Zoltan Gazdag

Dear Zoltan,

Your review is unfair and does not reflect reality. Let me refer to the facts from our correspondence in the workspace.

You rated all 5 categories with the minimum scores. Let's consider each one:

Quality -- 1/10 A 31-minute film (2.38 GB) was delivered with a 3D vortex scene in Blender, 38 individual takeoff/landing animations, 38 particle disintegration effects, 38 lower-third titles, 9 voiceovers, intro, outro, and music. The total project volume is 133 GB. This is not "schoolboy work." A score of 1 out of 10 for work containing 152 individual animations is an emotionally driven rating, not a factual one.

Professionalism -- 1/10 I sent you a professional brief consisting of 7 sections and over 35 questions. You filled it out. I asked clarifying questions about names, languages, order, and voiceovers. I informed you about every stage of the work. This is the standard of professional work, not 1 out of 10.

Cost -- 1/10 You agreed to $250 for 7 days. For this money, you received: processing of 38 clips, a 3D VFX scene, voiceovers for 9 clips in 4 languages, and a 31-minute final film. Meanwhile, you attempted to additionally obtain a whole final scene of the film (editing of the 2022 World Cup, AI face swap, voice generation) -- this work is worth at least $500-2000 beyond the agreed $250. Rating 1/10 for cost means evaluating your own attempt to get free work beyond the contract.

Always in touch -- 1/10 Our correspondence in the workspace contains dozens of messages from my side. I responded to every one of your messages, asked questions, offered intro/outro options, clarified voiceover details, and informed you about the progress of the work. A score of 1 out of 10 for communication in such correspondence is a direct distortion of facts.

Deadlines -- 1/10 Deadline: May 30, 2026. Final file created: May 30, 2026. Deadline met. A score of 1 out of 10 for meeting the deadline is a lie.

Regarding the substance of your review:

You write: "the communication process was only in text form." You YOURSELF accepted the text form (your response "ok"). You filled out a detailed brief. All correspondence documents this.

You write: "the work looked like cheap work." This is a subjective assessment of style. At the same time, you did NOT provide A SINGLE specific remark -- what exactly to correct, at what second, what parameter.

You write: "each time he reworked it worse." Your only "remarks": "make the vortex realistic" and "the takeoffs from the vortex into an explosion into particles" -- without a single specific detail. Based on such instructions, it is impossible to make targeted corrections.

You write: "he did not cope with the assigned task at all." All 10 points of the technical assignment were completed, and the file was delivered on time. Your dissatisfaction is caused not by the non-fulfillment of the task, but by the fact that you failed to obtain additional work (the final scene of the film) for free beyond the contract.

Conclusion: Minimum scores in all 5 categories for a fully completed and timely delivered order is a review driven by anger, not an objective assessment. All correspondence in the workspace confirms the stated facts.

Sincerely, Blazej K.