Watch Taking Woodstock For Free

best movie i've ever seen.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

...........................................................from Pasto,Colombia...Via: L.A. CA., CALI, COLOMBIA....and ORLANDO, FL TAKING (the Music Out of) Woodstock--OK, maybe my re-worked title is somewhat over the top. But then "Taking Woodstock" is a bit over the top, too! Hell, 1969 was over the top, wasn't it?! But who really cares! Come on, people! It's a Movie! Name ONE film set in 1969 that isn't a little overdone. I should know about Woodstock; I was THERE.......in spirit! Sadly, as much as I, and about 50% of Americans in my age demographic, longed to be present, we formed part of the 98%(of the half) who couldn't make it. The other 50%, incidentally, were probably praying for the earth to open up and swallow those 1/2 million music, marijuana and peace-loving souls. ("Nearly 500K attended Woodstock" -Wikipedia) Director Ang Lee has really amazed me. He has made...A) The film that best encapsulates, captures the true essence, of this great cultural benchmark concert and most extremely divisive moment in our nation's history since the Civil War! B) He has done this despite being someone from outside our American culture! C) He has managed to serve up what was, for me at least, the one of most entertaining and vibrant movies of 2009.Laughed so hard at times, I cried! I can't even REMEMBER the last movie that did that for me. Isn't that what movies are supposed to be all about? Demetri Martin is the late-twenty-something-good-Jewish-Still- live-at-home- son, who serves as the concert's catalyst. Martin renders his role with great finesse, aplomb and stand-alone chutzpah! (Check out his resume on IMDb: What a multi-faceted talent) But the real scene-stealer was a TOTALLY unrecognizable Imelda Staunton, as the Jewish mother from hell! She should have at the very least received an Oscar nomination! Fascinating "Woodstock" dichotomy: Martin's character is right there, in the center of the firestorm...and yet, NOT! What a great metaphoric irony for the millions of us, who were and weren't there, either! Despite a few flaws, Resounding 9*.....ENJOY/DISFRUTELA!Any comments, questions or observations, in English o en Español, are most welcome!

As I had just turned 10 the summer of Woodstock and lived on the West Coast, I was not able to go.... but have a fascination with the festival even now. I love the documentary "Woodstock", made in 1970, which is full of musical performances, interviews with attendees and with organizers. Some reviews of this movie complain that "Taking Woodstock" does not include enough music, however if the music is what you yearn to see/hear, do enjoy the documentary. Of the 30 or so bands who performed at Woodstock, fifteen or so are included in the documentary. If you want to learn the history of the event, this movie is ideal. I especially enjoyed seeing the clever ideas and ability to create a phenomenon. To think they were not sure if many wold attend... had some horrid weather... financial difficulties (these are alluded to in the documentary as well)... experienced nay- sayers and bad press... and yet, it truly ended as three days of Peace, Love, and Music.

