Diagonaldi Very well executed

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

meghanw 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).

mprozaic 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.

meadowlark Helen Gardner (Marin Hinkle) teaches at a high school near Kent State University. She is an activist against the war in Vietnam, as are some of her students. On May 4, 1970, they hear news of the shootings at Kent State. As a result of her activities, Helen is fired from her job. She marries a young aspiring lawyer (Jonathan M. Woodward) who throws his energy into a legal suit on behalf of those students who were shot. Four of Helen's senior students (Jonathan Brandis, Charlie Finn, Sean Nelson, and Lucas Ford) graduate and rent a farmhouse next door to their former teacher and her husband. We follow these people, as well as others they become involved with, for the next year as they stave off the law, protest the war, and try to make some beginning in life while facing the likelihood of being drafted and sent to Vietnam.The title comes from a poem from Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass"."YEAR that trembled and reel'd beneath me!/ Your summer wind was warm enough-yet the air I breathed froze me;/ A thick gloom fell through the sunshine and darken'd me;/ Must I change my triumphant songs? said I to myself;/ Must I indeed learn to chant the cold dirges of the baffled?/ And sullen hymns of defeat?"Jay Craven captures in drama the times and the concerns that "Hair" captured as a musical, as he focuses on one of the pivotal events of that time--the shooting of students at Kent State--and how that event and the war that spawned it, affected others in the surrounding communities. He skillfully interweaves stock footage of film and tv broadcasts from that period, with the fictional lives of some young people (and some old) who were closely connected with those events and were trying to figure out how to relate to a society that seemed to have lost its way. But the film is not abstractly political, keeping its attention on the personal concerns of the characters in all their ambivalence. Jonathan Brandis, in particular, brings a strong screen presence to his role as the point-of-view character in an ensemble cast, and Charlie Finn provides engaging comic relief as the goofy, but believable, Jim "Hairball" Morton. Henry Gibson, Fred Willard, and Martin Mull show the sympathetic–if not altogether trustworthy–other side of the generation gap that had split along some fault-line in time.The film is somewhat structurally unfocused in its early part. It took a while to get a sense of each character–longer than can be afforded in a feature film, I'd say. Hairball, for example, at first seemed simply awkward as an actor, rather than goofy as a character. Jay R. Ferguson was excellent in his crucial role, but could have gotten the same effect with less screen time. Others could have been given shorter shrift or perhaps no shrift at all.But once the film zeroes in on the main characters and plot events, it grabs your attention and hangs on.

guenbee This is one of those things you marvel at: why did Martin Mull, Henry Gibson and Fred Willard do this? They couldn't have done it for the money. This film is so cheap that they have Fred carrying a kid to Canada on his moped (top speed 20 mph) from the Cleveland area. You know this because there's a sign by the side of the road that says" Border Crossing." He gives his daughter a present wrapped in crudely chopped up construction paper (they couldn't have sent someone to the local CVS for 50 cents worth of wrapping paper?) The make up seems to have been done by the local undertaker - Henry Gibson's face looks downright cooked.And these are minor concerns. The continuity, the dialogue, the plot! Oy! For those of you who have no idea of what happened at Kent State 30 some years ago - this ain't gonna help!