IMDb > The Divide (2011) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Divide
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Divide More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 23:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 229 reviews in total 

112 out of 190 people found the following review useful:

Sheer madness

8/10
Author: www.ramascreen.com from United States
14 January 2012

-- www.Ramascreen.com --

THE DIVIDE is dirty, disturbing, uncomfortable, and I like it! Post-apocalyptic thrillers are usually a messy business and that's what this Xavier Gens-directed film delivers. It's sheer madness, a terrifying look at society going down the drain and at humanity when it's lost its senses, of what could happen when the chips are down and fear takes over. THE DIVIDE is not for the faint of heart..

Turning a fallout shelter, a save haven and protection into a hellhole is the aim of this film. The tagline says it all, 'the lucky ones died in the blast' and so the remaining characters are not. I wasn't a fan of Gens' previous works, Hit-man was generally disappointing but that was to be expected of any video game-based movie, but THE DIVIDE goes to show that Gens may not be a lost cause after all when it comes to filmmaking. There have been movies in the past where they'd collect a number of people, lock them in one inescapable location long enough and you'd get to see who'd endure, who'd rebel, who'd break down, and who'd take charge. Give it enough time and they'll turn on each other and ask the question of 'who died and made you king?!', that's exactly THE DIVIDE's mission, when suspicions fester and morals go out the window.

Because the story is set in a basement room, the film dwells in the dark the entire time. And because of its R-rated horror approach, the characters find themselves eventually doing something that they themselves did not know they were capable of and we the audience have the options of either sticking around or looking away. Fantastic job by the cast ensemble, you've got Eva (Lauren German) who tries to remain sane and level-headed through the ordeal, and there's Marilyn (Rosanna Arquette) who suffers mental problem after the failure to protect her daughter, and then there's Delvin (Courtney B Vance) who at first may seem to be the reasonable one of the bunch, and you also have the cocky sh*theads Bobby and Josh, played by Michael Eklund and Milo Ventimiglia respectively, the shelter itself is owned by an ex-firefighter Mickey (Michael Biehn) who'd rather not share if he had the choice. The movie is a character study that's not too hard to crack but it's not an easy chew either. Right from the start of the beautifully done CG nuclear explosion, you know that it's not going to end well, because there is no way that these characters could stand each other, not with the limited resources they have and the frustration that comes from being self-imprisoned. And so the story shows how their interaction crumbles and insanity creeps in. THE DIVIDE is an excellent sci-fi horror that demands attention.

-- www.Ramascreen.com --

Was the above review useful to you?

81 out of 131 people found the following review useful:

Humans are basically violent by nature...BUT

1/10
Author: davidfurlotte from Canada
31 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie felt like it was rushing although it was a long, drawn out affair.

Now, I've read enough novels and seen enough movies to understand the premise that when society breaks down so go all the checks and balances that keep us from picking up a stick and smacking someone over the head with it because we don't like his eye colour BUT...I would like to believe that it would take longer than 5 seconds BEFORE we get to that point.

********Here there be Spoilers********* The ONLY actor that seemed to possess a modicum of sense was Michael Biehn and I'm not sure if he adjusted the script as they shot it or the writer and director had a long series of meetings to work on his part.

But even there, there were plot holes.

1. We have people WATCHING nuclear blasts without eye protection and not suffering any ill effects (even TEMPORARY blindness) before running down a bunch of stairs in an effort to try and get to safety.

2. You have a guy who has obviously spent years and tons of money on preparing a shelter in case of some catastrophe BUT he never bothered to develop a plan about what to do in case...a bunch of people show up and he is going to take them in?

3. The people get into this shelter and IMMEDIATELY begin doing some incredibly stupid things. Perhaps it would have made more sense to try and figure out what they just witnessed or even feel a sense of loss or destruction instead of trying to pick fights with the guy who let them IN?

4. This plot hole truly baffles me. Supposedly one of the people inside the shelter has the capability to transmit their location with a walkie-talkie to the outside world. Err...excuse me, but ever hear of a thing called EMP? It wipes out all electronics so, even if that short-range radio suddenly developed long-range capability, it would be fried.

5. Then for no particular reason we throw in some government or military types that are not coming in to save them but are there to steal their children? WHAT? REALLY? Oh, and as a small addendum, the main guy who owns the shelter has no weapons with which to protect himself and the others...well, that's not quite true, he does have a gun which he conveniently remembers that he has AFTER he loses a finger and that gun becomes a CONVENIENT device for the movie to progress.

This particular movie resembles an acting class doing an IMPROV scene of exactly this type of scenario. Everybody is trying to show their best WILD and CRAZY characters to try and impress the teacher but they don't blend anything together to make a coherent story.

