John Doe: Vigilante

I liked this movie, read the other positive reviews, which is most of them.

They also have the highest helpful ratios, as in of the people who voted whether a review was helpful or not, my experience with IMDb indicates that one of them would be on the main page.

Yet this is not the case. When I first came to this movie's page, the main review was one of only 2 negative ones out of 7, and 2 of 6 people voted that they found it helpful. So I voted it as not helpful with the other negative review.

Now minutes later (like 2) that review is not on the main page, but the other even more negative review is with a 12 out of 45 helpful rating... (all my numbers are off by 1 as my votes are not counted yet - even though they've already effected change)

There is a 10/10 review with 25 of 38 finding it helpful, there's a 13 of 16 positive review, and a 1 of 1, a 3 of 4...

Clearly something fishy is going on here, are they afraid of a vigilante uprising? Or maybe Bamber punched some Hollywood fatcat(s) in the face instead of granting the sexual favour(s) requested. Maybe both, as Bamber's work get's a disproportionate amount of flak. He's no Hopkins, but he is without a doubt a capable actor at the VERY least.

I wonder if anyone will even see this review... in preview the only spelling mistake highlighted is "fatcat" yet in typing this I show Bamber's name and the Canadian spelling of "favour" underlined squiggly red as well...