Bingowings said:

I can't get over why they hired Tom Hardy, got him to rebuild his body to that level, stuck a mask over his mouth and allowed him to perform in that ridiculous voice.

They could have hired any muscleman in a mask and got a good voice actor in and got a character you could believe in and understand for a fraction of the price.

This is why I don't like the film as much as the other two installments. It's Bane. The performance comes off as comical and over the top. Something more reminiscent of the Burton / Schumacher films. I feel that ANY suitably built stunt man could have done just as well if not better then Hardy. His swagger and his mentor like delivery of lines did not match the brute henchmen air about the character. it's just seemed off to me. When I first saw the film, I was not able to understand a word of his dialog. Thanks to subtitles and a better sound presentation at home, I got a lot more out of the performance from the Bul-ray.

The other thing was the number of new characters that seemed difficult to sort out and build any emotional connection toward as the complicated plot was also unfolding. With the John Daggett story line, I would have rather seen a return of Rutger Hauer's Mr. Earle from Batman Begins as the ruthless competitor trying to constantly wiggle into control of Wayne Enterprises. That would have been more dramatic and satisfying to me. Daggett was a cut out throwaway, and this movie seemed to have had a bit too much of that. Mr. Earle would have had an excellent motivation to help Bane in ruthless ways, hes the type of scumbag that would use the "clean slate" program as a hoax, and the character's brutal end would have been more thrilling. Bane could have squeezed his eyes out and everything! Rutger Hauer's Mr. Earle could have been to Wayne Enterprises what Mr. Grossberg was to Network 23!