On the question of whether there is such a thing as an objectively overrated film.

Overrated is a claim about reputation, not quality: it means a film's reputation exceeds its actual achievement. This requires that you have a standard for achievement that exists independently of consensus.

The most defensible cases for overrated films involve works where the critical or cultural consensus is built on historical accident. Citizen Kane's position at the top of most critics' lists for sixty years is partly a consequence of Pauline Kael's debunking essay — which generated a backlash — rather than purely of critical judgment. The film is great. Whether it's the greatest is a claim that can only be evaluated against a standard that the critics making the claim don't always state.

The least defensible cases for overrated films involve works that are genuinely popular and that the person calling them overrated simply doesn't like. Disliking a film that many people love is not the same as the film being overrated: it may be that you're the outlier and the consensus is correct.

The most interesting cases are films that are overrated for the wrong reasons: where the critical consensus identifies what is valuable about a film but misidentifies where the value is located. The praise and the film are both real; they're just slightly out of alignment.