This movie to me feels like a nostalgic and sweet retrospective from Elliot's memories. I also liked the rhythm of the storyline resembling the feeling of being at a festival where it begins slowly and not expected, then it picks up quickly and exciting, ending with the satisfaction of everything trying to get in place after all and realizing that something changed in a positive way. It felt effortless to me, framed like the music experience that opened the door for more of these events but not in a documentary style, rather from the personal experience of one person.

Taking Woodstock is a bit of a puzzling and disappointing entry in Ang Lee's impressive filmography. Set in upstate New York in 1969, Elliot Tiber (Demetri Martin) returns home to help his parents manage their rundown rural motel. Before you can say ‘groovy', Elliot becomes instrumental in bringing the Woodstock music festival to Max Yasgur's (Eugene Levy) farm, saving the family business and alienating himself from the town-folk. Despite its lofty ambitions, the movie is plagued by scenes that run far too long (Elliot dropping acid), characters that exist only to be quirky (the trans security guard and the annoying, barn-dwelling Earthlight Players, etc.), and scenes that serve no purpose. Billed as a comedy, there are few, if any, laughs and none of the film feels like it's genuinely 1969. Martin is solid in the lead role and Jonathan Groff is convincing as the iconic organizer Michael Lang, but the rest of the movie is reminiscent of Woodstock's infamous brown acid – it's just a bad trip.

To be honest I actually enjoyed this movie . I guess the hate is because it didn’t focus that much on the music itself but more the organization of the festival but it was still neat to see and sent me down a Woodstock wormhole 3.5

I liked this movie so much that I bought the book.

The best thing about this movie is that it is visually compelling and conveys a vivid sense of place. Aside from that, it's rather weak. The character of the mother and father are such extreme stereotypes that they are impossible to take seriously. One doesn't learn anything for viewing them or their interactions with the other characters. I'm actually astounded that the screenwriter, who must have worked so hard on other aspects of the screenplay, allowed himself to settle for these two cardboard cutouts (and they are such prominent characters, too). Like many so-called "indie" films of the last ten years, the film is multiclimactic, meaning that it chooses not to have a single, compelling narrative arc (unfortunately, many writers now consider that old fashioned), but, rather, once the setting and the premise have been established, the film just rambles like a country road winding through the hills. There are at least three different moments that could be considered "turning points." This is also a characteristic of these recent "indie" films: they throw "turning points" at you so often (more than once is risky) that you lose sense of how important they actually are. (The editors try to compensate for this by using dramatic music to tell you how you¿re supposed to be feeling.) I guess the new generation of writers feel that these characteristics are liberating. But I think they make for boring, indecisive, pompous, forgettable films. After seeing "Taking Woodstock," I had the same feeling I had after seeing "Where the Wild Things Are" and nearly every film by Wes Anderson: first, that I'd been served a lot of sauce with no spaghetti , and second, on the following day, I didn't think about the film for one second. No scene stuck in my mind, nor line of dialog; and I felt no desire to talk about or see the film ever again.

kind of biased because i grew up 10 minutes from where woodstock was....but it was still fantastic. Bought the dvd and it will sit firmly in my collection

Ang Lee really fails with this film. Though I can't help but note that I probably disliked it more because it was made by such a great filmmaker. But this film is really very much a string of cliches.

Lo mejor la recreaciòn del mìtico concierto de Woodstock y el diseño de producciòn.

Ang Lee is one hell of a film maker, like him or not he can bounce between genres like no tomorrow and always have his movies feel fresh and full of life. Taking Woodstock is no exception, this excellent story tells the tale of a young Jewish man named Elliot, who cares too much for his parents and their failing business to go and have a life of his own. After hearing about the cancellation of a music festival with potential, he decides to jump at the chance to help achieve it in his small community and better the town and his family business for good. However along the way, not only does he find hostility from the locals, he also has a wide array of soul searching to do as a person. First of all this cast is pure gold, it really is, everyone is perfectly cast. Demetri Martin, Emile Hersch, Eugine Levy, Liev Schieber, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, hell even Paul Dano shows up to join the fun. Every character is played not perfect, comical or serious, tonally everyone is on the ball. Smartly Lee decides to pay more attention to the characters than the festival itself, which is brilliant as we get something completely fresh and unexpected, this film rips up the cliche book, just when you think youve got it sussed, Lee throws a subtle curveball which actually feels revitalising as a movie fan. As goes without saying it is incredible to look at, the entire feel and cinematography of this film is pitch perfect, Danny Elfmans score is wonderful, even the completley insane moments that happen in this film just give you a jolt of hilarity and fun. Finally a coming of age film that doesnt feel like its preaching. There are points during the film where large segments will go past without a pivotal character even being around, however with such a large cast, its quite hard to juggle everyone equally throughout. It does also feel like, Lee could have spent a bit more time with this one, i understand its 2 hours already but a little extra, just to tie up some loose ends would not have gone a miss. A rare gem.

Underusing the fantastic comedian Eugene Levy and while some Demetri Martin's (who is also underused) deadpan delivery sells a couple laughs, Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock is a missed opportunity.

A decent drama centered around the concert at Woodstock.

Es una película entretenida, divertida y bien armada. Quizás los personajes quedan un poco al debe, el guión los deja un poco en el aire o al libre albedrío de sus estereotipos, pero al final funciona dignamente.

I've seen this twice and I look forward to seeing it again. It's my favorite Ang Lee movie. It truly captures the muddy, earthy feeling of upstate New York, where I grew up. It also captures a hint of the spirit of oneness and spiritual questing so many of us experienced in the mid to late sixties and early seventies. It came out the same year as my first novel, which was also intended to capture the inside-out view of an expanding universe of love and possibility. If only we weren't so human, but I guess that's why we're here, isn't it?

Surprsingly, Ang Lee sometimes shows very little passion in his efforts, and this is a definite example of that. Demetri Martin is usually hilarious, but in this he is so boring and uninteresting that it basically ruins the movie. You don't care for any of the characters, the focus of the story isn't very fun, and it's just not very good.

The characters were very poorly treated, but the environment of Woodstock was done exceptionally well. But if that's all that it has going for it, why not just watch the actual footage from Woodstock?

i'm surprised that this movie didn't do well, i like it! i admit that there's barely to no music related themes going on in the movie but it still has some really likable characters and really funny moments in it. if you don't like it more power to ya but i really enjoyed the movie and i'm proud that i own it on dvd

From what I've heard, the Woodstock Festival was a pivotal moment in the history of the 20th century. It defined a whole generation. Why couldn't I see that in Taking Woodstock? Apart from telling us how the festival was planned, there's nothing to watch in this film. It doesn't live up to what the real thing could have been, not the slightest. So I recommend to watch it if you want to know how it was planned, but if you want to know how it felt to be there, KEEP DREAMING!. By the way, I hated the double and triple screens of the editing, bad bad choice.

really underrated cult hit. I liked it for its charm and sense of the 60's, man.

A quirky, unique films with lots of laughs and awkward moments. There's not really another movie you can compare it to because of its originality and similarities to the book.

Though it does not attempt to capture the spirit of Woodstock or even to portray the performances which have made it so famous, it is a film with heart.