I watched the whole thing hoping it would get better and even at the very end I half-expected to see something that might make it all GEL together but even there, it just LOST it and left me saying....WHY did I waste my time watching this?

Was the above review useful to you?

69 out of 109 people found the following review useful:

Extremely bleak, but also very well done.

9/10
Author: j-cronje from South Africa
29 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have never posted a review on IMDb, purely because I find that some reviewers apparently enjoy trashing a film, while completely missing the point. Some of the reviews here had me shaking my head in wonderment. Calling it trash? It is labeled as Science Fiction/Horror, although I personally think that it is more a character study in human behavior. The following can be regarded as spoilers: A nuclear missile hits New York, we don't know why. People rushing to survive whilst pushing away other people (they are not so innocent to begin with), gets trapped in a bunker. There are some tantalizing glimpses of what is going on outside, but that is not what drives the film. What drives this film is the interaction between good and bad. For the reviewers that saw this movie as people descending into violent behavior, they apparently did not notice this interaction. I would therefore like to break this up into the following and maybe answer some stupid questions that were raised. These people are trapped, they have nowhere to go, and they are slowly being poisoned by radiation seeping in through the sewers. (And yes, reviewer that asked where the air came from? It was explained in the first five minutes of the film.) So the film asks of us, what would you do to survive? Will you give yourself up to degradation and humiliation to get food and water? Will you be strong enough to stand up and defend people, even the ones hurting others? Or will you go insane when you lose someone you love and just give in, because you know there is no escaping, and death is more preferable. How strong is the survival instinct, and how far would you go. Some reviewers thought this was supposed to be an art film. No it is not. Not in the least bit. It was not sold as such. It is also not supposed to be enjoyable. (How is a post-apocalyptic film supposed to be enjoyable anyway?). It is not a 'Hollywood' movie, but an independent production. It is a bleak movie. And yes, not for the faint of heart. But it is the kind of film that explores its premise, and delivers in spades. Some of the reviewers apparently expected a 'Saw' type movie, and was so bereft; they just went ahead and blasted away at it. It is not torture porn. It is not supposed to make you feel all warm and tingly inside. It is supposed to make you think. It is a shame that this get overlooked. In the end, it has nothing to do with the 'Nuclear Missile' and subsequent aftermath, which was just to set the stage.

And for the reviewer that posted that 'Saw' is a excellent movie? I personally think that 'Saw' is the American Idol of film making. It degraded it, trashed it, and got rewarded for it. I realize that this is a long review, but I am sick and tired of armchair reviewers getting their kicks out of trashing extremely well done films.

Was the above review useful to you?

63 out of 101 people found the following review useful:

Solid Flick - Why the haters are wrong:

8/10
Author: cope650 from California
29 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I created this IMDb account solely due to some of the ridiculous hate and remarks about this movie on existing reviews.

I felt a recurring complaint was that the characters actions were 'unrealistic' and the characters were so 'stupid' etc. To address both, take the simple scenario they open the movie with. A bunch of seemingly random 'groups' of people barreling down the stairs in a desperate and manic state trying to survive. In New York City. A select group ends up making it into this 'bunker'. Now, I surround myself with generally intellectual people, but if you think that taking a sample of 8 strangers from a random NYC building is going to yield a predominant output of good-hearted, intelligent people - then you're living in a damn bubble. News flash, there are impulsive sick f's everywhere you look, and equally important - sub ~90 IQ seems to be average these days.

Anyway, my point being, complaints about the unrealistic characters are completely unwarranted. If anything, the movie was probably a realistic depiction of ~8 random people in this situation. However, another group of 8 could yield an entirely different result. I think that's part of what the movie is trying to convey -- that getting stuck in a bunker during a post-apocalyptic scenario can potentially cause a Divide-esque situation. One person even mentioned that there weren't any 'enlightening' remarks or memorable quotes from the characters. No sh*t! This isn't Casablanca buddy, this is ~8 random people in a claustrophobic room dying of acute radiation poisoning and losing their minds while they're at it!

