I think that the movie Dark Knight Rises is weak

Few days ago I strongly expressed my opinion of the Dark Knight Rises, which is that the movie is weak. Here are some of the arguments I presented in the subsequent argument.
Although the movie at the moment has score of 8.8 in IMDB at the moment, it failed to meet my expectations. I don't think that meeting the expectations of 0.5 million people, makes it good, and only means that many people have low expectations.
I do admit that my opinion is subjective, because I really liked the previous film, and that set the bar high for this installment. If I haven't previously watched The Dark Knight, I would have probably have given the current film higher score. I might have presented my opinion quite expressively, and I beg that to be excused on account of my strong emotional affection derived on part of subjective factors. However although the subjective might have affected my reaction, there are a lot of objective aspects of the film that cannot be regarded as other than weak.
Although the film was compared with other movies based on comics, I do not think that is correct, as the common source of ideas does not correspond to equality in genres. I find Ironman and Avengers to gravitate towards comedy, while The Dark Knight trilogy is more of a drama. Therefore I expect different depth and effort form these different movies.
I also need to mention that there are still may elements in the Dark Knight Rises that I like, but they cannot outweigh the fails, and the overall evaluation remains negative. Similarly I have very positive opinion on the The Dark Knight, but it's far from perfect. I find many issues, but they are not in the core elements and can be ignored.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS 
to avoid spoilers stop reading here
Lets dive in with some examples and comparisons:
One of the things that tilted the scales in the negative direction, was the interruption of the story tempo. Everything was flowing orderly, until the placed our hero in the well prison, and then the time jumped ahead for moths, and suddenly our hero from beaten and sick, became healthy and strong. Besides breaking the story line, that also is a cheat. The hero is a hero, because he overcomes his weaknesses through suffering and pain, thanks to his will. This is totally hidden in this case, as if the passing of time is the only prerequisite for the hero to be reborn with the qualities needed to pass previously impassible obstacles. Compare that with The Count of Monte Cristo - which is more realistic and believable. If man is imprisoned, he gets crushed.The man is deprived of freedom and future has to find new hope in order to prevail. In the Count, the protagonist suffers, and from the suffering he reforms. In The Shawshank Redemption the main character suffers the usual unpleasantness, before he realizes there is something deep inside your body, that people can't touch and get to....'HOPE'. In Batman, the whole thing is presented so short, it fails to represent the suffering. The idea is clearly there, but the execution destroys it. Here should be the essence of the film, and what I got is that in one scene he gets up of the floor, on the second 5 push-ups, and on the third he's climbing the wall. I get the feel that the author wants to show how the protagonist finds new hope and new purpose, but I don't see that he lost it in first. They especially elaborate that the prison is designed to crush hope by first giving it in the form of the patch of sky, and then taking it away by the repetitive failure of the escape attempts. Well it didn't work and I didn't see the character feeling imprisoned i.e. crushed. This results in no clear trigger of the internal change. Was it the life in well? The few words of a cellmate in a foreign language? Was it the images on the TV screen in the cell? Or some graffiti on the prison wall they never showed? There had to be some change happening, because Alfred was telling him the same thing from the start "you need purpose in life", yet then it had no effect. The entire part of felt as if getting out was the most natural thing, that they let him go out through the front door. I think this portion of the story had to be presented in much more detail, as it's the resolution to the hero's dilemma, but instead it's fragmented and pretty much ignored.
I find most of the characters in the movie bleak and incomplete. In fact the two characters that I think are built fine, are Alfred and Blake. The worst character is the Peter Foley (Deputy Police Commissioner). He is presented so weak and incompetent while there is no explanation why is there such a man on a position of significance that demands the opposite qualities. How did he ended  in the police force,  instead of fast food. But lets assume that author didn't bother with secondary character, and compare the main villains in the last two films - The Joker and Miranda. From the Jokers actions the viewer can determine that his motives are desire for chaos and anarchy, he wants to prove to the world that even in the most exemplar and honest man, can be corrupted, that everyone that stands for the 'good' carries the capacity for 'bad'. To the world, the Joker himself, presented his goals as 'exposing the corruption', which adds another layer to the character - how he wants to present himself, and potentially how he manages to win followers to his side. It is made clear that his view of the world is result of traumatic childhood, which makes the character very believable. I can't find any strong motivators that would explain the actions by Miranda, so I have to speculate. Does she want to avenge her father, or does she want to complete what he started? What in her character explains her strong determination? Is it love or grief that makes her ready to kill millions and sacrifice herself in the process? Usually, when someone is willing to sacrifice his life, it's for a idea or a cause that will live on past them. It's clear for the Joker - if Batman kill him, that will be a prove that Batman is both the judge and the executor, and that is not justice. Miranda never tells the world that this is her vengeance, so what will she prove if her plan got carried out? And why is she on this path in first place? Her father got killed because he was planning  to kill many people (and I don't remember the first movie that well, but might have been an accidental death). I recon a normal people don't rush to carry out the legacy project for mass murder, even if that project belonged to their father. So for her following that goal will require for her father to have won her trust, first as a person. Then to convince her in his values, and win her to the cause. I find it much more realistic when kids rebel against their parents, instead of blindly following them.
The main idea of the two movies also differs and I'll try to compare them next.
In the Dark Knight the main idea is less explored and much more interesting. The dilemma is whether to accept the guilt of another if that will keep an idea alive. If one is ready to sacrifice his life for idea, he should be ready to sacrifice his honor for the idea. But there is a twist, death might be preferable to life filled with the hate and resentment of the ones you have sacrificed for.
What's the main idea of the Dark Knight Rises, what's the protagonist's dilemma? As I mentioned previously, I think that the main character struggles with finding new hope and purpose in life. I believe that something happened while the character was in the well, something that got him what he couldn't find for 7 years. And since I cant clearly state what that something is, the author didn't do a good job on carrying out the main idea of the story.

I may continue this, if the argument I'm in, carries on