when you're talking about a scale of this magnitude, it still makes this one of the best movies I've seen in the past few years.

I expected a little more _Batman_ than we got (especially with a runtime of 2:45) but while the story around the fall of Bruce Wayne and Gotham City was good I didn't find it amazing. This might be in fact, one of my only criticisms—it was a long movie but still, maybe too short for the story I felt was really being told. I feel confident in saying this big of a story could have been split into two movies.

The acting, editing, pacing, soundtrack and overall theme were the same 'as-close-to-perfect' as ever with any of Christopher Nolan's other films. Man does this guy know how to make a movie!

You don't have to be a Batman fan to enjoy these movies and I hope any of you who feel this way re-consider. These 3 movies are without a doubt in my mind, the finest display of comic mythology ever told on the big screen. They are damn near perfect.

I personally thought this film is on par if not better than the Dark Knight.

Whilst some think the film is too long for the story I didn't find this. The length of the film is longer than some (but doesn't feel it), I liked that the film took it's time rather than shoving more elements in it - I think this contributed to the dramatic ending (much like a classical piece of music will be relaxed and calm before the final crescendo).

At the end of the day whether you like this film will boil down to if you like films Christopher Nolan has directed and/or you like the Christopher Nolan Batman series so far.

Stupendously good film in my opinion.