IMDb ratings have gone to the dogs

Rating: 5/10 (17 December 2007)

I was astounded when I saw the ratings on this movie. nearly 40% of people had given it 10/10 stars.
Now I give it 5/10. The story is facile to the point of not really existing. Except for Shia LaBeouf, the acting was phoned in. The soundtrack was, well, just loud. It seemed to me that the whole point of the movie was to be a vehicle for product placements. In principle, with these flaws I normally wouldn't give a movie more than 4/10 (watch it on DVD on a rainy afternoon).
But I'm willing to cut it some slack because it does have some cool FX and there are some funny moments in there. I did laugh several times. And of course it is supposed to come from a cartoon heritage so maybe we shouldn't expect *too* much. (But there are other cartoon-based movies that were way, way better. Remember Spiderman, Dick Tracy, Sin City, even the first of the X-Men series). So I gave it 5/10. （Well worth renting the DVD. Entertaining if not uplifting.) I'm willing to see that rational people could disagree with me and because they have different expectations, give this movie a 7/10. (i.e. very well worth paying good money to see it at a cinema.) I can even accept that some people work on a different scale to me and give it 8/10 because they really enjoyed it.
But 34% of people giving it 10/10? Up there with Citizen Kane, Schindler's List, Gone with the Wind, Apocalypse Now, Lord of the Rings, City Lights, Blade Runner, Pulp Fiction etc etc etc.... Gimme a break! Seems most of the people rating movies these days are more interested in pushing ratings and driving box office than in giving any kind of honest opinion. Over half the raters gave this movie 10, 9, or 1/10. There is no way you could possibly say this movie deserves any of those ratings.