EssenceStory Well Deserved Praise

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Allissa .Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

itamarscomix Taking Woodstock feels naive and simplistic at first. In a sense, it is. There's no real historical insight into why Woodstock was as important an event in 20th century culture as it was. The social-political aspects of the festival are downplayed; the anti-war aspect is barely a footnote. Instead, Ang Lee focused on conveying the spirit and the vibe of Woodstock, which is one of freedom, liberation, unlimited possibilities. It's not a historical document, nor is it a musical film, it's a genuine feel-good movie, and it works on every level. And as much as it's a sweet little human story, it's a clear window into a time and a place. And it draws the viewer in, and keeps him in all the way through.A sincere hats-off for the casting; except for Eugene Levy as an obligatory Jewish farmer, and Paul Dano and Emile Hirsch as obligatory hippies, none of the cast play to their strengths, and they all surprise. Imelda Staunton and Liev Schreiber are both fantastic in very untypical roles. Most surprising is comedian Demetri Martin, whose character develops and grows throughout the film, who delivers an understated, funny, human dramatic role, fantastically natural for a first dramatic feature-film role. Looking forward to see more of him in the near future.

Alistar Baker I'm not sure if this film seemed warm and satisfying because of all the Japanese horror/thrillers I've been watching or because it actually is, but I'm fairly certain it isn't the Japanese films that gave me this impression. As you can read anywhere, this film is an Ang Lee dramatic comedy based on a memoir called 'Taking Woodstock...'. Eliot Tiber's Jewish parents are running a run-down motel in Bethel, NY that is on its last legs. Eliot is trying to become an interior designer and artist in Greenwich village in 1969, the Summer of Love while pouring his earning into his parents motel. As luck would have it, Eliot sets up a deal with the organizers of the Woodstock Festival to use farmland in Bethel as the staging area since they were already booted from their original Walkill venue. Now about the film itself. I don't want to give away to much of the fun of course. But for one, there is a nice understated warm humor in this film. I think that is the main perk about Eliot's character. He's understated, warm, and sort of down-to-earth qualities which makes his acting job and his character likable; you're rooting for him and laughing at his misadventures from the crazy domineering Jewish mother, to his drama of dealing with half a million hippies descending on his small town because of him. The wacky ensemble in this film from the transgender ex-Marine Vilma, to Eliot's shell-shocked Vietnam Vet Billy, to the hippie theatre troupe make for memorable viewing, lots of laughs, and a great entertaining time. Now if you aren't particularly fond of hippie stuff, you'll probably still enjoy this film. The Woodstock festival is more of a backdrop for Eliots family and personal struggles which he deals with in funny and interesting ways throughout the festival. I suppose though this movie is fairly nostalgic about all things hippie despite their naivety, and ineffectual politics, but the movie is more about youth, self-realization, and friendship, than hippiedom per se, and that is why I liked this film. By the way, if you want to see a movie about the music at Woodstock, this film doesn't have hardly enough on the music of the festival. Just a heads up. Enjoy.

MLDinTN more music since it's about Woodstock. But there's hardly any music and the plot was boring. The movie is about how Woodstock came to be in a small New York community, but I'm sure this is not a true story. There probably isn't any truth to it at all.Elliot is trying to help his parents whom run a small hotel in New York. They are behind in payments and have the summer to pay off the bank. Elliot gets a permit to have a festival. Woodstock was planned in another town, but it fell through, so they come to Elliot. He already has the permit and they find the farmland, so decided to have Woodstock there. A lot of the film is how he and his parents make a lot of money by renting out the hotel and other stuff.FINAL VERDICT: I don't recommend it.

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.