I absolutely hate using the term "over-rated", because you always sound like a total douche when you use it, and it sounds more like a criticism of its fans than the product itself.
However, I tried to think of an alternative word, and drew a blank, so I apologise if anyone is offended.
I have no read this book twice. I loved i the first time, when I was younger, but on second read, I am finding it heavily flawed. I understand that it played a huge role in making the comic book industry what it is today, redefined batman, and the writing is great... But I'm not seeing it. It often feels like a series of random events. Thematically, it seems gritty in places and utterly retarded in others. The art style is often hard to follow, and it cuts between events in much the same way a movie would. Comics are not movies, and it doesn't work so well here. I love the writing, but the book just doesn't have a very good flow, and it is just plain inconsistent. When it is amazing, it truly is amazing, but I find it really quite hard to get myself immersed in the story. If you look at Watchmen, a comic released that same year, and juggles many stories that intertwine, I feel that still stands the test of time. Batman, I feel, does not.
This will always be a classic, for what it did for the industry, and some moments in that book, I have yet to see matched in any other comic, but it is often a jarring experience to read. Does anyone else agree? I don't think I did a very good explaining this here :/