ReaderKenka
Let's be realistic.
Stevecorp
Don't listen to the negative reviews
Jakoba
True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.
Brian Washington
This is a great look at how corporate greed has infected the music business. I really enjoyed the fact that it pointed out how Woodstock 99 was doomed from the beginning due to the over charging for such things as water and food. Also, as I said in my commentary about the original Woodstock, it was pretty much seen as the last great gathering of the hippie culture and even though it was a financial disaster, it was a cultural touchstone in the history of the world. The latter Woodstocks were nothing but a huge marketing ploy that backfired in the faces of those involved.
Eschete
Good documentary, lots of witty observations and visual jokes.The film outlines the devolution of Woodstock from a somewhat commercial gathering of doped-up morons into a completely commercial gathering of doped-up morons. A sad commentary, really, on what capitalism does to culture.Michael Lang put Woodstock I together, and it was a commercial flop, albeit a "countercultural" success. So he tries to recreate it 25 years later, with lots of gutless corporate sponsorship. It works OK.Then, five years after that, he tries again. This time, corporations own it completely. $150.00 per ticket. $6.00 for a bottle of water. $10.00 for a burrito. Sewage on the ground. Guess what? A riot happens.A good film, all around. Symbolic of what is happening to American culture--both high culture and pop culture--as it is crammed into Happy Meals and catalogs.Things to watch for: Perry Farrell pontificates about money, Michael Lang grins like a dope, parking lot haggling, corporate big-wigs try to be hip, advertiser wants to create "hippie punk." A-.
preppy-3
Film shows footage from the 1969, 1994 and 1999 Woodstocks. It documents what happened at each...what went wrong, what went right and gives insights to why the 1999 one turned into a riot. Some of the points are obvious--like, the last two were more about money and profits and peace and love (no kidding) but this is still worth seeing. There's plenty of good concert footage (although, for some reason, no song is played to completion) and some very interesting interviews with the people putting on the concert and the kids attending. Only two real complaints--the 1969 footage was shot in color but they show it here in black and white and too many of the shots are repeated over and over again. Definite highlights are Sheryl Crow, Joe Cocker and Melissa Ethridge performing.
Jod-z
I walked out of this documentary angry (at the end) - extremely angry in fact.The 1969 footage was used as a way to compare and contrast the behaviour of the audience at the later show's (94 & 99.).The inclusion of the '99 footage was almost as an afterthought and most of the film was dedicated to the financial and political machinations in setting up the 94 Festival - with a huge set of statistics being quoted.The songs that were used from the later festivals were picked for their violent content - the only footage used that wasn't of this nature was Sheryl Crow - when the audience were asking her to flash them and Offspring telling the guys in the audience not to grope the women that were crowd surfing(and the women in the audience to grope the guys.The riots of '99 were shown - however, little of the aftermath or reports of violence (specifically against the women) was even referred to.And who the hell cares what Rosie Perez thinks about the youth of today.Thanks for your distorted view of what happened.The highlight of the piece was the girl walking us through the Vendor tent where they were selling everything ...her commentary was the highlight of an otherwise ordinary documentary.
