input: I noticed this movie was getting trashed well before it hit the theaters and I too didn't have high hopes for it. I figured it was another "You Got Served" type of movie with some nice dance moves and horrid acting. I was at the theater and deciding between this and Meet the Spartans and picked this. To my surprise the acting wasn't bad at all and the movie was actually pretty good. The fact that it has a lower rating than You Got Served is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of listening to the garbage posted on here I recommend going to see a matinee showing of this movie so you don't spend too much. I think you will be pleasantly surprised with how wrong everyone has been about it. When it comes to dance movies this is certainly one of the better ones with far superior acting than many of the other ones. Go see the movie and judge for yourself. Hopefully the rating will rise after it comes out on DVD and more people check the movie out instead of judging it based on comments before the movie released.

edit The movie is now moving closer to its correct rating. Over 1000 people have given it a rating of 9, a bit too high but at least it is helping to offset the ridiculous votes of 1.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Not only does the film's author, Steven Greenstreet, obviously idolize Michael Moore, but he also follows in his footsteps by using several of Moore's Propaganda film-making tactics. Moore has expertise in distracting the viewer from this focus though, while Greenstreet is obviously less skilled here.

Having been privy to all of the issues surrounding Moore's speech at UVSC, I was disappointed to see that the major complaints of the community -- that Moore was being paid $40,000 of the State of Utah 's educational funds to basically promote John Kerry's campaign and to advertise his own liberal movie -- were pushed to the background by Greenstreet while lesser issues were sensationalized.

The marketing methods for this video have been equally biased and objectionable... promoting the film by claiming that "Mormon's tried to kill Moore". Not only is this preposterous, but it defames a major religion that Greenstreet obviously has some personal issues with. I followed Moore's visit very closely, and all of the major news agencies noted that Moore's visit came and went without any credible security problems or incidents in Utah.

Greenstreet has banked on this film to jump-start his film-making career to the point that he has even dropped out of film school to help accelerate this. This seems to have been a severe miscalculation though, since Moore's visits to roughly 60 other colleges and Universities across the country in 2004 diluted interest for this rather common event. Greenstreet's assumption that American audiences would be interested in this film due to the promoted religious and conservative angles doesn't seem to be well founded.

Even the name of the film, This Divided State, is somewhat of a misnomer since Utah voted overwhelmingly for Bush's re-election and thus appears to be more politically unified than any other State. The division in the movie title seems more indicative of the gulf that exists in Greenstreet's ideological differences with his religion and State. If anything, I find a humorous correlation between the religious angle of this supposed documentary and Woody Allen's hilarious contention in Sleeper (1973) that, "I was beaten up by Quakers".

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This stirring western spins the tale of the famous rifle of the early west that was coveted by one and all. James Stewart is the cowboy who wins the prized Winchester in a shootout, only to lose it in a robbery. The story details Stewart's pursuit of the rifle and a certain man through the film. The rifle changes hands time after time, as though the owner is fated to lose it through violence. The picture has plenty of action and suspense as Stewart closes in on his quarry. A great cast supports Stewart here, namely Stephen McNally, Dan Duryea, Millard Mitchell, John McIntire and Jay C. Flippen. Shelley Winters seems miscast here and the purpose of her role is rather obscure. Tony Curtis and Rock Hudson, teen heartthrobs in later years, have brief but good roles.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This isn't cinema. It isn't talent. It isn't informative. It isn't scary. It isn't entertaining. It isn't anything at all.

I got this because my cousin says, "Diablo! COOL!" Yeah, right. The only thing cool about this experience was the lone fact that I didn't buy it but rented it instead.

It's shot like a bad soap opera. No wait. Soap operas at least LOOK professional...sorta. This? This looks like it was shot with someone's camcorder. It's horrid! Wretched! It sux.

The cinematography is detestable! WHO IS this director anyway? I don't even care enough to look him up. He STINKS! The performances by these poor unsuspecting actors were far better than this crap-fest deserved.

2.6/10 on the "B" scale.

That registers about a 0.3/10 on the "A" scale from...

the Fiend :.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative