This movie was filmed in my hometown. Well, some of it was. During the filming, the town was in very high spirits -- a movie, on our streets! Hell, even I was happy, cynical as I may be. Jonathan Brandis? Yes, please.About two months ago, I finally found a VHS copy at the local library. And I watched it. And it went on. And on. And on. And on.The film has a semi-decent beginning, but the constant usage of "flashbacks" (which in this case are long, dreary segments of stock footage circa 1970) made me want to take a long nap. The acting isn't spectacular, but it's okay. Brandis in particular did pretty well.The dialogue is very cheesy at times. The plot is somewhat hard to follow, with characters you simply don't care about and begin to hate halfway through for getting a movie to their boring selves.It's sad when the only thing I got from it was "oh, look! That.. that street I played on when I was ten!" It's just an incredibly tedious experience. The settings are drab, the cinematography is boring, the story is sleep-inducing, the characters are .. uh, I don't know. I need another adjective.Watch something else. Unless below mediocre boring stuff is your cup of tea.

That was my question. Characters were introduced and used throughout the film, but then they randomly disappear, never to be seen or heard from again.And the ending made absolutely no sense. It just ended.Jonathan Brandis should have given up after his childhood movies or at least taken some acting classes because he is by far one of the worse actors in this film. Of course the worse actress would be Kierra Chaplin. She is a model and that is what she should continue to do. Ms. Chaplin is French and this film is set in northeast Ohio. It seemed extremely out of place for her to have a French accent in this film.Besides the shallow and disapearing characters, the story istself is not that great. Everyone and everything seems to be about THE WAR. Everything is about THE WAR. I know that the Vietnam War was a huge issue back in the 70's, but I also know that it wasn't the only issue.Overall, this movie was terrible and a waste of my time. I give it a 3/10. It only earns it's 3 because of the interesting and beautiful (what looked like) archive footage from the 70's.

Within the last year or two I've seen a lot of bad movies (The Mexican) but this tops the list as being the worst yet. Creativity is at a complete loss and the casting of actors was even worse. I'd rather see an independent film with unknown actors rather than having to watch Jonathan Brandis prance around the set as if he had a bad case of hemorrhoids. The guy looks disgruntled and constipated throughout the whole film, even when he's engaging in sexual activities with beautiful but untalented actresses. Too much of the film deals with teens smoking pot and discussing (and repeating) the consequences of being drafted into the Vietnam War. Apparently in 1970 that's all that people did, at least that's all that the overly pretentious title represents. With any luck at all The Year that Trembled could be released as a TV movie due to its semi-familiar faces.

"The Year That Trembled" creates a memory of a time of another generation... the May 4, 1970 shootings at Kent State University when four students were killed by Ohio National Guard, and the Vietnam war draft lottery that followed. Starring Martin Mull, Fred Willard and Henry Gibson in supporting dramatic roles, the story follows students who actively oppose the war, then are faced with the decisions of how to respond to their personal destiny with the war. A wonderful film that recalls a different time that we should never forget. Bravo to Jay Craven, Scott Lax and the filmmakers of "The Year That Trembled."