This Divided State (2005) User Reviews

A film about intolerance.

[CormacMcBellow · 8/10 · 27 October 2005]

To whomever commented earlier on this film, by saying that a viewer should be justifiably dissuaded by not moving to Utah, in particularly the Provo/Orem area, after watching this film, you are merely perpetuating an equally intolerant mindset as the ones discussed in the film.

I enjoyed this documentary, and would recommend it. It is pretty even keeled. The politics of the filmmaker are obviously left-leaning, but I don't think it detracts from the themes discussed/addressed by the film. Filters, filters, filters, right? I think more so than even the Michael Moore visit to UVSC, I enjoyed the religious implications that are discussed in the political gap of the LDS faith. I also enjoyed the subplot with the Joe Vogel and his eventual resign from the student body. This played out the effects that our decisions/intolerance/peer-pressure can have on friendships, as well as the social and cultural implications.

Mediocre at best

[alex-2763 · 6/10 · 30 July 2008]

I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm a moderate non-affiliation voter from the east coast. I've watched some of Moore's films in the past with mixed feelings. The man is obviously to the extreme left but he makes many good points, so I decided that this movie was worth watching.

By the end of it I was honestly surprised to see that it was only an hour and a half movie. It felt much longer than that to me, and here's why- The base argument throughout the film is simple and repeated over and over again, and once the credits roll I can almost guarantee you'll be tired of hearing it. On one side you have some people (a small minority representing less than 10% of the college) that think a liberal media figure (Moore) should be invited to the college along with a conservative media figure (Hannity). The rest of the college either doesn't care or thinks that only conservative views should be welcomed.

So practically you have one side saying "let's hear both sides" and another side saying "let's hear only our side." It's ridiculously stupid. Ironically the pro "suppress the evil liberal's speech" side also claims that Moore is "Un-American".

The whole movie you're just really waiting to see what Moore has to say. This is dragged out to almost comical levels. Finally at the end of the movie Moore does come and speak and he spends almost all of his time talking about the controversy over his coming there, which I also found ironic. The only substance in the rest of his speech was the usual liberal rhetoric "health care is great, war is bad, gay people should get married" and then the movie pretty much ends.

If you're surprised that a bunch of isolated religious extremists would cause a fuss over this than maybe you'll like the film. I however was surprised by nothing.

Missed the point, but not bad

[pbj7 · 6/10 · 28 August 2008]

I thought the film was alright; I didn't see the extreme pro-Moore, anti-religion bias that some of the commenters have found. There was certainly more sympathy for the Moore supporters, and Kay Anderson is obviously made into a convenient villain, and it's obvious who the filmmaker thinks are the good guys and the bad guys here, but the bias wasn't completely over the top (or completely unwarranted).

To the bigger point, I think if the goal of the event, as the UVSC President said, was to generate "civil dialogue" it failed, and was doomed to fail from the start. Moore and Hannity are, by nature, antithetical to civil dialogue. If the Student Government wanted to inspire civil dialogue they should have brought in lecturers who actually are, you know, civil. Who specialize in discourse rather than demagoguery. And if they had, there wouldn't have been nearly the backlash from the community.

I don't think that the citizenry of Orem and Provo and the rest of Utah (where I lived for many years) is opposed to liberalism per se (despite Kay Anderson's repeated assertions that "this is a very conservative community"); what it resists is incivility. And the sneering, condescending tone of these self-promoting idealogues is, at heart, a promotion of contention, a call to division.

In the end, I think Greenstreet shot himself in the foot a little by his obvious sympathy for Moore (but perhaps that was forced upon him by his collaboration with the Center for American Progress). You catch glimpses of the (IMO) more significant theme of civility being able to bridge the gaps of ideology, particularly in the relationship between Jim Bassi and Joe Vogel, and I think perhaps it was initially the point of the whole movie, but I don't think it was brought home nearly forcefully enough.

And as a small point, why were all the stock "campus" shots of BYU rather than UVSC? Maybe it was an economic issue and shots of BYU campus were already in the can or something, but every time there was a montage of students walking around, it was at BYU, which irked me a bit.

Be afraid...

