Most overrated movie of all time
Fact.
share"Most overrated movie of all time" seems a bit hyperbolic. But, thinking about it, you may have a point. I've always been a bit baffled about its high placement on IMDb. Let alone people repeatedly classifying it as one of the greatest films ever. It doesn't seem very different to me than pretty much any other superhero movie. I mean, it was good. But nothing particularly special.
Nolan himself is probably what made people think it was okay to classify this movie in such high regard, due to his name already being associated with that "great filmmaker" status. It's a bit like if Van Gogh were to sling a pile of shit at a canvas. If anyone else were to do it, we'd see it for the disgusting mess it is. When Van Gogh does it, however, we're instantly rubbing our chins asking "I wonder what he's trying to say with this?" I think it's kind of natural for us to have our perceptions of the art distorted by our perceptions and esteem for the artist.
I wonder sometimes, also, if Heath Ledger's death isn't what really put this over the top in people's subconscious though. From The Crow to Rebel Without A Cause, everything just seems a lot deeper and more meaningful when we're aware that the main actor died shortly after filming (especially when it comes to a role such as this). I notice this sometimes with even people in real life, where you start reading more into their last social media posts or the final home videos of them before death. Everything just seems to acquire more gravity.
Do I think this movie is an incredible film that sets it apart from virtually every other superhero movie? Yes. I personally think it's a meticulously crafted character study on Bruce, Harvey, and a mediation on what it means to be a hero. There are so many little details here in how narrative develops, how their motivations are sculpted, etc., I find this to be far more deliberate than your typical superhero flick these days.
Do I think that all the people lauding it and rating it so highly understand exactly why the movie is so well done? Nope. And in that sense, I do think that the movie is overrated; I feel like Heath Ledger's death was in part responsible for the manner in which the movie was elevated.
I think the Nolan/Van Gogh argument isn't as relevant here is because the acclaim being granted to TDK isn't being granted to its prequel, or to its sequel. But I'm sure it helped in part, and it was all amplified by both Ledger's death and Ledger's effective performance.
Well, for my part, I just seem to find so many *typical* superhero movie tropes and flaws in the film. Too many moments of "Oh, how convenient" or too many silly instances of Batman just magically disappearing mid-conversation, or utilizing that gravelly voice even when talking to people who know he's Bruce Wayne, or the constant recklessness shown to property, etc. (I'm sure there are better examples, I'm just going from memory here, but hopefully you know what I mean). Mind you, I don't find any of these things to be a big deal, really. And, as I said, I generally enjoy the movie. And normally I don't even think of stuff like this as being flaws in superhero movies at all. But when I'm repeatedly hearing about how intelligent and grounded in reality this is, in comparison to other superhero movies, I do find myself noticing and being more critical of them.
As far as the deep character study goes, I suppose it's possible that's in there and I'm just failing to recognize it. But, from my perspective, none of it felt especially deep. I think it's equally likely that when people are primed to find depth in something they simply can (this goes back to the Van Gogh thing). Again, I'm not saying this is definitely the case here (as I could be just missing something, for all I know). But, at the very least, I find it to be a valid possibility of what's going on with people's inordinately high praise of this film.
As for how the Nolan/Van Gogh argument clashes in comparison to the other, less respected films in the series. I wasn't meaning to say he was the sole reason for the reverence. But, rather, he's what made it feel okay to look at the movie in such a light in the first place. His name, in a sense, was perhaps the seal of approval our brains needed to even toy with the idea that the movie was as deep as people portray it as.
My comment was actually meant to be largely in agreement with yours. I wasn't actually planning to engage in a conversation about why I think the movie stands above. I was mainly highlighting that despite the fact that I feel that way, I do agree with your assessment on its reputation, especially in light of a key actor's death. The Van Gogh thing...I didn't feel quite as strongly as you about it (which is why I brought up the other films) but I think it plays a role in relationship to the other things that the hype has going for it. I can see what you mean though if you think his name alone grants that initial seal of approval. Perhaps! Again, I think mainstream responses are largely superficial in nature.
Despite my own feelings about the movie, I don't exactly feel comfortable talking to every person who worships it either. Because many times, they're full of shit. (Like whenever I hear someone laud the movie but then say Two-Face shouldn't have been included in the film, it's hard for me to take their perspective of the film seriously.)