Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

dougdoepke Woodstock was likely the biggest cultural event of the counter-culture period. The thousands that packed the New York state farmland spread out like an ocean of youthful humanity. Viewers get a pretty good sense of what interested and animated the movement from the film. However, it should be noted that very little of counter-cultural politics comes through. That was mainly the purview of what's termed the New Left, and though the two overlapped in many respects— anti-Vietnam war, critical view of capitalism—they were by no means identical. Rather Woodstock appears a celebration of certain broad values the youths or "hippies" found in short supply in daily life. Those values centered around peace, love, and sharing, certainly positive values in the abstract. The gathering was thus a magnet not only for followers of the performing bands but for those wanting to affirm among themselves, at least, that another world is possible. And though the movement may have fizzled in many ways, reverberations are still with us, mainly in the form of loosened sexual and social norms. Now, I'm in no position to comment on the performing bands, but I was transfixed by an angelic Joan Baez's rendition of Joe Hill.Overall, the documentary amounts to a unique visual experience even for those uninterested in upheavals from the 1960's. What lingers in memory are the sea of smiling faces, the quagmire of sticky mud, the pockets of nudity, the inspired stage musicians, and finally, the littered vacant ground. All in all, it's quite a permanent record of a bygone period.

grantss Superb capturing of a seminal moment in musical and cultural history.A documentary on the Woodstock festival of 1969. Shows not only the music but every other aspect too: the organising, the financial implications, the effect on fans and locals and the chronology of events within the festival.Based on the music alone, this is a fantastic film: Richie Havens, Joan Baez, The Who, Sha-Na-Na, Joe Cocker (in the performance that would launch his career), Country Joe and the Fish, Crosby Stills and Nash, Ten Years After, John Sebastian, Santana, Sly and the Family Stone and Jimi Hendrix (a performance which included his famous rendition of The Star Spangled Banner).Despite the reasonable primitive conditions and often inhospitable weather, the sound and video footage is great. However, the thing that elevates this movie above the average concert movie is the footage of how things transpired and what happened behind the scenes. It is thanks to this that you get to understand the enormity and importance of the event. It also helps you understand the idealism, benevolent intentions and harmony of the concert goers and of that generation.

dallasryan I watched the 224 minute version and that is the one one has to watch. Awesome and more. It was so amazing to see all of the different acts that played. You can't beat seeing Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin perform and get nostalgic on what more might have been with their careers. I always strictly had the stereotype of associating Woodstock with sex only. Of course it was about sex and drugs, but it was about a certain freedom that none of us really truly get to experience in our lives, ever. A certain peace. I learned so much more about what Woodstock really stood for, and it really opened my eyes. Each generation is different obviously. Each generation has their good, their bad and their ugly. But Woodstock demonstrated something so pure, something that can never be recreated again. Each generation has different beliefs and each generation fights for something different. These people at the 1969 Woodstock fought for something that ended up transcending to the world what they were fighting for, what they were all about, and it was absolutely beautiful. All walks of life too, all kinds of people their at Woodstock 1969. It's sad to say with this generation that if we ever had another Woodstock, it would be just like the one of 1999. Fake, phony, people wanting to push the envelope for their own personal gain and agenda, anger, rage, etc. It's sad to say this generation is one of laziness, impatience, anger, and getting fat(see how skinny those people were in 1969. Their bodies were shaped different too. It's got be the different food and medicine we take as the years go by that make our bodies different. Also plastic surgery). The Movie Wall-E has really predicted where our society is heading. It's sad in a way that we can't be more like these people of 1969 from this documentary. Of course, the ultimate sadness is most of the hardcore hippies that were there at Woodstock 1969 probably conformed to the society norms with jobs, health care, insurance, etc. You have too or you just end up dying or living your life as bum. You almost have to conform at some point. I'm sure there's some that never did though.

