Blake was a criminologist as a young boy?
It begs to question, if Blake can figure out who Bruce is so easily, then why can't anyone else in Gotham (other than Coleman Reese who also deduced his identity pretty damn quick)? Especially that seasoned cop Gordon. Yeah, they say "oh, Gordon just doesn't care", but after the events in TDK, he'd surely have a general idea of who his friend really is, especially after that millionaire that rammed into a hostile citizen "trying to catch the light". He's a cop, more experienced than some small orphan boy, atleast make it ambiguous as to whether he knows or not, like in TDK. Gordon's awe and surprise at, "Bruce Wayne?" is a moment where you just want to slap the character and say, "duh, no **** Sherlock". He really had no clue. It's a direct rehash of Batman Begins, but instead of Gordon, we have Rachel. "You could die, atleast tell me your name", then Batman gives an inspiring riddle and they guess who he is.
We've all discussed that crap about Bruce coming back from the dead and Batman appearing within months of his return. Everyone in Gotham should be able to deduct that Bruce is Batman then if a nobody newcomer like Blake can so easily. Right? Hell, if his return 7 years later didn't tip off Gotham, then that bad knee, the Wayne tech equipment and Batman and Bruce coming back to public life should be a dead give away. I'm still wondering why nobody in Italy has recognized Bruce Wayne, the Prince of Gotham.
Now if you leave your brain at the door, the script and film is alright. It's decent and you can tell they put real effort into making this. But we've always seen since 2008 that, "man, these Nolan movies have real depth, they're a thinking man's movie" and all that other high brow crap from "teh realism" to seriousness. In truth, this story is really sloppy and could have benefited from a revision or two, or three. If you ignore things and just go in for the emotions and the pure spectacle, yeah, it's fine (like that one recent, *ahem* Marvel flick). But when the filmmaker says that "the story is everything" and the story is really one dimensional crap, well, I'm not so sure I can just put on my rose tinted glasses and ignore such glaring issues. The minute you start thinking about the movie is when it starts to fall apart. I don't like dissecting movies, but it's pretty hard not to do it with a monster like this. It's a big, over hyped, flick that I think lends itself to criticism after how unmodest it was since it's conception. More so than the other "dull, comic book blockbusters" that people write off as being frivolousness and unimportant. We scrutinize other harmless flicks and bash the crap out of them, usually due to plot. Why not this one?