Good concept, poorly executed.

A lot of fun.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

I enjoyed the young actress in the lead role. Felt connected with her, and wanted to watch her grow. What else can I say. I always wonder why some responded so negatively. oh well.

A good idea (altough not original) that could have resulted in a good film. But unfortunately it's not the case. So sad, because the plot has some potential.It's hard to go along with a character when you simply don't care about him/her. Not that the actress is bad, but I think the problem here is poor scripting/directing. The locations are cute, photography is correct, the songs are OK and the film has it's charm, but it can't help feeling somewhat undone or poorly done, at least.Not the worst film in the world like some people here say, but not a good one for sure. Sadly, the premise could have resulted in a much better work since there's a heart here.

What.a.disappointment. Caught it on pay per view on a snow day. I'm embedded in the NY/NJ singer/songwriter community so I was looking forward to it. A 24-year-old working woman would never be able to afford an apartment like the one in this film without 10 roommates. Singer/songwriters who are overnight successes are very few and far between, and here we have a young woman lose her job at a corporate record company, return to her childhood home in Woodstock to lick her wounds and write songs, and voilà! instant success, with Katie Segal, a one-time musician herself, mentoring our heroine. The film is riddled with clichés (finding your boyfriend in the shower with another woman), bad acting, and ridiculous plot lines. That's about 90 minutes I won't get back.

...movies I've seen in a long time. While watching, I asked myself "how did this movie manage to get made? Who was the writer/director sleeping with?" I'm normally not that critical of films... I get engaged in them pretty easily and can suspend disbelief like a child. But when I can't, I know a film is really bad. In this one, which first hooked me with the title, a chipper young woman who is about as unlike "Woodstock" as Martha Stewart, decides to return there where she last was at age 4 and actually owns a house. She leaves her expansive NYC apartment (it's inexplicable how she can afford it) and, after her meek attempts at standing up to an emotionally abusive fiancé and bosses at her job fail, she drives up to Woodstock via the scenic route which most people don't even use. She enters this house in Woodstock that, despite covered furniture and a bit of debris, looks freshly painted. She then goes to a bar, her bright red lipstick still shining, gets drunk and meets Mr. Right, who is handsome, nice as can be and is also a doctor. She meets a couple of Woodstock people, e.g., Rumer Willis dressed in short shorts, cowboy boots, dyed red hair and a nose ring, and gets back into song writing. There are meager attempts to make the town look like Woodstock, which in reality, is colorful and unique. To me, this movie felt like one of my short stories which was rejected over and over because it was a good idea but not well executed, which led me to the original question of how this movie managed to get made.