[cookchantel · 27 September 2005]

I live in Utah and sadly, this film portrays the typical mindset here. We tend to be xenophobic, intolerant, and hateful of anything different yet it is cloaked in a message of "love thy neighbor." This film does a wonderful job of portraying the all-too-common view that Utahns are unable to handle outside ideas and any type of diversity. In looking at the anger spewing out of the mouths of putative Christians, in particular Mr. Bryson, I am reminded of the looks of white southerners in the 50's when the schools were about to be integrated. The seething fury and irrationalism of these people is shown all too well by the filmmaker. I recommend seeing this excellent film and if it makes you avoid visiting or moving to Utah (especially the Provo/Orem area south of Salt Lake City) it will have served a good purpose.

The face of American political culture (exposed)

[faiakes · 9/10 · 25 March 2006]

The American heartland of tolerance proves to be tolerant only to its own beliefs.

What should have been just another election time political talk turned to be an insight into the democratic values of USA.

The producers take their time to build up our knowledge of the students and the community involved, and it is a good thing. This moves the focus away from Moore and into the events that transpired before (and after) his arrival. Good time is spent on the students themselves and their views, as well as the major figure representing the conservative residents. Both sides get a fair balance.

What comes out of the film is how shockingly low are the democratic values many US citizens hold. In a country which prides itself about being an example of democracy, a leader of the "Free World" there is just as much intolerance as anywhere else. The part where the conservative personality gives a talk is unpleasant to watch for any supporter of democracy.

This documentary should strike the average US American as a wake up call about how complacent democratic citizens can be when it comes to their political ideas. Everyone likes to thing they are upstanding democratic citizens, until M.Moore comes to town! The true test of democracy is being willing to listen to points of view opposite to your own and not outright dismiss them as wrong or even evil. This little film painfully depicts that (at least) the Utah community failed this test miserably.

On the other hand I'm sure that many Utah citizens didn't have a problem with M.Moore coming to town. Unfortunately either the film fails to represent them or I am mistaken and the film is right in giving the impression that most of Utah agreed with the extreme undemocratic views expressed from their prominent(?) citizen.

Is this the nature of politics? To be divisive? Would M.Moore speaking in a New York University have made such a show? Unlikely. Then I guess it must have been something about this Utah community. That could have been an area that the documentary could have explored. In doing so it would have be digging deeper into the heart of politics (and rational thought at that). Stil, even with its more narrow scope this little gem does very well. Very well indeed.

Brilliant.

[rockyfive · 10/10 · 3 March 2005]

I saw this film and it's amazing. It's about the failure of civil discourse in America and it shows the current divisive nature of politics. Whether you agree with Michael Moore or not, you'll agree that the crazy people who tried to stop him from speaking overreacted immensely and made Utah look like some foreign country. Additionally, I think the film was unbiased and showed an honest portrayal or the events without skewing the facts or taking things out of context.I don't understand why some people gave this film a "1" rating. They either must hate films about positive messages, have never seen the film, or are just jealous that it's so bloody good. I give it a "10" across the board. See this film! You'll learn something!

This is not a Michael Moore film

[mindycourtney · 9/10 · 10 August 2006]

Despite the fact that it is a Michael Moore-style documentary starring Michael Moore, it is in fact directed by the not-so-well-known Steven Greenstreet. If I had known this before I started watching, I may have just assumed that this is one of Moore's fans trying to piggy-back off his success and earn a few dollars. I'm glad that I didn't realise until the closing credits.

The documentary follows the enormous controversy surrounding Utah Valley State College's decision to host a speech from Michael Moore in the lead-up to the 2004 Presidential Election. It follows the protesters on both sides and in particular the student council leaders responsible for the event.

I must say I was somewhat amazed by the lack of blatant view-pushing. The documentary captured exactly what the title suggests - two fiercely opinionated and divided camps. There is very little intervention by the film-maker, and given the shocking nature of some of the material, any nudging towards the direction of free speech really isn't necessary.

