 | |
List Price: $29.98 | | Label: Universal Studios
Salesrank: 980
Released: December 15, 2009 |
| Our Price: $13.58 |
| Used Price: $11.78 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
A new comedy inspired by the true story of elliot tiber and his family who inadvertently played a pivotal role in making the the famed woodstock music and arts festival into the happening that it was. Studio: Uni Dist Corp. (mca) Release Date: 12/15/2009 Starring: Bette Henritze Adam Le Ferve Run time: 121 minutes Rating: R
Description of Taking Woodstock:
The famous stage where Jimi Hendrix, the Who, and Crosby, Stills and Nash played before a half-million people in 1969 is never closer than a mile or so away in Taking Woodstock. Similarly, some of the familiar live music in Michael Wadleigh's Oscar-winning, 1970 documentary Woodstock is never louder than a distant echo in this period film by Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain). That's because Taking Woodstock is not really about the music, but about a little-known figure who had everything to do with making the Woodstock concert festival happen. Elliot Tiber (Demetri Martin) is the very young president of a chamber of commerce in the Catskills town where he grew up. Burdened with the failure of his parents (amazing performances by Imelda Staunton and Henry Goodman) to make a go of a crummy motel, Elliot is making himself crazy trying to be a dutiful son and civic leader.
His trials are both lightened and intensified by an accident of history. Elliot sees a newspaper article explaining how the organizers of an outdoor rock concert have lost the use of a nearby field they were counting on. In short order, he makes contact with the promoters, putting them together with dairy farmer Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy), who has plenty of available pasture for rent. He also sets up the groovy but cryptic boss of the whole enterprise, Michael Lang (astute work by Tony Award-nominated Jonathan Groff, a talent to watch), as well as Lang's movers and shakers, at the motel. In no time, the Tibers' life becomes a three-ring circus, while a steady stream of young people clog the roads on their way to a legendary concert. Lee, a master at creating precise milieus for the varied stories he tells (Sense and Sensibility, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), gets the look and texture and energy of a counterculture Happening in 1969 close to perfect. He also makes Taking Woodstock look vintage, bleaching colors to approximate the tones of many a big movie from that era, and using a split-screen to challenge the idea of the camera's singular perspective. In the end, Taking Woodstock is itself a pretty far-out version of a heartwarming coming-of-age tale--Elliot's coming-of-age, that is, as the excellent Martin's boy-man looks beyond that motel and discovers a big, wide world out there, just waiting for him. --Tom Keogh
Taking Woodstock Reviews:
Enjoyable film 
2009-12-30 - I saw this in the theater and thought it was quite enjoyable and fun. It was well made, directed, and acted, with many funny moments. It was also endearing as the Elliot character really learns who he is. The best thing about this movie...they stuck to the story of how Woodstock ended up in this town. No actors dressed up to look like the musicians who played Woodstock. I was concerned it would turn into a what musician can we throw in and such, but it wasn't thankfully.
Definitely worth watching.
Sweet tempered, personal, human -- everything contemporary audiences don't get and don't want.
2009-12-29 - After a second viewing, I think it's not just good, it's Lee's masterpiece. Elliot's acid trip is as beautiful a piece of filmmaking as I've ever seen. But what's really wonderful is how the story sneaks up on you, adn you realize it's about the flowering of a human soul.
*
A charmer, and probably a small classic. The antipathy in some of the low starred reviews is inexplicable. The film moves gently from scene to scene, gradually revealing surprising things about the characters, but always with a compassion and affection for them that sets Ang Lee apart from other contemporary directors, who seem to delight in hating the people in their own films, and maybe hating humanity. Watch this after a monster fest like "Inglourious Basterds" and you'll see the difference between a pretentious poseur and an artist.
Interesting little ditty, sort of a docku-comedy 
2009-12-28 - First off, this is not a Woodstock documentary. I it is a story that just happens to center around the event. The film is an adaption so it has a general script to follow and still has to adjust to become a visual experience. Some people were added others were combined for brevity.
Not saying you will appreciate the movie any better but you defiantly need to watch the voice over commentary to see what was trying to be produced.
