User reviews

As I have seen this many times since it first came out on in the theater and then on VHS, I now just fast-forward chapters on the DVD to the music, enjoying my favorite performances in this epic documentary of the most famous rock concert of all time.

There is a lot to enjoy, including the stuff between the music if you have never seen this before. It certainly captures the wildness of the late 1960s, the good and the bad. It really brings you back to a unique time in American history. For someone who was part of that time, things that were "cool" back then now look and sound a little stupid and naive, but it's still fun to watch. Not only do you get a ton of music, but you see a half million people weathering storms, the mess, drugs, port-o-johns, drugs, dancing, skinny-dipping, drugs, eating. You get the idea.

Music-wise, everyone has their favorites so I'll put a plug or two in for the artists I've always enjoying watching-seeing the most in this movie: Ten Years After; Sly And The Family Stone; Canned Heat, The Who, Richie Havens, Santana, Sha Na Na, Country Joe And The Fish, The Jefferson Airplane and Crosby, Stills and Nash.

At almost four hours, you can choose from a variety of music acts, enough to give you at least an enjoyable couple of hours of that alone, if you wish. This is a must- have for music fans of that era.

I just got done watching the DVD version of Woodstock last night. At 25, I didn't realize it until then, that these were just kids! Woodstock may have been about music, it may have been about peace, but what the documentary truly captured on film was the Youth of American trying to make things right in a time when there was wrong. A garden of eden filled with innocence and joy. The only sorrow one knows when watching Woodstock is the fear of 1969 and the knowledge that many of the idols found in that year are not with us today. Still, man, what a time and I only wish I could have been there, among the innocent in the garden. Too bad I was born in 1978

Oscar-winning documentary on the 3 day long concert back in 1969. Despite more people showing up than was expected and running out of food, water and medical supplies and dealing with a torrential downpour everything went fine. There was no rioting, no violence...just people helping each other out. The film beautifully captures all this. It contains interviews with the kids attending the concert (their views are absolutely incredible), people in the surrounding town, the police, media...all viewpoints are presented. Everything that comes through is tolerance, peace and love.

The musical acts are varied--you'll love some and hate others. For me the definite highlights were Joan Baez; the Who; Sha-Na-Na; Joe Cocker; Crosby Stills & Nash; John Sebastian; Country Joe McDonald; Sly and the Family Stone and Jimi Hendrix. Also the sound is great and there is superb editing during the sequences with excellent use of multiple screens.

I saw the directors cut with adds 40 minutes of music (bringing the running time up to 3 hours and 40 minutes). They add Canned Heat, Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin and another number by Hendrix. Except for the Joplin footage none of it is really good or needed. The original 3 hour cut is fine.

Warning--there's lots of swearing, nudity, sex and drug taking. It didn't bother me, but it might bother others.

A great one of a kind movie. Don't miss it!

"Woodstock" was meant as a documentary about the famous 3-day 1969 New York rock festival of the same name, but it's really more valuable as a record of 1960's hippy culture. This is unquestionably the best film to capture the spirit of the 60's. Between musical acts, the camera meanders through the audience and the enormous outlying crowds to interview spectators, or just eves-drop on the scene. This is the most interesting, entertaining, and eye-opening aspect of the film.

Several of the musical performances are memorable and deserve mention: Richie Havens' awesome concert opener is a classic--you could watch it a hundred times and still get goose bumps--pure magic. Jimi Hendrix comes pretty close to magic also with the final musical number. His frenzied rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner" is incredible, and a fitting closer. Country Joe and the Fish and Joe Cocker are also memorable. A few of the musical acts don't seem to fit: Sha-Na-Na comes across as a weird oddity--(a throwback to the fifties), and Alvin Lee's "Ten Years After" is just too long and boring. Most of the other performances are so-so, but worth watching.

Overall, the film captures the mood, spirit, and music of the times better than any other. I would also venture to say that this may be one of the very best documentaries ever filmed on any subject. The depth of coverage is spectacular -- fitting for such a historical event. A great movie!

I was too young for Woodstock, but I heard of it spoken in reverent tones over the years. I also heard great things about Michael Wadleigh's 1970 documentary-concert. Despite this, I put off seeing the film. Maybe because I thought it was going to be some roll-your-eyes groovy experience, man. I don't know, but I didn't get around to viewing it until the late 90s and I was blown away. I've seen it three or four more times since then and it always has the same awe-inspiring effect.

