What's the current consensus on the Greek Phalanx...

What's the current consensus on the Greek Phalanx? I've read that it was a rigid and defensive formation that only worked on even ground while I've also read that it was not rigid, unorganized, versatile and very aggressive. Which is it?

The phalanx was rigid formation that worked well, and could be used both defencively and aggressively. The Greek soldiers didn't always use the phalanx though, and could fight in a more unorganized and more aggressive (charging in and slamming into the enemy with your shield and the like).

Greeks fought as Hoplites. A Phalanx unit has smaller shields and longer, two handed pikes. They are tactically different.

Read A book you absolute retard.

Hoplites fought in phalanx's, you are confusing alexander era warfare with earlier greek warfare.

there it is, the autist with a wikipedia degree

Hoplite phalanx was just a continuous front of hoplites. It didn't have much finesse as it was basically a blob. Macedonian phalanx on the other hand was made up of syntagma squires of phalangites that had far more organisation and control.

there it is the autist with no degree.

It was both. Alexander's phalanx was pretty mobile and versatile. After Alexander there was a tendency for the phalanx to grow more and more rigid, with heavier armor and longer spears. That made them great at fighting other phalanges, which is what the hellenistic kingdoms generally did, but it made them very inflexible as a result.

Hoplite phalanxes are a compact formation usually, but not always, meant to initially hold ground while fighting then press forward and steamroll the enemy. Cohesiveness was the key to its success, the most famous hoplites like those of Sparta or the Sacred Band of Thebes were renowned because they would stand together and not shatter. This of course led to them being killed to the last when things did go south.
The pike phalanx used by Alexander and the Successor Kingdoms use on the battlefield differs. It is still a defensive fighting formation that proceeds into battle as one. On the field though it's role is a combination of it's steamrolling predecessor and a bear trap. It holds the enemy forces down allowing the advancing cavalry of the day hammer the anvil.
I'd say it is also safe to say they are defensive formations that worked rather poorly on uneven ground. After all the Romans quit fielding them in favor of maniples. Which according to Polybius could out maneuver phalanxes only closing for battle when they felt they had the advantage.

is it decided then if it was overhand or underhand for hoplites to fight in formation?
just shut up with your american meme education