Chris, I agree on your second point. For the first, I don't know if I'd call it a "mistake," since I suspect it's exactly what Christopher Nolan intended.

I only saw Batman Begins once, on its opening weekend, so I could be misremembering it. But I got the impression that he wasn't intending these movies to be installments in the Batman franchise, but a self-contained trilogy. And it's not quite a reboot or "re-imagining" or whatever, but kind of like he'd made a trilogy of his own that happened to use a bunch of pre-existing characters.

The first one was about his being driven to become the Batman, doubting himself, being betrayed, and then defining himself as a hero with his own rules, instead of just Ra's al Ghul's disciple. So basically, it was Batman: Year One.

The second one was about his decline, more or less; the Joker came in to teach him that the city wasn't ruled by order and justice but by chaos and self-interest. He won the city back as Batman, but realized that it required him to stop being Bruce Wayne; people close to him died. So it was obviously The Killing Joke but I don't know what else; maybe The Dark Knight Returns?

And so the final one was intended to show that the city would always need the idea of Batman, even if it didn't need Bruce Wayne to be the Batman. So I don't think Nolan was as concerned about making a movie about Batman as an iconic character in an indefinitely-running storyline, but a movie that fit within his three-movie story arc and showed one character from beginning to end. So I don't think he was trying to make Knightfall as much as Batman, Incorporated.

By that measure, he kind of got what you were talking about in the second point: thematically, anyway, Bane was supposed to be a direct analogue for Batman — a disciple of Ra's al Ghul, driven by revenge and determination, completely equal if not superior in physical ability, smart enough to head up an underground organization and take over a city, etc.

My interpretation was that Nolan wanted to show that it's not just a case of Batman coming in and stopping the bad guy, saving the day for everyone. He wanted to show Batman inspiring people to save themselves -- it's why freeing the cops was such a big deal, and why Catwoman redeemed herself to beat Bane.

I can see the point behind it all, but I agree that it didn't work. Bane just peters out; it's not just that Catwoman comes in to save the day, she also mocks Batman for not using guns — it cheapens one of the character's defining virtues for the sake of a joke. And then "he's not the real villain" just feels like weakening that whole confrontation for the sake of a surprise twist. There's no reason to have Talia in the story, as far as I can tell.

Part of the problem is something I didn't realize until my friend Matt pointed out -- the weakest part of these Batman movies is always Batman. The voice is just plain silly, and the costume is about as well-done as can be done but still looks clunky and awkward; it gives the impression that you can't do a live-action Batman and not have him come across as goofy. I think Nolan went all-in on realism for these movies (which is an extremely bad call), and tried to make Bruce Wayne as interesting a character as Batman. It just doesn't work.

And like you say, there are no defining moments like a "comic book movie" should have. Even if it were cool to jump out of a bit while prisoners chant below you; it's something that the villain already did first. (Talia ends up looking more bad-ass in that scene than Bruce Wayne does).