What I saw shocked me far more than I expected. I mean, I know that Utah is the reddest state in the Union, and I know that they are 75% Mormon, and I know that they don't like Michael Moore, but I was absolutely dumbstruck by their complete intolerance and ridicule of "liberals". Sean Hannity is a well-respected Republican figure in the state, and the film includes footage of his speech given to a packed stadium at Utah Valley State College in the lead-up to Moore's visit. During this speech, when Hannity asks for a show of hands as to who will be voting for Kerry, any person who dares raise their hand is booed, called a "fool" and told that they are still young so they will learn. Hannity even goes so far as to mock liberals for being poor and singles out one proud Democrat who he brings up onto the stage offering to "Hannitise" him before feeding him to the wolves. Apparently, "liberals" such as Moore are corrupting us with "evil filth" when we choose to listen to him.

The telling part for me, is that whilst Moore aims to shock (with the noble intention of moving people to action instead of apathy), at no stage did he resort to such tactics in his speech at the university. He spoke about freedom of speech, about the war on Iraq and about non-discrimination. Pretty decent goals really.

This Divided State is great.

[max_rebo · 10/10 · 6 May 2005]

You know, I've heard a lot of contentious things said about this movie and its filmmakers. And I think those that make the contentious comments have missed the point of the film. The film illustrates what happens when people stop listening to each other and they quit acting mature. One of my favorite moments in the film is when you realize that almost the entire debate, on both sides, are from people who believe in the exact same things. And they don't even know it because they are all too close-minded to listen to each other for whatever reason.

I think it's humorous and sad that a small group of filmmakers are being angered by some things that came about in production and post-production and are too short-sighted to see that they helped create a fantastic film that has accomplished wonderful things. It's reaching people. I saw it on a tour across the nation. How many filmmakers can say that a film they made was put on tour by an organization as prestigious as the Center for American Progress.

I think it would do these few, petty individuals a lot better in the long run to look at the good the film is doing now and in the future, instead of the perceived (likely, imagined) harm behind them.

I think this film is quite important and I think that getting people to watch it will strengthen the quality of civil discourse in the nation. I think it would do well for Sean Hannity to see the film. I think it would do well for those out of touch with reality (like George Bush and John Kerry) to see the film.

I would highly recommend that anyone reading this see the film.

Amazing Documentary and it plays both sides of the fence

[ScottDMenzel · 9/10 · 1 October 2005]

The Divided State could quite possibility be one of the best documentaries I have ever seen mainly because it plays both sides of the fence. However it still proves to me one thing that conservatives are very narrow and close minded people. In one scene in the movie, two professors from Utah State try to stand up and express themselves to Sean Hannity and all he does is mock them for having a difference of opinion. The thing I like is that the film never really takes a side but films both sides as everything goes down. In the middle of Moore's Speech, two protesters break in and yell at Moore for not voting for Nader instead of Kerry. Calling him a traitor for not voting for Nader like he did in 2000. It's a great documentary maybe actually just as good as Fahrenheit 9/11 which I still think today is a great documentary and think that Moore himself isn't a bad guy but just wants people to ask questions and be aware of what's going on. It's sad but I rather be liberal and open-minded when it comes to the world then conservative and not be able to listen to different viewpoints. The real shame here is that so few will see this great documentary which you can tell was made for next to nothing but is very powerful and brutally honest. I rarely give movies a perfect 10 score but I really think this movie deserves it. And how about that Kay Anderson? What a nut-case. I mean that guy was completely nuts, trying to pay off the school just so Michael Moore wouldn't speak there! The guy sat there with a $25,000 cashier check. It's amazing though how this movie shows the real freedom of speech we have in America and what some will do to stop it. Amazing stuff, I recommend all to check this one out!

The film, like most documentaries, is focused on the extremes

[mountaindesert · 4/10 · 29 September 2005]

Most college students find themselves lost in the bubble of academia, cut off from the communities in which they study and live. Their conversations are held with their fellow students and the college faculty. Steven Greenstreet's documentary is a prime example of a disillusioned college student who judges the entire community based on limited contact with a small number of its members.

The documentary focused on a small group of individuals who were portrayed as representing large groups of the population. As is usual, the people who scream the most get the most media attention. Other than its misrepresentation of the community in which the film was set, the documentary was well made. My only dispute is that the feelings and uproar depicted in the film were attributed to the entire community rather than the few individuals who expressed them.

Naturally it is important to examine a controversy like this and make people aware of the differences that exist between political viewpoints, but it is ridiculous to implicate an entire community of people in the actions of a few radicals.

