My issue with her, strangely, is that they're not even reviews. She just uses that to get people's attention then goes off on completely unrelated tangents and never stops rambling.
The only reason I chose the Apatow ones was because 40 Year-Old Virgin was the first movie on the list I recognized. She's such a bad critic that I probably could have told she was a bad critic from any-off topic rambling, but I assumed she at least tried to be evaluative of the work that went into making the film.
The 40 Year-Old Virgin review, for example, demonstrates her stupidity in the field. She proposes removing the comedy in order to make the touching moments more touching, but that wouldn't do anything. It's obvious that what would have made the touching moments more touching was an original orchestral score; even a monkey could see that. It truly seems like, with that one, she only watched the first 30 minutes then pretended like she watched the whole thing, because that movie follows the common trend of characters thinking one thing at first then realizing the opposite is true through the course of the story and she doesn't even acknowledge that.
And overrated/underrated should never even be mentioned in or factored into a review (I don't know whether she has, but it seems likely based on what you said), because the review is supposed to evaluate the work that went into making the movie. A movie's success or lack there of doesn't mean the writer, actors, director, music composer, etc. did any better or worse a job. I understand rooting for the underdog, but critics are supposed to leave their emotions at the door and evaluate the work that went into making the movie (and this is why it's crucial the critic have experience doing what they're critiquing like writing, acting, etc.).