The concert took place over 3.5 days in mid-August, 1969, at the height of the Vietnam fiasco and the counterculture movement. Twice as many people attended than expected and it was the biggest gathering of people in one place in history, about 400,000, only beat by the infamous Isle of Wight concert in England a year later.

The film shows the good and bad of the hippie culture. Generally speaking, the movement was a reaction against the Vietnam war and the sterile legalism that America and similar countries had devolved into by the early-mid 60s. The youth wanted freedom, peace and love and you can see this in the movie. It was a good thing. Yet you can also see the bad -- like the bad acid situation ("Hey, it's your trip, man..."). Both Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix appear at Woodstock, and they're great, but they'll be dead in a little over a year, both only 27 years-old. Jim Morrison and the Doors didn't play because they declined at the last moment and later regretted it. Jim died shortly after the other two, also only 27. Interestingly, Jethro Tull declined because Ian Anderson didn't like hippies and was concerned about things like inappropriate nudity (?!).

But I don't mean to put a downer on Woodstock because it was an amazing event, never to be repeated. They tried to repeat it at Altamont Speedway in California, less than four months after Woodstock, and also at Isle of Wight, but both festivals turned out badly and put the the kibosh on the movement's noble ideals, even though it was pretty much inevitable since freedom without wise parameters naturally devolves into chaos and self-destruction.

Regardless, as a snapshot in time, "Woodstock" is fascinating and supremely entertaining. Half of the appeal is the incredible magnitude of the event itself and the footage of the people -- the hippies who came and the adults who lived there and tried to help or, in a couple cases, complained. This includes the fun and sometimes outrageous escapades of the festival. A good example would be the skinny dipping or, in many cases, semi-skinny dipping. Although this may have been a cool experiment at the event it never caught-on in the culture at large. Why? Probably because few people want to see someone else's Captain Winky and, unless a female has the body of a starlet, who wants to see it? (lol).

But what can explain the mass appeal of Woodstock? What made the hippies come out en masse? Was it just the music? The filmmakers ask this very question of a guy at the festival who looks about 16-17 years old. He says it wasn't just the music, at least not for him. The hippies crawled out of the woodwork, so to speak, like zombies seeking some kind of solace, a sense of community, a reason to... live. And Woodstock met that need.

The other half of the appeal is, of course, the performances and music. What's amazing is how diversified the styles of music were and how non-heavy. Don't get me wrong, many of the performances are seriously energetic, but they're light compared to what rock/metal evolved into in the 70s to the present. There was acoustic folk, Caribbean, blues, rock, gospel, pop, 50s, Latin rock, jazz fusion and psychedelic rock. Some of it I like and some of it I don't much care for, but they're all entertaining in one way or another. Since I'm into metal, my favorites are Santana, The Who and Jimi Hendrix, but I also enjoy a lot of the lighter stuff, like Joan Baez ("Swing Low Sweet Chariot") and Arlo Guthrie ("Coming into Los Angeles"). And then there are the acts that come out of left field, like Sly and the Family Stone and Sha Na Na, even Ritchie Havens.

What's amazing is how brief the classic hippie era was. It started around '65 and its apex was Woodstock in August '69, a mere four years later. From there it was all downhill with Altamont, Isle of Wight and the deaths of the movement's principal musical icons. As such, it only lasted some eight years.

Thankfully, we have this film to see the good aspects of the period -- some bad, some eye-rolling -- but mostly good, and definitely entertaining.

The film was shot in White Lake, New York, and runs 184 minutes while the 1994 Director's Cut runs 225 minutes. I've only seen the latter.

GRADE: A

Having attended the Woodstock festival, I've probably seen the original movie about 5-10 times. I ordered the 25th anniversary version just recently and was pleasantly surprised by the extra footage of the Jimi Hendrix performance. I invited a guitar playing friend of mine to watch, and we were both totally blown away by his performance. It's sort of disappointing that this footage wasn't included in the original feature, but I'm sure glad it is here now. The addition of Janis Joplin's outrageous performance was also gladly welcomed (I always appreciated the fact that she was loyal to her backup band, but in reality, she deserved a much better band). My only complaint is the remix of the Joe Cocker performance, which in my mind, is one of the best and most powerful rock performances ever committed to film (the audio mix in the original film was much better).