Gasbag v Gasbag

[LydiaOLydia · 10 January 2007]

The ideologically bankrupt American populist right (not to be confused with intellectually honest, legitimate fiscal and/or social conservatives) has for many years now been handled with kid gloves. Social dialog in America has given serious consideration, for example, to such absurdities as given the "competing theories" of evolution and "intelligent design", "equal time." We have been browbeaten to accept obvious distorting blow-hards such as Anne Coulter as "columnists" and even "intellectuals." Here's the brilliance of Divided State: it doesn't take the kid gloves off (so it can't be accused of overt bias), but it does nevertheless show in no uncertain terms a clear dividing line between good and evil, between thoughtful and knee-jerk, between reasoned and ideologue. Without saying so explicitly, this movie very says loudly and clearly: these guys here are evil, greedy, manipulative buffoons and charlatans, while those guys are over there are decent and thoughtful.

But who is who? By any standard, the heroes of this story are the Utah Valley State College (UVSC) student leaders who took a not unreasonable stand against the many biases of their closed community at large and the many students of all political stripes who had the intestinal fortitude and intellectual honesty to support them. The heroes were the ones who spoke not in slogans, but in ideas, and could back up their views with reasoned, nuance, and, as this theme deals with uniquely American topics, Constitutionality.

By this and really any standard, the main antagonist, a local conservatively-minded resident, comes off as an absolute buffoon, and rightly so. The man was such a one-dimensional caricature of himself that I half expected a "kicker" at the end to be that he had done his actions as some sort of "test" to teach the students a good civics lesson (no spoiler here: he wasn't - he was sincere.) By this standard also, it's not too much of a surprise that windbag conservative host Sean Hannity also is far less than the sum of his salary might suggest when he is held up to the light.

The true genius of the filmmakers, however, was to show how even the movie's Messiah of sorts, liberal wind-bag Michael Moore, was also a particularly naked emperor.

There's a lot of good about this movie. See it.

This is a well made independent film

[fdog9 · 10/10 · 1 October 2005]

To be honest---not quite a 10 (probably a 7 or an 8)---but I rated it 10 to offset the all the ones given to it by the anti-Moore crowd. A frightening look at a community trying anything (including bullying, bribery, and law suits) to stop Michael Moore from speaking at a conservative Utah college. It's a peek at the American brand of fascism. The effort is organized by Kay Anderson---who has made many attempts to stop events in the community before. I think all Americans conservative and liberal should agree on one thing---Freedom of Speech. Anderson is quoted as saying "Free speech works because most of us know when to keep our mouths shut". This misses the whole point of freedom of speech. The movie is flawed in spots. The segment about the guy who looks like Moore comes to mind. Overall its a very good documentary and it really shows the colliding attitudes in our country today.

Even-handed, open-minded look at free speech in Utah

[tnrcooper · 10/10 · 22 June 2006]

If you want an introduction to the positions and stakes at issue between various factions over free speech in the United States, this documentary would not be a bad place to start. Director Steven Greenstreet, previously a production assistant on several television shows and films, combines press footage and first-person interviews with those in favor of, and opposing, the visit of Michael Moore to Utah Valley State College (UVSC), in one of, if not the, most conservative state in the union. In the run-up to the 2004 Presidential election, a hotly contested one given US involvement in Iraq and strong opinions about the direction in which George W. Bush was leading the country, student body President Jim Bassi and Social Vice President Kenneth Brown embarked on a plan to attract important opinionmakers, including Michael Moore and Sean Hannity to speak at their campus in order to excite students about the upcoming election and motivate them to take an interest in national issues. However, Utah is a very conservative state and the site of UVSC is perhaps even more conservative- indeed some city leaders dubbed it "Family City USA". The filmmaker also displays some billboards featured there, including missionarymall.com (for clothing and accessories for Mormons who want to dress appropriately during their mission service) and also UtahWeddings.com. Again, this is not notable in and of itself, but serves to illustrate the emphasis that the city leaders place on its pristine family image.

Therefore, it's not terribly surprising when various people protest when it comes to light that Michael Moore has been invited to speak on campus not two months before the election. However, the claims made by the two most prominent protesters to Moore's visit are unusual for the grounds on which they claim his visit is inappropriate. Local resident Kay Anderson, a man who appears during most of the film to be extremely intense but who is not even a student at UVSC, at one point during a hearing about the appropriateness of Moore's visit, offers to pay the Student Association $25,000 if they will rescind his invitation. That he makes this offer during a busy hearing about the appropriateness of his visit is shocking, given that one would expect some respect for the right of free speech, however, even more shocking is when he suggests that students who want Michael Moore to visit might be better off attending school somewhere else.

Many students, to their credit defend vigorously the right to at least hear Moore, even if they disagree with his points of view. One cites Utah's foundation as a haven for those wishing to practice Mormonism as disturbing irony given the intent of some to attempt now to deny others free speech. One immigrant from Togo cites his country's admiration of the principles for which the United States stands as a significant reason why the country, and UVSC, need not be scared of controversial ideas.

Another student, Chris Vreeland, so strongly dislikes Moore (and/or Moore's message (it's not clear if it's one or the other, or both) that he creates a petition calling for the recall of Brown and Bassi, claiming that they have defaulted on their obligations to serve UVSC students. Vreeland stands in public places on campus promoting his petition and attempts to pre-empt opposition by telling students, if you agree, sign the petition. He doesn't seem interested in debating the appropriateness or grounds of his petition. He works energetically and it would seem he has some help in collecting support for his petition, and finally, although Moore visits and Vreeland's petition does not succeed in recalling Bassi and Brown, the toll that protests about Moore's visit took on Brown and Bassi drive a wedge between the two and an addendum to the end of the film notes that they have not spoken since one resigned. Ultimately, Moore attends and gives a rousing speech, extolling the virtues of free speech and his hope that the Iraq War will soon be brought to an end-at which time, he poignantly notes, the sons and daughters of those who dislike him, will be brought home just as will the sons and daughters of his supporters.

Interestingly, Sean Hannity is invited to speak on campus, perhaps as a bone thrown to those who opposed Moore's visit. Hannity waives his speaking fee, perhaps in an attempt to one- up Moore, but then even if this was successful undercut his claims of concern for student affordability by billing the college $40,000 for the use of his private jet. In a dramatic moment in the film, when Greenstreet attempts to ask Hannity about this, he is held aside by security guards.

Ultimately, Greenstreet has made a very interesting film because, while the individual speakers may not be of importance, the issue, free speech is critical. How free speech is protected is central to the film and is captured in a fascinating confrontation of those who wish to allow it and those trying to restrict it.

Free speech

[lreynaert · 10/10 · 17 October 2009]

This movie shows blatantly the all importance of free speech and the panicky fear of the powerful for it. Free speech can (and should) reveal inconvenient truths (the 'real world'), and it could (should) effectively undermine the power base of vested interests. That is also the reason why those vested interests control nearly all media outlets.

In this movie, those in power (local business interests) were trying by ALL means to prevent a speech (only that!) at a college hall by a democrat (also Democrat), in the person of movie director and social agitator Michael Moore. They were afraid that he could influence public opinion (an overwhelming majority for the RP) and change the political majority and its agenda, although the chances were practically inexistent.

As Saint Augustine said: 'Men love truth when it bathes them in its light; they hate it when it proves them wrong.'

This movie is a must see for all those who want to understand the world we live in.

I'm talking to you-tah

[lee_eisenberg · 10/10 · 18 January 2006]

After political documentaries were all the rage in 2004, "This Divided State" looks at the result. A Utah college's decision to let Michael Moore speak there sparks emotions on both ends of the political spectrum. One of the professors tries to get the college to stop Moore from coming, and the college invites Sean Hannity for the opposing viewpoints.

One can certainly see the polarization inherent in our society these days. You can also see what a creep Sean Hannity is. Michael Moore praises the college for not backing down. A protester noted that the police made them take the poles off of their signs, but allowed people to carry guns into the hall. All in all, one thing that I can say with absolute certainty is that I do not want to live in Utah.

Better than a Michael Moore film

[MikeyB1793 · 9/10 · 7 January 2013]

This film shows democracy in action. Varied groups in Utah want to prevent Michael Moore from speaking on a college campus. Others want him to go ahead with his speech. The film gives equal treatment to both sides. By this I mean we are presented with the voices of both those opposed and in favour of Michael Moore giving his presentation. The viewer is left to decide for himself.

