why only 5.7?
i really like this film. it's not superior, but it's better than a 5.7....right?
why do you think it's so low?
I think the rating is low because the film seems to have a reputation of not being any good, and I'm fairly convinced that most contributors to this site register their star ratings for films without having seen them. How else can the 8.5 (or whatever it is) for No Country for Old Men be explained? People base their opinions on published reviews. I suppose it would be possible to be slightly underwhelmed by this film, and think it worth 7 or 6 or even 5 out of 10, but many contributors are clearly giving it 1 out of 10, which very few people who'd actually seen it could agree with. This may be a film to be not-too-keen-on, but it's not one to be hated.
The other, major factor is that the film isn't pompous, and doesn't purport to be about anything very profound. And once again No Country for Old Men is relevant, though I can't be bothered to develop the point.
PS: I've just checked and Elizabethtown has a higher rating than The Hunted. I'd suggest that what's needed is a good pandemic of bird-flu, but it'd probably only kill the good, right-thinking people who like this film.