Wuchak I was too young for Woodstock, but I heard of it spoken in reverent tones over the years. I also heard great things about Michael Wadleigh's 1970 documentary-concert. Despite this, I put off seeing the film. Maybe because I thought it was going to be some roll-your-eyes groovy experience, man. I don't know, but I didn't get around to viewing it until the late 90s and I was blown away. I've seen it three or four more times since then and it always has the same awe-inspiring effect.The concert took place over 3.5 days in mid-August, 1969, at the height of the Vietnam fiasco and the counterculture movement. Twice as many people attended than expected and it was the biggest gathering of people in one place in history, about 400,000, only beat by the infamous Isle of Wight concert in England a year later.The film shows the good and bad of the hippie culture. Generally speaking, the movement was a reaction against the Vietnam war and the sterile legalism that America and similar countries had devolved into by the early-mid 60s. The youth wanted freedom, peace and love and you can see this in the movie. It was a good thing. Yet you can also see the bad -- like the bad acid situation ("Hey, it's your trip, man..."). Both Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix appear at Woodstock, and they're great, but they'll be dead in a little over a year, both only 27 years-old. Jim Morrison and the Doors didn't play because they declined at the last moment and later regretted it. Jim died shortly after the other two, also only 27. Interestingly, Jethro Tull declined because Ian Anderson didn't like hippies and was concerned about things like inappropriate nudity (?!).But I don't mean to put a downer on Woodstock because it was an amazing event, never to be repeated. They tried to repeat it at Altamont Speedway in California, less than four months after Woodstock, and also at Isle of Wight, but both festivals turned out badly and put the the kibosh on the movement's noble ideals, even though it was pretty much inevitable since freedom without wise parameters naturally devolves into chaos and self-destruction.Regardless, as a snapshot in time, "Woodstock" is fascinating and supremely entertaining. Half of the appeal is the incredible magnitude of the event itself and the footage of the people -- the hippies who came and the adults who lived there and tried to help or, in a couple cases, complained. This includes the fun and sometimes outrageous escapades of the festival. A good example would be the skinny dipping or, in many cases, semi-skinny dipping. Although this may have been a cool experiment at the event it never caught-on in the culture at large. Why? Probably because few people want to see someone else's Captain Winky and, unless a female has the body of a starlet, who wants to see it? (lol).But what can explain the mass appeal of Woodstock? What made the hippies come out en masse? Was it just the music? The filmmakers ask this very question of a guy at the festival who looks about 16-17 years old. He says it wasn't just the music, at least not for him. The hippies crawled out of the woodwork, so to speak, like zombies seeking some kind of solace, a sense of community, a reason to... live. And Woodstock met that need. The other half of the appeal is, of course, the performances and music. What's amazing is how diversified the styles of music were and how non-heavy. Don't get me wrong, many of the performances are seriously energetic, but they're light compared to what rock/metal evolved into in the 70s to the present. There was acoustic folk, Caribbean, blues, rock, gospel, pop, 50s, Latin rock, jazz fusion and psychedelic rock. Some of it I like and some of it I don't much care for, but they're all entertaining in one way or another. Since I'm into metal, my favorites are Santana, The Who and Jimi Hendrix, but I also enjoy a lot of the lighter stuff, like Joan Baez ("Swing Low Sweet Chariot") and Arlo Guthrie ("Coming into Los Angeles"). And then there are the acts that come out of left field, like Sly and the Family Stone and Sha Na Na, even Ritchie Havens.What's amazing is how brief the classic hippie era was. It started around '65 and its apex was Woodstock in August '69, a mere four years later. From there it was all downhill with Altamont, Isle of Wight and the deaths of the movement's principal musical icons. As such, it only lasted some eight years.Thankfully, we have this film to see the good aspects of the period -- some bad, some eye-rolling -- but mostly good, and definitely entertaining.The film was shot in White Lake, New York, and runs 184 minutes while the 1994 Director's Cut runs 225 minutes. I've only seen the latter.GRADE: A