Now look, there were a few issues with the movie. I will admit there were a few scenes where the acting was lackluster and the situation was predictable. You may even roll your eyes once or twice. I was definitely disappointed with the fact that the movie didn't dive into more of the 'What's going on outside' story, but that's how the damn game goes! This movie wasn't about that subject, and as disappointing as it was, at least they gave us something! I mean seriously, most Sci-Fi or Post-apocalyptic movies these days are complete crap*, and most would've cut to black after she exited the sewer (*pun intended). It was a nice addition to have the guys drop on in with the HAZMAT suits and swoop the girl up. But that wasn't what the movie was about. The Lord of the Flies style deterioration (or decay - hah) of their bunker society was the focus, and I thought they did a damn good job of portraying an (again, potential) situation of this nature. My jaw dropped a few times and I was pleasantly surprised at how bold the writers/director was with some of the 'sick-f***' actions of Bobby and Josh. Props to Biehn, Ventimiglia, Arquette and Eklund for some generally awesome acting performances. The rest were solid too, and Lauren German.. Beautiful.

Most importantly: How many time's did you think about what you would do in this exact scenario? How you would break down, mentally and physically? Once your hair started falling out? ACCEPTING YOUR IMMANENT DEATH? Once the doors were welded shut and once the fire started? I'll just leave it at that.

I am a huge fan of post-apocalyptic scenarios, so maybe I'm biased, but I liked this movie more than numerous other "highly rated" flicks I've seen in the past year or two. Take Hunger Games for example, raving reviews from the critics... I enjoyed The Divide more. And speaking of unrealistic, the Hunger Games epitomizes unrealistic. But I'm not even going to go there. If you're some avid Christian or bible thumping religious buffoon and can't handle some brutal potentially real life scenarios, then stay away! This movie is not for you. If you love happy-go-lucky teenage girl stories like Hunger Games or Twilight, please, stay away. (I'm not saying Hunger Games was horrible by any means, it was entertaining enough. I am only commenting on the massive influx of rave reviews for Hunger Games - whereas The Divide achieves an undeserving 5.8?!)

Although the scenario isn't exactly something new (people stuck in a room, losing their minds), it was a fresh take on it, and 10-fold more enjoyable than the 'competition'. The post-apocalyptic back story is a great back-bone to this scenario, and although I wish we found out more - like 90%+ of related movies these days - we are left in some uncomfortable ambiguity. But in the end, that doesn't take away from this movie.

Solid Flick, 8/10. 7/10 if Post-Apocalyptic scenarios aren't your thing at all.

Was the above review useful to you?

43 out of 71 people found the following review useful:

Terrible movie

1/10
Author: compmend from United States
28 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie seems to advertise itself as being a groundbreaking character study into the post apocalyptic interactions between a group of survivors.

First of all, the nuclear apocalypse is shown in only a couple of scenes throughout the movie. An explanation for the attack is never revealed and there are scattered glimpses of faint possibilities haphazardly revealed throughout the movie, but, the viewer is left to fill in this large gaping plot hole for themselves.

Secondly the entire dialog seems to have been written by a socially inept adolescent, with no "ground breaking" insight or thought provoking lines in the whole movie. The characters where all unlikable, unrealistic, and unbelievable in the delivery of the dialog.

The movie is one big wimp fest with tantrums galore, nonsensical and whimsical deviance, and absolutely no plot. The characters where all immature, behaving like children from the onset and continuing through till the end of the movie.

I sat through this torturous piece of garbage hoping for some piece of redemption. It never came and I have not felt so robbed by a movie, as I did after watching this one. I want my money back.

Was the above review useful to you?

30 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

Don't waste your time.

1/10
Author: alowl from United States
29 April 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Such a horrible horrible laughable film. I say laughable because some viewers seemed to have bought into this garbage as an exploration of the dark side of humanity. Nothing makes sense. To me, it's obvious this director has zero life experience dealing with people in life and death situations. Either that, or he wants us to believe that somehow this particular basement, ended up with weakest examples of humanity. At one point, there seemed to be some hope for the movie, as one of the basement dwellers explored outside the basement revealing a tubular network and laboratory put up by the attackers, but it all ended when he was forced back into the basement and the basement was welded shut by the attackers. Why this interesting plot line was not further explored is a mystery to me, perhaps they ran out of money and knew they couldn't afford the Sci-fi sets and CGI work needed, or more simply, the writer was not up to the task. The acting was okay, considering they weren't given much to work with. Consider, Mickey, the superintendent of the building, a man who lost his family in 911 and pretty much wanted to die to be with them again. Knowing that, the viewers are supposed to believe that he would hide a roomful of food from the rest of the survivors? Why? So he could live longer? The movie was filled with inconsistencies and with the expectations that the viewer should just buy into the action without question just so the director could make a scene about rape, murder and torture. Visually stun the audience enough, so they don't think about story logic seemed to be the strategy by the producers on this one. Unless you like gore for gore's sake, spare yourself.

Was the above review useful to you?

33 out of 52 people found the following review useful:

Idiots locked in a basement, some die but not fast enough.

