I think the criticism over Robin is valid but ultimately inconsquential. It's basically superficial, and has no impact on the plot, characters, or believability of the story, although it does stand out as being ill-conceived. Accepting suspension of disbelief (eg you can recover from a broken back in a prison in 6 months and totally kick a martial arts master's ass, instead of being confined to a cane and in constant agony for even the most mundane of functions like walking up stairs), my main criticism is how the hell Batman got back to Gotham, especially since it was so cut off. They never do explain that. "Oh, he's Batman." No, if the city is so segregated, and if Batman was dumped in the middle of India (even if you accept it is Mexico, which the film never implies), how did he get there and also find time to paint a bat-sign in lighter fluid on the bridge?? That alone would have taken one man a whole day. But whatever, right? Compared to things like that, the film is pretty expertly composed.