Does Not Deserve a Rating of 4.7

yes

Half the people that voted didn't even watch it. Very underrated movie, I thought it was hilarious.

Totally! But this a site where a lot of snobs come and complain about anything that isn't french and gay and wet.

There is a phenomena prevalent nowadays where people tend to either love something or hate it, there isn't any middle-ground for a lot of people, so when they vote for a film it is one extreme or the other.
It's easy to see this when nearly every film on IMDB has had a "Worst film ever!" thread, we can understand that someone out there won't like this film, but to label it worse than every other film they have ever seen is quite a sweeping statement, forgetting the fact that saying "ever" would require watching every film made to date (and in the future), as a statement it doesn't hold up when we have films such as bad horror-sequels from the 80's using 50% footage from the original, films with barely concealed political messages and Battlefield Earth.
It's just not a statement that can be backed up, which is why such threads tend to be abandoned in quick order.

This is why some block busters go right to the top of the ratings over their first year of release, people rate the film while still "in love" with it, and it takes time for an accurate reading to come through.

I think part of the problem for some people is that they don't really get a numerical rating system.
I look at a film rated 6 and think "Oh, that should be okay" but others look at anything less than an 8 as bad and when you look at it that way truly good films are going to be rare.
When I rate something I tend to think 1-2 as "Would not watch again", 3-4 is "Not good, but not terrible", 5-6 "Pretty average, but still fun", 7-8 is "Good, worth multiple viewings" and of course 9-10 would be "Could watch daily, changed my world" etc etc.
I'd say Ladies Man is a solid 6, it's not bad, it has funny moments but I wouldn't be in a rush to watch it again.