Up to a point, 'Taking Woodstock' really isn't such a bad film and I wonder what the reasons were for those people who positively hated it. There seem to be a group who were offended that Ang Lee didn't show any scenes of the actual concert or tried to recreate it by having actors playing some of the famous performers like Hendrix or Janis Joplin, singing their songs up on the stage. But what would have been the point of showing any of the actual concert scenes? If you're dying for some nostalgia, then you can buy the DVD of the original concert itself.There's also the bigger issue of the source material itself--Elliot Tiber's memoir, 'Taking Woodstock: A True Story of a Riot, a Concert, and a Life.' Tiber's claim that he introduced Michael Lang, one of the principal Woodstock Festival promoters, to Max Yasgur (who owned the farm where the festival was held), appears to be completely false. In addition, the concert promoters did not appear to use the family motel as a sort of headquarters for their operations. Even if that didn't happen, it's not at all implausible that it COULD have happened, so I think it's fine that a little suspension of disbelief here does not damage the overall impact of the film.'Taking Woodstock' really isn't about Woodstock at all. It's a coming of age story where the music festival acts as both a backdrop and catalyst, driving the principal characters forward in their emotional journey. The protagonist, Elliot Tiber (named Teichberg in the film), is in his mid-30s and remains with his parents, pouring his own money into a run-down family-owned motel in upstate New York. They have until the end of the summer to pay off the mortgage or the bank will foreclose on the property.Elliot's problem is his obnoxious, overbearing Jewish mother, Sonia (well played by the classically trained British actor, Imelda Staunton). She portrays herself as a perennial victim of anti-Semitism and pushes her passive, goodhearted husband, Jake, around at every turn. One thing she is right about: the pretentious theater group that inhabits the barn on their property, is a constant thorn in their side as they're unable to pay any rent.The best part of 'Taking Woodstock' is the arrival of Michael Lang and his entourage of businessmen who intend to make Woodstock a reality. Jonathan Groff is perfectly cast as promoter Lang, the hippie-businessman, who maintains a constant beatific grin on his face while doling out gobs of cash. It's Elliot, in his position as the head of the local Chamber of Commerce, who informs Lang that he can give the promoters a permit to hold a music festival; the problem is that his own land is found to be a useless swamp. Elliot then introduces Lang to Max Yasgur, (with Eugene Levy also perfectly cast as the tough but liberal farmer) who has the perfect spread for the music festival.The first hour of the film proceeds seamlessly with additional twists and turns: Elliot tries to help Billy, a local Vietnam Vet who suffers from post traumatic stress disorder; Elliot's mother drops her objections to the Festival organizers staying at the motel when Elliot drops a bag of cash in front of her, given to him by the promoters; Lev Schreiber plays Vilma, a trans-gender Korean War Veteran, who's hired as a security guard, eventually warding off hostile locals as the hippies invade the local area; despite the local opposition, business people in the area (along with Elliot's parents) see huge profits from the influx of all the young people and Elliot ends up kissing a gay construction worker at a wild party, foreshadowing his decision to come out of the closet.At the behest of his father, Elliot decides to go see the festival himself and encounters a State Trooper who confesses that he was planning to come to the festival to "bust some hippies' heads" but "guesses" he's been sidetracked by "all the fumes". The trooper amiably offers Elliot a ride on his motorcycle through the backed up traffic, near where the concert is going on. Ang Lee wisely never has Elliot arrive at the stage area which was probably the experience of thousands who never actually got to see the event close up.Ang Lee interestingly doesn't sugarcoat the festival's appearance, as the weather conditions end up turning it into a virtual mud fest. At the same time, Lee views Woodstock as having had a positive effect on most of its participants. Elliot in particular, has a transformational experience, inside a VW bus with a hippie couple after taking a few hits of LSD. When he returns to the motel, Elliot realizes that his mother hasn't changed at all after he discovers that she's been hoarding money for years and could have paid off the mortgage long before he began helping his parents. On the bright side, Elliot's father feels he's found a second youth as a result of Woodstock and father and son find they're able to bond at film's end.It's clear that the second half of 'Taking Woodstock' isn't as good as the first. A big problem is that Elliot's internal conflict is not clear until the film's end where he recognizes that he's gay and must leave upstate New York and find a new life. The denouement might have been more effective if the second half of the film wasn't so slow moving. Particularly problematic are all those 'split-scene' scenes as well as the amount of time it takes for Elliot to wander off from his 'nest' at the motel, sojourn into the 'wilderness' (a psychedelic journey) and return to his cocoon, which is no longer the same.'Taking Woodstock' is by no means a great movie; but wisely the tangential coming of age story works much better than an unfocused tribute to anonymous festival participants.

I'm giving Taking Woodstock an 8 as it's a cute little movie and I want to counter some of the hate I've been reading in some of the low rated reviews.What this movie is: A cute coming of age story. A family drama. A rural comedy. A wistful remembrance.What this movie isn't: A Woodstock concert documentary (There already is one of those, you can rent that if you want to see/hear more of the music). An expose of the behind the scenes machinations needed to create a mass event. A diatribe of why the 60's were great and today stinks.If more folks reviewed the movie on it's own merits, the ranking for this would be higher.In the section below I talk about a detail of the movie, which is why I clicked the spoiler box, but it's really not much of a spoiler.Yeah, the acting troupe didn't need as much screen time they got, but that was a minor annoyance. I'm just glad the leader of that troupe mostly stayed fully clothed!?!? Also, because of the nudity and drug use, you may not want your kids under 16 to see this. But if you've talked with your kids about the world that's out there, nothing in this film would upset them.