Chaos d'anthologie: Woodstock 99

It develops as an apocalypse anouncement. The conditions of this festival resemble a mix between Mad Max and Spring Breakers. The sexual agressiveness and the hate that you see in those images are overwhelming.

A good watch for those who want to organise a festival on what NOT to do and what is crucial to have onsite.

And just because Woodstock is in the title it does not mean the crowd are hippies... The organisers were so naive and Lang was so careless and uninterested.

The documentary is good - but the event itself - was just a massive failure on soooo many levels! Everyone from the artists, to the promoters, to the fans - all pitched in together to create a massive embarrassment, and a shameful event! There's nothing good that can be said about Woodstock 99 - it's just a terrible example of human greed and depravity!!!

So Michael Lang, the organizer of the original Woodstock, sells his soul, if he ever had one, to help put on what he hopes will be a money-making Woodstock II in Rome, NY. The lesson being that we are idealists when young, but realists when we grow up. Unfortunately he and his partners were out of touch with the young people who showed up in 1999, who felt robbed by expensive food and disrespected by "the man." Lang went from hippie to "the man." In the end, this documentary does not tell us if W2 made money, but to many of the attendees it was the event of a lifetime, despite the chaos. Based on this three episode docu, I'm glad I wasn't there.

Slightly longer than last year's "Woodstock: Peace Love and Rage" documentary, and the 3-episode chronological format (covering each day) works better and seems more focused. As another reviewer pointed out, this could've been several episodes longer, or at least longer than 45 mins an episode; for anyone who listened to music critic Steven Hyden's 10-episode podcast in 2019 ("Break Stuff: The Story of Woodstock 99") both of these documentaries seem lightweight by comparison. But in the end, I guess there's only so much available footage to use and people to interview.

And to the reviewers who said they never mention Woodstock 94 or blame the organizers instead of the bands, what documentary were you watching? 94 is mentioned in the first episode, and the organizers are painted throughout as being ignorant to the many problems happening, and then spinning the truth for damage control and refusing to accept any blame in the aftermath.

The original Woodstock was a cultural turning point, Woodstock 99 was also a turning point but in the opposite direction.

It's clear from the start that Lang doesn't know what he's doing and that it was only will hardwork of his 3 partners for the original Woodstock that it actually work. Without them Woodstock 99 failed.

John Scher defending all the rapes (especially of children) was just sickening, what an absolute disgrace of a human being.

The tried to capture the hippy magic of the original but then decided to play metal/rock/aggressive musics/bands, so obviously that's not going to bring in a hippy band. They you don't do the festival in a field/farm, the idiots decide to do it on asphalt in 40C heat. Banning drinking being brought in was ridiculous and letting a bottle of water go for $15 (in today's money) was just an absolute joke. No wonder people were kicking off.

The original Woodstock wasn't about money and it had even less regulations and security. People were giving out their food and drink for free. Woodstock 99 you'd be lucky to get a slice of bread for less than $5.

I'm glad they didn't do any other Woodstocks after this as Lang clearly was riding on the coattails of his original peers, and the greedy corporates pigs as responsible for it's death. Thank God Glastonbury still knows how to do it right.