welcome to democracy. The majority can choose to agree on anything -- it doesn't need to be true. In this case, the majority decided the movie was bad, and the majority decided that they didn't need to see it to judge it.
welcome to democracy. if everyone's vote counts the same, and everyone isn't intelligent, then the vote is equally not intelligent.
still democracy -- actually, even moreso, since the vote is specifically for what people want, independent of truth.
so, until you say that democracy should weigh votes based on value -- in this case, geolocation, or having seen the move, and in presidential elections by some degree of education, investment, or at least understanding of candidate platforms -- then you get crap opinions from crap people.
Why would you base your actions on the opinions of random strangers?
Perhaps a more concise example: move oscars. They've never voted a shitty movie for the best picture award. Some crappy action movie, like starship troopers, or some crappy animated movie, like bubble guppies clearly aren't impressive, innovative, or special in any way. Except that they usually deliver precisely what they promissed to deliver. So if you watch it, based on the trailer, and you expect what you saw in the trailer, and it delivers what you expected, then isn't it the perfect movie for you at that time? Just 'cause Shmikel and Jeeburt don't think it's worth seeing, doesn't mean it isn't the perfect movie for your evening.
In this case, maybe the majority vote this movie as crap because they feel it's crap based on the subject matter alone. Isn't that valid? You might think a movie is crap because the title is mis-spelled, or because you hate a particular actor, or because they abused the canine actors off-camera.
The point is, it's a valid opinion to state, whatever the source of the opinion, and it's a stupid opinion to read, unless you know and agree with the context of that opinion.