But those Utah conservatives (family value types, our community types) are really a repressive and intolerant bunch – they are a disgrace to democracy. There is lots of good, vibrant interchange between the two sides and this makes this film well worth watching. Michael Moore's speech at the end quoting the First Amendment was very powerful.

Not too boring, but no big deal

[mark_decew · 5/10 · 21 October 2007]

"This Divided State" examines the controversy that erupted on the campus of Utah Valley State College when leaders of the student government invited incendiary documentarian Michael Moore to appear on campus in the closing days of the 2004 presidential election. The filmmakers jump into the fray capturing the protests, pickets, posturing, and pablum generated on both sides of what amounts to a fairly petty squabble among partisan ideologues and semiprofessional hotheads.

The drama unfolds fairly slowly, interviewing both key participants and curious bystanders. Conservative radio host Sean Hannity is recruited during the squabbling for political balance. Other characters include a young Michael Moore look-a-like, a Michael Moore namesake, and a Moore's Pizzaria manager. A good deal of padding footage is included to stretch the story out to a feature length runtime. The production values are extremely uneven as it was necessary to cull material from several videographers to build a coherent through line.

I admired the filmmaker's ability to capture the story's principals at key occasions in the drama and fairly neutral point of view balancing between the battling sides. Almost everyone in this film comes off looking like simple-minded weaklings or obnoxious blow-hards. The UVSC faculty members are stereotypical liberal academicians and the students overly idealistic adolescents. In the end it all seems much ado about nothing.

A timely, illuminating portrait of a certain American social attitude

[rzajac · 13 November 2005]

This is a fine, fine documentary.

Stangely--or, perhaps, tellingly--the only "weak" part is the footage of the "provacative" speaking engagements by Hannity and Moore. At the end of my viewing of the main movie, before watching the extras, I was left with impressions of these appearances as being weaker than the dialog (and diatribe) shown in the rest of the film. What the editors decided to show was pretty much the "feel-good" aspect of Hannity and Moore's deliveries; the playing-to-the-crowd, singing-to-the-choir stuff. However, there were two extras tracks featuring more of the content part of these talks, which were significantly more substantive, especially Moore's, than what you see in the movie. Bonus tracks are nice, but in the end a movie needs to be able to "stand alone." As it was, it left me with a feeling that all the community fire and passion which had gone before had been ill-spent on these unworthies; that's it's one thing to vociferously defend the right of someone to challenge prevailing thought, but it's another to have your beneficiary then use that podium to pat backs and not hit the issues hard. Again though, the extra footage showcasing Moore's substantive positions mitigated this, and, to a lesser extent, with Hannity.

In my humble opinion, if you keep that proviso in mind, you'll find the movie well worth viewing, and in fact a pretty good picture of red-state mentality. Remember: It *can* happen here.

Sean Hannity - Un-American and Disrespectful

[ljfox-739-577108 · 9/10 · 15 May 2010]

Sean Hannity, who was worshiped by the people of Utah was a everything he made out not to be, un-American, selfish and horrible. I can't understand how someone can remain a hero after publicly humiliating those who oppose his views. His speech was bias and hardly provided any insight or balanced argument. In fact his speech had no argument at all and instead relied on down talking and humiliating liberals within the audience. If any dared to talk they were booed and he made no attempt to stop this. I was disgusted by the lack of insight he provided and his disrespectful attitude. The fact that he was praised and worshiped and made out to be a god like figure angered me and showed me the narrow sightedness of the American society. Sean Hannity, you are a disrespectful and un-American man and you should be ashamed.

America-the new Soviet Union

[jackmathys · 8/10 · 29 December 2018]

Berkeley travels east! I suppose none of the reactionaries/fascists would object to war criminals like the Bushes or Henry Kissinger. In fact, they wouldn't object to ANYONE who confirmed their beliefs. This is the essence of the message of 1984, this is what kept Russians on pins and needles until 1989. The waste of time and money caused by the self-serving outrage of the far right of this college community far exceeded Moore's fee (and possibly even Hannity's private jet).

Wow, political propaganda and religious slander all in one. yawn.