I was 8 years old the time this event took place and having older siblings into the times, styles, and cultures of the era I certainly got a feel and liking for the bands in this documentary. I have seen bits and pieces of this event throughout the years, but never took the time to sit down and watch the whole event from start to finish; that is until last weekend. This definitely is what music documentaries have used as the measuring stick to define themselves ever since. The Director's Cut, which is what I viewed, is 224 min in length. It's amazing how one can get "sucked into the experience" and not notice the time elapsing! The Remastered version is incredible especially regarding the visual and audio equipment used in that time period. The 2 channel effect with the split screen is interesting and keeps the viewer entertained by the different sounds and noises in the interview segments. Best musical and visual picks are Jimi Hendrix, CSN, Country Joe (cute use of the "bouncing ball" - can we say Karaoke?), Jefferson Airplane, and my favorite Janis Joplin. If you're a period person, grew up in the late 60's, or appreciate classic rock music, then I urge you to go and watch this classic piece of work.

9 out of 10 ***

Yes it certainly was a moment in time where some 450K mostly young people traveled to Bethel, New York, and camped out on farmer Max Yasgur's dairy farm for three days in the summer of 1969 to enjoy each others company and naked freedom mostly in the rain while listening to some of the greatest rock legends on stage.

This documentary tried to capture the essence of the young people who traveled to enjoy what was for most of the 450K attendees a free concert since there was no way to maintain any semblance of an organized concert event that would have otherwise been arranged at a much smaller and contained stadium for example like at Madison Square Gardens, New York.

The film directors captured everything from toddlers running around buck naked, to the free spirited hippies skinny dipping in the lake that sat on Max Yazur's dairy farm lands. The food lines tried to feed the masses with 50 gallon tubs of what looked like porridge and the portable toilets were maintained by what seemed to be one eager and hard working sanitation engineer holding a scrub brush in one hand and a pail of bleach water in the other as he merrily went about his dirty business.

Rain and thunderstorms seemed to be a constant threat but it did not seem to hinder the crowds from continuing to peacefully respect one another and enjoy the bands who came out on stage to entertain the seemingly endless and tireless mass crowds of peace loving music fans.

I give this documentary a 7 out of 10 IMDb rating. The story captured in this documentary was bigger than any of the bands playing and Jimi Hendrix closed out the three (3) day concert as only Jimi Hendrix can.

when the movie was first released, I saw Woodstock in a theater with my great uncle. I was in 8th grade. He took me to see it because we both played guitar and shared a love of music. It was quite an experience - especially some of the "free love" scenes, but we loved it and he was especially awed by Jimi Hendrix.

I had a chance to see the director's cut in a theater this year. It was such a gift to go back in time and recapture the feeling of that time. While four hours is a long time, the extra footage of Jimi Hendrix and the dreamy scenes of Janis Joplin near the end are worth it.

Yes, Woodstock is ESSENTIAL viewing for any rock fan and for anyone who wants to capture the real sense of what it was like to feel part of a generational "love' movement. It seems so unreal in retrospect, but those of us who lived it - remember it. See Woodstock and enjoy.

Good documentary about the most famous concert of the decade. Many of the better bands, and some of the worst, were at this shindig where any and everything goes. Personally, I wouldn't have gone within 3 states of the place, but obviously not everyone is as crowd phobic as I. My main objection to the film was the camera zooming in on one band or musician to the exclusion of others. For instance, there was to much Richie Havens and not enough Country Joe. Way too much Jimi, and very little Carlos. It was well worth seeing, though.