1/10
Author: Falco falco
8 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film is terrible. It is generic and even when it starts to go downhill quickly there is enough faith in some of the actors and production values to keep watching. Don't bother. A 15 year old who plays video games could have written the script. It has all been done before and much better (and shorter). People behave unrealistically and it is cliché after cliché. Even a mild mannered bookish lawyer should be able to shoot crazy rapist skinheads but no in the world of student level drama he can't. In short if you want to see this type of drama done well try The Hole. If you can read a book try Lord of the Flies. Don't waste your time with this.

Was the above review useful to you?

28 out of 43 people found the following review useful:

A Good Idea That Bombs In Its Execution

5/10
Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland
3 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The 1980s were scary times and I don't mean clothes and hairstyles . This was the era of MAD Mutually Assured Destruction where the East and West targeted each other with a nuclear stockpile where they were ready to be unleashed if the Cold War suddenly got very hot . We live in more peaceful times . There's more democracy in the world hence more peace and I don't miss the 1980s and watching something like THREADS still remains an unpleasant experience it is a nice little reminder of what could have been . With the end of the Cold War came the end of the nuclear holocaust genre so if you're making a film featuring mushroom clouds blooming all across the world you've got to bring something new to the table . This film THE DIVIDE does try but fails quite badly

It gets off to a good start as a young woman watches the nuclear destruction of New York take place . It contains good cinematography as we see the trail of nuclear missiles reflected on the surface of her left eye . This is a problem with this mis en scene when the camera cuts to a long shot of her framed against the window and we see the devastation outside . That is it reveals the destruction has been going on for a considerable amount of time and yet the window remains intact and hasn't been affected by any sort of shock wave from a nuclear explosion . This sums up the problem of the film from the outset where things aren't given enough thought or thought through strongly enough to be credible and for a film that has a good idea constantly insists on wasting them

You can see the premise is all about how low human beings can go to survive and I was reminded of the British thriller THE HOLE from about ten years ago . THE DIVIDE tries to be a more post apocalyptic version of this type of story but contains some incredibly bad plot holes and too many ideas for its own good . The most startling thing is a subplot where the shelter is invaded by armed men wearing NBC suits who then capture a child survivor and try to eliminate the other people in the shelter . It hints that they're part of a foreign power who were behind the strike such as North Korea but after they seal up the shelter they're effectively forgotten about as though these scenes never happened . On the message boards there are several threads speculating who these white suited men are , a popular one being that a plague has broken out and America has nuked its own population to stop the plague spreading but at no point do any of the characters state there was anything out of the ordinary before the strike and no matter how you try to dress this up it's a major distraction from the plot . It might have worked better if this entire subplot had been deleted but it leads to a very contrived plot device where the sane survivor escapes via a NBC suit which begs the question as to why one of the bad guys hadn't thought of it ? More plot holes which sums up THE DIVIDE perfectly

In short it's a film with a 1980s Cold War premise made in the 21st Century . This is even reflected in the casting of Michael Biehn and Rosanna Arquette who were the two rising stars of Hollywood in the mid 1980s and whose careers quickly fizzled out . Despite a strong premise and a doom laden atmosphere THE DIVIDED quickly fizzles out too which is a shame because it did show signs of almost being a very good movie

Was the above review useful to you?

57 out of 103 people found the following review useful:

Dividing

8/10
Author: kosmasp
25 January 2012

There is not much you can say about the story (though I won't reveal anything, not even the general storyline, which can be read here or seen in the trailer), but that doesn't matter that much. What does matter is the fact, that the movie can create a mood, a tension and hold it throughout. Which is a real achievement.

And the Kudos have to go to the screenwriter and the casting people. Which of course falls back on the actors chosen. This could have easily felt very cliché, but it doesn't. There are choices to be made and the actors are very convincing. You may see where this is heading (general direction), but it still has a big impact. It touches on many emotions and has drama in it, that will leave you interested how it evolves and where it will lead to ...

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

The most criminally underrated, hated, boycotted movie EVER !

9/10
Author: ujktom
16 May 2014

I saw some reviews about this movie and all were that it was "sooo bad", "waste of time" and "terrible movie" and at the same time people told me it was an "shocking post-apocalyptic masterpiece" First i didn't want to watch it because of the ratings.

Ill never trust the ratings again !

This is the most criminally underrated, hated, boycotted movie EVER ! Some people are MAD, they launched an Internet hate-agenda. They HATE this movie. WHY ? Well someone got really butt-hurt and offended about it ! I say you MUST watch it and judge for yourselves....

I give it a 9/10 because of all the BIAS and HATE and it surprised me. normally i would give it a 7/10.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 23:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history