bettycjung 3/2/18. A National Film Registry pick, for those who were there, this would be a walk down memory lane. And, for those who weren't there, this provided a multi-perspective look at one of the '60s most well-known concert venue for the baby boomers. Behind the scenes footage and quick interviews with attendees were ok, but what I'm glad to have caught with this viewing is the performances. Perhaps, Hendrix's iconic rendition of the Star Spangled Banner was the highlight for me. Would have liked more performances and less of the other stuff.

dougdoepke Woodstock was likely the biggest cultural event of the counter-culture period. The thousands that packed the New York state farmland spread out like an ocean of youthful humanity. Viewers get a pretty good sense of what interested and animated the movement from the film. However, it should be noted that very little of counter-cultural politics comes through. That was mainly the purview of what's termed the New Left, and though the two overlapped in many respects— anti-Vietnam war, critical view of capitalism—they were by no means identical. Rather Woodstock appears a celebration of certain broad values the youths or "hippies" found in short supply in daily life. Those values centered around peace, love, and sharing, certainly positive values in the abstract. The gathering was thus a magnet not only for followers of the performing bands but for those wanting to affirm among themselves, at least, that another world is possible. And though the movement may have fizzled in many ways, reverberations are still with us, mainly in the form of loosened sexual and social norms. Now, I'm in no position to comment on the performing bands, but I was transfixed by an angelic Joan Baez's rendition of Joe Hill.Overall, the documentary amounts to a unique visual experience even for those uninterested in upheavals from the 1960's. What lingers in memory are the sea of smiling faces, the quagmire of sticky mud, the pockets of nudity, the inspired stage musicians, and finally, the littered vacant ground. All in all, it's quite a permanent record of a bygone period.

Michael_Elliott Woodstock (1970) **** (out of 4) Oscar-winning film is part documentary and part concert film as it captures three days at Woodstock, NY where between August 15-18 a countless number of people showed up for some great music by the best known artists of the time. The director's cut, clocking in at 225-minutes, is mammoth in regards to everything it captures but no matter which version you watch, the documentary remains something so important that you can't help but be transported back to the actual event. As a documentary this is an important film just because of what this concert has become over the past few decades and it really captures the mood of the times. There are several times in the movie where we concentrate on the people in the crowd and this includes not only the wild stuff with the sex and drugs but we also get some interviews where the kids talk about their parents not understanding what they're about and why they have long hair. It's really amazing that through all the wild and crazy drugs and music that the film allowed some quiet, more tender moments and it works. As the festival went on and people ran out of food and water, the things grew more crazy and we get some of the most iconic scenes in history.As far as the music goes, there were a lot of festivals in the history of rock 'n roll around this time but I think it would be fair to say that this here contained the greatest line up. It really does seems as if the artists just walked out on that stage, saw the huge crowd and knew that they had better bring their A game. I think this is one concert film where you could say that there's really not a weak performance to be found. You could pretty much call every performance a highlight but some that really stand out include: Richie Havens (Freedom), Canned Heat (A Change Is Gonna Come), The Who (Summertime Blues), Joe Cocker (With a Little Help From My Friends), Arlo Guthrie (Coming Into Los Angeles), Crosby, Stills & Nash (Suite: Judy Blue Eyes), Country Joe McDonald (Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-to-Die-Rag), Sly and the Family Stone (Dance to the Music), Janis Joplin (Work Me, Lord) and of course Jimi Hendrix closing out the film with a set including a masterful "The Star-Spangled Banner," which has to be one of the greatest performances ever given on a guitar.WOODSTOCK, whether in its original version or the director's cut, is pure magic and it's just amazing that the filmmakers were able to get all of this stuff on camera. They could have just shot the stuff on the stage and it would have been a masterpiece because of how great the performances are. By the filmmakers knowing that they had something special on their hands and filming the people in the crowd, they really captured something for a generation. The event now is seen as something legendary and we're all lucky that we have it on film for future generations to see.

pmcguireumc This is one of those movies that you are always told "you have to watch". Woodstock was an event that has become iconic for what was supposed to have been the best of the 60's generation (though to be honest, i think the 60's generation is best summed up in the final scenes of the movie when the clean up crews are at work picking up after all of the spoiled white kids who left their crap laying all over for others to get).Nonetheless, this is a much more enjoyable film than other 60's standards, like Easy Rider (the most boring film I have ever seen) and Dr Strangelove (way over rated).As a piece of history, this movie is phenomenal. It is well edited, well paced, and thoroughly generous in its efforts to capture the work and efforts required to put such an event together (the building of the sets, medical care, feeding the masses (where's a messiah when you need one, right?) and the cleaning of the portajohns. I truly enjoyed all of the scenes with the organizers, and had to laugh at some of the reporter's questions.Musically, it is a hodgepodge, very hit and miss. This is why i give it a 7 out of 10. I can't understand the musical choices, though possibly, the passage of time has made our "favorites" decision for us rather than our being there. Who knows? Anyway - here's a selection of my favorites - Richie Havens was incredible. Santana was phenomenal. Joe Cocker was great (though his back up singer (the guy) left a lot to be desired). Joe McDonald was great and funny - had the audience eating out of his hand. Arlo was great.Sly was boring. the producer chose a terrible song from Joplin and it is a shame, as she is one of my favorites. Sha Na Na - have no idea why? Wish the Dead had been included, but from their perspective, they always say it was a terrible performance (though Jerry is featured in the beginning). John Sebastian (why did he bother?).I'm sure I am leaving some things out - but let me just say - Scorsese did a fantastic job editing the many many hours of footage together. One of his greatest achievements. what i will say though is that i agree with Ebert's review - when he pointed out that the music at Monterrey was better (it was 2 years earlier).Nonetheless - it is a movie truly worth watching - and i would say that the director's edition is enjoyable - can't say whether the short version is better than the long version - but i can say I enjoyed the directors cut.