Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

jozzero Once you cut through all the he said she said about how Woodstock was conceived and realized and just watch it because Woodstock was so peaceful and happy, never mind the mark it made in history, it is a very relaxing movie. I watch it once a month just to chill.

Rainey Dawn The movie is so-so, kinda interesting and kinda boring at the same time. mediocre film. A little bit funny at times and not enough music.Our story focuses on Elliot Teichberg who accidentally kicks off the one of the most memorable times in history: The Woodstock Festival of 1969. The problem with the film is our lead character Elliot. He's rather boring and uninteresting. He's just there, blazay and not much of a personality and the film focuses on him and not so much the festival itself - I think this is the big disappointment with the film.Woodstock was about the music and the message of peace and love. I think most fans of Woodstock are grateful to Max Yasgur for the use of his dairy farm for that wonderful event - but the film shows us a rather boring Elliot for the most part and misses the whole point.The movie is not completely awful - but it's not that good. It's in the middle ground.5/10

tomgillespie2002 It's seems remarkable to me that such a massive historic event as the one portrayed in Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock has largely been ignored in the movies, when it included many giants of the industry and took place in one of the most beloved era's in our recent history. The event I'm referring to is, of course, the legendary Woodstock Festival in 1969. The Festival was documented in the epic 1970 documentary Woodstock, but Lee's film concentrates on the creation of the Festival, the resistance the creators were faced with by the townspeople, and the dedication that the protagonist Elliot Teichberg had in what he saw as putting money into his poor parents pockets and back into the town's economy.Teichberg (played with ease by stand-up comic Demetri Martin) is a successful interior designer and President of the Chamber of Commerce who spends most of his time handing his parents money so they can keep running their s**t-hole motel, in which his miser mother tries to saves money by turning the bed sheets over rather than actually washing them. His long-suffering father spends his days in a semi-daze after years of living with his Russian-born wife who accuses anyone in her path of being an anti-Semite and reminds them of her struggle escaping from the Nazi's during WWII.When Teichberg overhears that the original location to hold the Festival falls through due to opposition from the town members, he uses his permit (purchased for $1 for his usual small arts festival for the theatre troupe that lives in his barn) to lure the organisers to Woodstock and obtains permission to have free reign to use the acres of land owned by dairy-farmer Max Lasgur (the ever-brilliant Eugene Levy). He is aided by festival organiser Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff) and transvestite Vilma, who, being played by giant Liev Schreiber, looks ridiculous in a blond wig, but played to fantastic comic effect.There are both strengths and weaknesses for the film, unfortunately a lot more of the latter. The film beautifully captures the era without going overboard, and it wisely keeps the focus on the main character's plight to make the concert work rather than shifting to the concert itself. But, while the character of Teichberg is interesting himself, his relationship with his mother and father takes up most of the film's focus, and it just isn't either convincing or interesting enough. His mother is uptight and unappreciative of her son's input in the family business, spending years saving any money she can while her son goes broke and the business suffers. It's a storyline that's been covered many times before and offers nothing new, although played well by the ever-reliable Imelda Staunton. Thank God, then, for the sweet relationship that develops between father Jake (Henry Goodman) and Schreiber's character, with the former fully engaging with the swarm of hippies on their motel and finding a new dimension and meaning to his life.I must admit I was expecting more from a director of the magnitude of Ang Lee, capturing the same kind of magic found in Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous, but it's never quite funny, dramatic or engaging enough. Many scenes fall flat, such as a spectacularly unfunny scene where Teichberg's parents eat 'special' brownies given to them by Vilma and proceed to dance and laugh with their son before stumbling into their bedroom and falling asleep. And the inclusion of Emile Hirsch's character - an isolated and paranoid Vietnam veteran who is struggling to fit back into home life - is just poorly written and wholly unconvincing.Maybe I'm being a bit too harsh, or maybe I just expect more from Ang Lee. It is elevated by good performances by Martin and Schreiber. It also has a few nice moments - namely when we experience a screaming crowd turn into waves of psychedelic lights through the eyes of an acid- influenced Teichberg. An easy film to watch, but disappointingly run-of- the-mill.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

Argemaluco First of all, I have to make the warning that, despite its title and colorful poster, Taking Woodstock is not a modern recreation of the epic festival celebrated in August from 1969.In fact, the film does not include even an original song from Woodstock, neither bands nor scenes of the concert (well, it includes one of them, but it is not focused on the concert itself).The purpose from Taking Woodstock is much more modest, because it puts the attention on the experiences of Elliot Tiber, a Jewish young man who made the concert possible when he contacted the organizer from the event with the owner from the farm where the concert would eventually be made.That sounds trivial, and it in fact is like that; but for two hours we can see details about the organization from the festival; the effect the "hippie" spirit had on Tiber and his family...and the terror from the community when they realized that the event would be much...MUCH bigger than they had ever imagined.The people who always wanted to know about those details may enjoy this film.But I am not one of them, and I found Taking Woodstock to be a horribly tedious experience.I suppose screenwriter James Schamus thought that the story of this film seemed as a good idea...a story about the Woodstock festival, but told from behind the stage...or, better said, behind the farm, where we could supposedly appreciate the personal and human angle from the event, and maybe making us to be witnesses of the efforts made by hundreds of people to make something iconic and memorable, which truly changed the world.But the horrible result from the movie is very far away from that, and it is reduced to a simplistic melodrama saturated of clichés, hollow characters and apathetic performances which do not bring too much energy or credibility.Besides, as many antiquated expressions Schamus included in the screenplay ("Far Out!", "Groovy!"), that is not enough to evoke the "hippie" ideology from that time, or the exuberant freedom (some may say "anarchy") which woke the festival up.I think that this movie needed a more focused and much less diffuse screenplay, which had a concrete purpose instead of simply showing disjointed scenes with poor narrative sense and unfunny "humor".What is more, the cast is absolutely lacking of motivation, with one exception.To start with, we have the bland Demetri Martin on the leading role.I have to say I could never swallow this comedian very much, at the same time he aspires to the niche of "likeable loser" which is perfectly exploited by Jesse Eisenberg and Michael Cera.However, Martin absolutely lacks of any presence, credibility...and congeniality.Emile Hirsch is absolutely lost with his character, and even the usually brilliant Imelda Staunton feels bland and forced on her character.The only exception I previously mentioned is Liev Schreiber, who is the only member of the cast who shows personality and conviction on his character.In summary, Taking Woodstock is a tedious and terribly uninteresting film experience which I do not recommend by any means.I suppose there are hundreds of interesting stories related to Woodstock; unfortunately, this is definitely not one of them.