Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaThe Year That Trembled is a 1970 coming-of-age story set in the shadow of Kent State that focuses on a group of young characters facing the Vietnam Draft Lottery.The Year That Trembled is a 1970 coming-of-age story set in the shadow of Kent State that focuses on a group of young characters facing the Vietnam Draft Lottery.The Year That Trembled is a 1970 coming-of-age story set in the shadow of Kent State that focuses on a group of young characters facing the Vietnam Draft Lottery.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Foto
Sascha Stanton Craven
- Bill Clark
- (as Sascha Stanton-Craven)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
Movie was very interesting. Would have been even better if the DVD had captionings or subtitles, which it didn't have. Otherwise I thought the movie was well done. The actual footages throughout the movie were very interesting! And I enjoyed Jonathan Brandis' performance (hard to believe he's gone for good).
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.
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.
Important depiction of a time arguably as turbulent as our current. However, links (or even intimations of them) from past to present are lacking in this film. A faded standalone snapshot, the mood unimpassioned, (ironic given the manic, "trembling" tenor of those times). No room is made or left over for extrapolation or lessons learned--a great opportunity missed. Instead we're dished up startlingly superficial and hackneyed treatment of the era, ineffective character development, and lackluster performances from most of the cast. Further, the film is riddled with anachronisms and suffers from romanticism and historical revisionism--so it comes off as shallow and clichéd. Perhaps this film was made by people too young to understand the flavor of those times. If not, perhaps the filmmakers are part of a well-meaning but removed elite, who took their very best shot at depicting the lives and dramas of their characters, but the closest they could come was creating an approximated, somewhat patronizing, overly polite, "as-if" characterization--which naturally lacks passion, flow, human depth and complexity, and realism. In sum, it's like watching back to back episodes of the mundane NBC drama "American Dreams" (albeit, with a more liberal lean, fortunately), without the energy level. Just about that insightful, realistic, and compelling. In sum, clearly an earnest effort, tho emotionally blunted overall.
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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizAt the Cincinnati International Film Festival in 2002, the movie won both the People's Choice Award and the Best Regional Film Award.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 44min(104 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti