If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

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.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

It's 1969. Elliot Teichberg (Demetri Martin) struggles to keep the family motel in the Catskills open. His father Jake (Henry Goodman) is quiet and mother Sonia (Imelda Staunton) is bombastic. They barely have enough to keep the motel open for the summer. When a music festival in a neighboring town gets canceled due to the mayor, Elliot has the idea to expand their tiny music festival. Farmer Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy) is trying squeeze the promoter. Michael Lang is the hip concert organizer. Local Dan (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) leads the locals opposing the hippie invasion. Dan's brother Billy (Emile Hirsch) is a recently returned Vietnam vet. Vetty von Vilma (Liev Schreiber) is a transvestite who does security.Director Ang Lee is not digging deep enough. He also keeps the movie very small in comparison to the vast cultural event. Demetri Martin doesn't have the star power to lead so many characters in such a big story. There is no tension to speak of. There is a lot of fun little touches but none of it really grabs me. I also expect more music from a movie about Woodstock. This has its moments but it's a bit too light-weight.

I understand "Taking Woodstock" uses a highly disputed account of Woodstock as its source material, but I'm okay with that. It's still a winsome, fun, gentle, and often lovely portrait of odd people who don't quite know what to make of each other, but still find a way to create an idyllic experience.There are a lot of bits and pieces in "Taking Woodstock," and the structure is loose and almost episodic. Some broad comedy coexists uneasily with smaller, satirical scenes and moments of quiet drama, and Demetri Martin, while always watchable, doesn't always let us in when we need him to. But there's a certain tension in the movie as events ramp up to the inevitable, and the huge cast of unpredictable characters keeps things lively. And then we realize that the movie isn't about events as much as it's about change - both the cultural change of a very strange time in American history and the personal change that we all go through.The best scene happens late in the movie, as Elliot (Martin) finally makes his way to the concert and encounters a young hippie couple. Without giving anything away, I can say it's one of the best - and most accurate - scenes of its kind (it's both beautiful and creepy in more ways that one), and it's the true climax of "Taking Woodstock." Elliot has spent his young life trying to create moments for other people, and he finally is allowed to let go and experience transcendence for himself. And there's a definite sense he will never be the same.Don't expect a movie about Hendrix and Santana (or even Sha Na Na). Don't expect a wild comedy or a heavy drama. Don't expect anything, really, and you might have a great time with "Taking Woodstock." And in a way, that's kind of the point of the movie.

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.

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.