Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

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

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Eschete Good documentary, lots of witty observations and visual jokes.The film outlines the devolution of Woodstock from a somewhat commercial gathering of doped-up morons into a completely commercial gathering of doped-up morons. A sad commentary, really, on what capitalism does to culture.Michael Lang put Woodstock I together, and it was a commercial flop, albeit a "countercultural" success. So he tries to recreate it 25 years later, with lots of gutless corporate sponsorship. It works OK.Then, five years after that, he tries again. This time, corporations own it completely. $150.00 per ticket. $6.00 for a bottle of water. $10.00 for a burrito. Sewage on the ground. Guess what? A riot happens.A good film, all around. Symbolic of what is happening to American culture--both high culture and pop culture--as it is crammed into Happy Meals and catalogs.Things to watch for: Perry Farrell pontificates about money, Michael Lang grins like a dope, parking lot haggling, corporate big-wigs try to be hip, advertiser wants to create "hippie punk." A-.

Schlockmeister An interesting look at the degeneration of the Woodstock festival. All three festivals are shown and contrasted. From the supposedly peaceful motives of the 1969 show to the commercialism of the other shows and also the out and out violence of the last one. I guess what got to me more than anything is the extreme self-conciousness of the subsequent shows, constant references to "Aren't we cool?" and "Oooo, this is so historic." and attempting to live out the early concert by feeling that you have to roll in mud and dress like hippies, well, just because. It comes across very shallow and hollow as I am sure it was, as the audience got quickly bored and resorted to their reptilian minds by committing acts of destruction and violence. I am sure in their minds these were acts of "revolution". The leaders of the festival in later years seem to just be in a state of denial, walking around with silly grins. The documentary shows how much music has changed, lyrics have gone from changing the world to now where images of violence and hate spew forth from performers who are well protected from the repercussions of their incitements. Recommended if the subject holds some interest for you.

Brian Blueskye This documentary proved that there was something behind all 3 of the Woodstock festivals that no one saw.Sure this is a great documentary if you want to see all the differences between generations, and if you want a portrait on how to live in mud for 3 days. But the documentary has a much higher purpose to me.It showed that there is an inside joke behind all 3 Woodstock festivals. The idea that a revolution can be marketed, people will pay for it, and it has corporate sponsorship along with promoters out to make a buck.The footage of Perry Farrell of Porno For Pyros talking about how corporate greed is wrong, then seeing "The band wanted 500,000 for their performance" was just funny in it's own statement. Hearing all these people talk about how spiritual Woodstock is, and how everyone wants to have a good time, it's just a dream! It's not ever going to happen without someone making trying to make a profit because people are that stupid to have that belief and will always pay for that dream.The breakdown of the festivals when it came to security gaps was something people should have taken a hint by. The fires of Woodstock 99 went to show that kids are not stupid, although they did pay 150 dollars to show up, but did not take the big screw that corporate America wanted to give them. The footage of the man at Woodstock 94 saying "we are gonna do what we want regardless" went to show that Generation X wasn't going to be told what to do when they are the paying consumer.I thought this was a great look into the comparison of all 3 generations, the hippies, generation x, and generation "what" as I refer to this generation by. "What" meaning people don't know what the hell they are fighting for, don't know who they are, and are afraid to change the world because they don't know how to direct their angers and fears.I highly recommend this documentary to everyone, the inside joke of Woodstock needs to be exposed and people need to see that there is no such thing but need for profit off everyones revolution.

cochise-6 This documentary takes a look at the three Woodstock music festivals (1969, 1994 and 1999) and compares and contrasts them with one another. Issue is taken with whether or not the revival festivals were for money or for peace and love. Many viewpoints and angles are explored--giving a nice, well rounded presentation.The editing is very good and includes some very smart snippets. These include: a little girl's assessment of the necessity of a video game vending stand, a landowner trying to renegotiate a deal when he sees there is more money to be gotten, people flopping around in the mud and having a good time, some great concert footage and miscellaneous insightful comments from various people.To give a cohesive shape to My Generation, all the various viewpoints are delicately stitched together, giving the film a nice ebb and flow feeling. It does seem a bit long at times, but overall I'd say it's a must for anyone who has any thoughts on Woodstock or the state of today's youth.