I thought it was cute but nothing worth re-watching. Not that I would ever take those substances that were imbibed in the movie, however this was a much more accurate rendition than the earlier movies attempted to portray.
The introduction of the Character returning from Vietnam was for the movie and a tad over the top. However, I had just come back myself as was stationed at West Point (not too far away). I actually made it to the muddy parts but never to the stage. Other people may have been virtuous however, I know someone who made a bundle on selling a combination of oregano and tea mixture (which smell similar to other substances).
Any way I applaud the effort to make this film. I just do not see it having any social redeeming quality.
Well one exception "No stuping in the bushes", Sonia Teichberg.
I only saw the Blu-ray version so could not compare to other versions.
Taking Woodstock out of Woodstock 
2009-12-25 - I wanted to like this movie. Demetri Martin, who plays the lead character, has always made me laugh with his stand-up comedy and I was hoping for good things in his debut movie role. I've also always been a big fan of Woodstock and the music and fashions of the 60s. I've seen the original Woodstock movie (way back when, on VHS) and was expecting this to be a funny behind-the-scenes view of the events surrounding the main event. However, this movie is not actually about Woodstock--certainly not to the degree that the trailers and posters suggest. Taking Woodstock is about a young man coming out of the closet in the late 60s, who just happens to live near some kind of musical festival. And you know what? Leaving aside my disappointment that the concert pretty much doesn't feature in this movie at all, it's still not even a good story in itself.
Firstly, the vibe is all wrong. There is nothing of the feel of the 60s here at all. Secondly, Demetri delivers his lines as though he is reading them. Even in the rare times when he musters a convincing display of emotion he just doesn't have any screen presence. Most of the other actors play simple stereotypes, overplaying their roles to the extent that they're almost a parody of their own characters. Also, trotted out as though by checklist is the typical medley of 60s cliches, such as the inadvertent acid-trip. And where the heck is the music? For a movie supposedly based around one of the most musically-significant concerts in the history of modern music, there is almost nothing at all. You get the closing two bars of someone pretending to be Simon and Garfunkle, plus some brief snatches of other songs here and there, but nothing that makes you think of the real Woodstock performances. Somewhat ironically, the first piece of music in the movie that is readily-identifiable as being from this era is by The Doors, a band who were never invited to Woodstock.
So, it's not about the music, it doesn't authentically convey the 60s vibe, the dialogue is trite, and the characters are mostly cardboard cutouts. The props and settings are pretty convincing, though. Oh, and the poster looks cool. I recommend that you skip the movie and stare at the poster for a couple of hours instead.
horrid and the very worst movie ever made quite possibly 
2009-12-21 - this movie is not a movie. it is a thinly disguised notthing. and paying for this movie is a crime against every movie maker who truly makes an even decent movie. thismovie has none of the music, and none of the real joy of woodstock. although for my money there really wasn't any joy of woodstock. ya see the thing about it is, that all those who attended woodstock while preaching about love and drugs and whatever, were drinking and eating and being taking care of by those who worked their hinnies off. that little cleared area where they held woodstock? oh right, it had been taken care of for years by a farmer for his cows. and all that poop being removed from woodstock, some guy working had to remove it. and on and on. well ya get the drift.
ya see the thing about those who want everything for "free" and want ti all just to be peace love and joy, is that they want all the amenities of civilization. they just want you to do the work while they spout off about "freedom." freedom now, and always has cost a lot.
and then there's that whole gory (that's the only word for it) hollyweird thing where even though "gays" are this very small segment of society, they must be a major factor in every movie. every girl must have her "best friend" be gay...isn't that intersting?
so in this movie we have the main character exchanging a few googly-eyed pieces of conversation with another male who just happens to be a construction worker (can you say "village people:"?) and who the movie maker, ang lee, just apparently doesn't wanna do another brokeback, er i mean, woodstock mountain movie. know what i mean? but for all that, there sure isn't much "love" going on in the movie,
the only saving grace? liev schrieber was hilarious as a dolled up security guy. but that's five minutes of a boring ineffective horrid no-redeeming grace movie.
you only have so much time in yer life, don't watch this movie with any of it.