[invent · 1/10 · 28 June 2006]

I was one of the few non-liberals who showed up to see Steve's video. It was quite an experience... in propaganda film-making and boredom.

I was hoping the film might be an actual documentary of Michael Moore's visit to my local school, UVSC, but it turned out to be another liberal, slash-and-burn effort to slam conservatives and the local religious community. It sure seems self-serving for a filmmaker to make a documentary that only reflects his preconceptions on issues.

What's more surprising is to see all the '10' votes his homeys have posted here. Did they even see the video? Golly gee Batman, this must rank with All The President's Men! Their ratings are as obvious as the bias in this film.

Yeah, like stacking the votes at IMDb will help a lame movie. Maybe my vote will help balance this out.

What, exactly, does Moore "lie" about?

[thommickel · 25 June 2006]

I have to admit, I'm baffled by the constant attacks on Moore, (that his films are supposedly sloppy, poorly researched, one-sided and full of "lies.") I'm not saying that every single detail in "F911" is true, but I think Moore's films are a lot more accurate and balanced than he gets credit for. I think Moore's films, by and large are every bit as accurate as most "serious" documentary films (the only difference being that Moore's films generate blockbuster box office). Most of the attacks that I've seen on Moore's work are often highly selective, misleading and full of lies themselves. And these days, what exactly is the "truth"? I mean, Bush tells more lies in a typical 15-minute speech than you'll get from watching any Moore film. (But you'd never convince a brainwashed fanatical Bush supporter that their beloved hero lies about anything). And Fox "News" spews out lies and right-wing propaganda 24 hours a day. Even the media that the intellectual Left respects (The New York Times) is full of lies these days. I mean, reporter Judith ("Bush's Case for War is Solid") Miller told many lies in a highly deceptive manner. Bottom line: if Moore's work was so full of "lies," then he would not have been the target of the extraordinary and vicious attacks and deaths threats that he's received from the Right in this country. Instead of going through Moore's work with a fine tooth comb and trying to pick out tiny flaws, I suggest you examine the central premise that Moore raises in his work. Most of the investigative legwork in "F911" for example was done by Craig Unger, who's "House of Bush, House of Saud" was a devastating indictment of the Bush Crime Family. Unger's work was, by the way, completely ignored by the U.S. mainstream media----so we ought to be grateful to Moore for giving Unger a platform that he otherwise wouldn't have had. And as far as the "lies" in Moore's films, instead of slandering the man's films with sweeping generalizations, how about someone here actually specifically detailing a few of these "lies" for a change?

Wannabe documentary with delusions of grandeur

[archileach · 1/10 · 19 December 2005]

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".

Biased and unintelligent

[Ozzy2000 · 1/10 · 5 July 2008]

When evaluating documentaries that focus a relatively small group of Ugly ultra right wing and conservative groups like this in the USA you must consider the following. The United States of America with its population of 270 million and its complex history as an aspiring democracy and its hopes and desires to uphold Human Rights that it has its failings and downside. It is of course expected that extreme right wing groups and ultra –conservative groups exist in sizable numbers however relative to the size of its population they are very small and isolated . On a per capita basis Europe, Britain and even Australia have similar right wing groups in fact on a per-capta basis the actual size of Neo-Nazi groups in Australia is actually higher than in the United States of America. It is for the above reasons that it is unjustifiable to demean and vilify the American people and their level of debate in Educated American Society by very fraudulently and deceptively presenting this ultra-right wing bunch of psychopaths as being representative of American Society. By doing so Greenstreet, deliberately chose small and isolated groups at opposite ends of the spectrum to construct an image of America that is an outrageous and deliberate sensationalist lie. This film is clearly designed to inflame and pander to the views of people who harbor this subconscious and morbid hate the American people and way of life under the guise of spurist fashionable and cliché idealist left wing ideology. This film was made for profit not for furthering the truth about American Society and the Human condition. Greenstreet can make documentaries that focus on ultra right wing conspiracies, the Military Industrial complex but fail miserably to present an intelligent and balanced factual debate let alone alternative solutions to the failings of a vibrant democracy. Movie Show is exposed as Anti American by its support for this trash. SENSATIONALISM at its worst anti -USA garbage shameful.