I think lists of Underrated choices are great – you encourage people to go see films that might have been ignored by the general public (box office). As critics, you are championing films you personally liked. Wonderful.

However, calling something overrated says nothing about the film itself (though you might like it to – "I saw things in this that no one else did, which makes me superior"). Rather, you are complaining about the general consensus (the 'ratings' that were 'over'), and so are arguing with other critics or criticism in general. Not the best way to foster a love of cinema in readers, nor an open discussion about personal/emotional values and merits outside of cinematic criteria (plot, character development, etc.). No one shoe fits all feet (especially in such subjective fields as the arts).

I'm all for discussions and bringing up divisive opinions, but just think there are more constructive ways of going about it. Don't care enough to do it myself, but will leave a comment on this blog post.

This is just plain random.

"Hey, know that purely made for the money, special effects popcorn flick named X-Men? Overrated, it blows! But check out this Irish dark comedy from the brother of a prestigious playwright with two of the finest actors in the cinema acting out finely written roles instead!" Makes. No. Sense. They aren't even in the same ballpark!

Crazy picks in my opinion (meaning I disagree intensely with the writers): Drive, Melancholia, Hanna, Hugo, The Guard, Bellflower and Super.

I'd add Fast Five (somehow ending up on a few professional critics top ten lists) and Mission Impossible 4 (somehow ended up with a 95% on rottentomatoes) to the overrated list, and Horrible Bosses although doing over 100 million and getting a fresh tomato on RT to the underrated. A lot of people I've talked to didn't find it all that funny but I found it to be hilarious, and consider it to be a new comedy classic in my mind.

Gabe: Interesting thoughts about "Drive", but I do wonder whether it can really be said to be cliched. Winding Refn tell us the film is about a superhero, but do we trust him? I think the idea that the protagonist is a hero is repellent, and intentionally so. By the end, I found myself questioning whether he was even a real human being, never mind a real hero. The horrifying violence forces us to shift our view of a character who begins the film as a sweet and somewhat naive figure, exploited by his boss, whose ties to crime are solely in relation to his passion for driving. He doesn't carry a gun and we think that distances him from the criminal activity he's involved in, but by the end we realise that he's pretty lethal without the use of a firearm. I can't think of any other film with a character arc like this.

Well… too cerebral I guess. Go ahead and watch you mighty THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA or the masterpiece that is called GREEN LANTERN! Maybe those intellectual movies will fit you more.