This movie has eight user reviews. Four of them were quick and easy reviews that failed entirely to give a realistic vision of the film in question or to grant a fair and balanced review of its faults. They were all the same: "10" (all tens, which represent the the highest possible rating). The remaining four reviews also failed to give a realistic vision of the film in question. They failed to deliver a fair and balanced review of those aspects of the film that were successful or delivered properly to the consumer. They were also all the same: "1" (all ones, which represent the lowest possible rating). A film that cannot inspire a fair and balanced review by ANYBODY must also be incapable of inspiring honest praise or criticism by ANYBODY. As such, it will ALWAYS deserve some form of criticism. For me, that makes it unworthy of being watched for entertainment purposes. That doesn't mean, however, that it's poorly done. It just means I won't like it. One of the reasons I read user reviews is to determine whether or not it's worth my time to watch the movie in question. Based on the user reviews, this one is not worthy of my time, and I refuse to watch it for that reason. It won't entertain me, and it's insulting for anyone to believe it would. I recognize, however, that it might have some value that I would otherwise approve of. This would be something like good focus, decent examination of context, creative use of camera angles, or the otherwise unexpected commentary of someone who actually bases his or her opinion on known facts or his or her own previously established and thereby well supported expertise. It would only be fair to add a point or two to account for aspects of the film that I missed as a result of my own prejudices. So, because I have already refused to examine such details, I also balance out the review to account for the possibilities that I missed by refusing to watch this bit of delirious and unentertaining smegma. After all, I don't want people to assume that even after watching a movie that hardly anybody in the entire world bothered to watch, my opinion would be limited to either the lowest or the highest possible review. Perfection, especially in movies, simply does not exist, and I refuse to pretend it does for the sake of a review. There is no such things as a perfectly established wonderful film, or a perfectly established garbage film. We already have four of the lowest and four of the highest from the only eight people in the world who saw this film and also know what IMDb is and how to submit a user review. Without this concise explanation of the grounds I use to rate a movie, we'd be forced to find this film totally useless on the basis of zero reviews rated from two to nine (2-9). On those grounds, I'm perfectly happy to welcome you to five (5). The fact that this worthless piece of entertainment trash has finally resulted in a user review that is the equivalent average of the first eight review ratings and will not, therefore, raise or lower the overall review rating even a single point, but will, nonetheless, allow the producers to strut their apparent abilities in full knowledge that this is the only fair and balanced review they have yet received by the users of IMDb for this particular piece of garbage should, in my opinion, be treasured for its fairness and balanced methodology. The fact that it was submitted by the only reviewer who refuses to watch what is obviously a junk film, having reached that conclusion on the basis of every user review thus far submitted and published should not take away any of the pleasure the producers might have in response to receiving such a well-balanced review. Enjoy it, ladies. You deserve a fair review of your hard work. You should understand that it probably won't ever happen again, as I'm rarely inspired to represent the average of anything I'm willing to put my name to, whether I experience it with a fair viewing or not.