What a great documentary this is with an event like Woodstock captured so magnificently on film. I saw this in the theater during it's initial release more than once and have seen it at least a dozen times since. This film won the Academy Award for 1970 as Best Documentary for Michael Wadliegh as he uses split screen imagery for many scenes capturing different events at the same time and different angles of same events. Wadleigh had done cinematography on a couple of notable but forgotten films from 1967, the feature drama Who's That Knocking On My Door, an early Martin Scorsesse film, (Scorsesse would help with the editing of Woodstock) and film maker Jim McBride's David Holzman's Diary. This had to be a monumental task to chronicle the three day event and reduce it to a single theatrical film. 30 acts provided about 50 hours of music to the crowd of half a million in upstate New York in the summer of 1969 and the film makers of Woodstock had to eliminate over half of the performers from their film but what they chronicled here is captures the thrilling performances and the crowd, the rain and the events that unfolded during that three day festival in an fast paced, energetic and thoughtful documentation. It was nominated for and should have won the Academy Award for it's principal film editor Thelma Schoonmaker who would go on to successful career editing such films as The Color of Money, Good fellas, Cape Fear, The Kings of Comedy, Gangs of New york, The Last Temptation of Christ and The Aviator. This film also received an Academy Award nomination for Best Sound and should have won that too. It's brown acid alerts, rain storm precautions, latrine maintenance, three days of peace and music and breakfast in bed for 400,000 with Merry Prankster Wavy Gravy as your stage host starring Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, CSN&Y, The Who, Santana, Sly & the Family Stone, Country Joe & the fish, 10 Years After, Sha Na Na, Joan Baez, Arlo Guthrie and John Sebstian. I would give this a 10 and highly recommend it.

The best format to see this movie would be DVD since its easier to find the good material. There is an awful lot of dead air space, (hippies sliding in the mud, and building scaffolding) and the split screen is annoying. Although as an artifact of sixties culture, this is a film that probably has very few rivals. As usual the directors have chosen to include more of the boring musical acts and less of the great ones. Still this move is worth seeing just for three things: some great, if brief, moments from Hendrix, the Who , and a terrific rendition of "Suite Judy Blue Eyes" by Crosby,Stills , and Nash. A year or two ago there was a Rolling Stones concert of some 500,000 in Toronto for SARS. The event was very peaceful and for the most part there was no trouble, which proves maybe the sixties communal spirit is not dead after all.

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.

Wavy Gravy said it best. Three days of peace, love and music, captured onto film. Everybody has their own opinions about which groups are better than others, but the overall effect is a dizzying one. 500,000 people (with an additional 1 million on the roads who couldn't get any closer) gathered in one spot, for a festival that named a generation. It's hard to believe that the concert was supposed to be a nothing more than a publicity event for a proposed recording studio, financed by a pair of venture capitalists. But the sun, moon and the stars were all in the proper alignment to create an event that we can only stand back and admire. I praise the organizers for having the foresight to document this event on film, for future generations to enjoy and behold. And perhaps, one day, repeat in some form.

Woodstock is a great documentary. It is edited very well and has great spirit and music in the mix. For the generation of the time it was what symbolized them, and I think this is the perfect film for them. Edited very finely (by the director, Oscar Winning editor Thelma Schoonmaker and the man himself, Martin Scorsese) with many parts of the movie in separate sides in great splendor. I think this film is the best movie in which a sound track was made, and one of the best documentaries ever made (definitely the best of the 70's).

I'd be lying if I weren't skeptical, as from the outside looking in it sounds like a simple concert movie. And no matter how much one enjoys the music, the concept of a concert movie - filmed footage of artists performing, perhaps interspersed with shots of the crowd, and maybe snippets of interviews - aren't particularly appealing. All those aspects one would expect of a concert movie we can either get by being there ourselves, or obtain in other ways. A documentary exploring a concert, a festival, live music, studio sessions, and so on needs to have some special focus, be notably comprehensive, or be extraordinary and singular to really catch my eye and earn my favor. Or maybe I'm just too jaded from having seen poor recent examples, for at least where Michael Wadleigh's picture is concerned, I'm pleased that it's not JUST a concert movie. There's intelligence, sincerity, and craftsmanship to these hours that go far beyond simple "point and shoot" notions I've seen elsewhere, and 'Woodstock' becomes something more than something we just passively sit and watch or listen to. Whether one is an ardent cinephile, a huge fan of the artists involved in the watershed moment of culture, or just looking for a pleasant, rewarding watch for a quiet day, this feature might actually be a must-see.

Based on what information I had about this from the outset, at best I didn't know what to expect; happily, in fact it's everything that I was afraid it wouldn't be. We get to see wonderfully energized performances from musicians in their absolute prime, injecting undeniable vitality into material that 50 years on we may be otherwise familiar with only from passably acceptable but irrefutably sterile studio recordings. Even if a specific song doesn't entirely comport with our personal preferences where music is concerned, the wholehearted vibrancy in the act of playing or singing it live comes across with perfect fidelity. Just as was true with seeing The Beatles' last rooftop performance in1970's 'Let it be,' or instances of the Rolling Stones at the top of their game in 'Gimme shelter' from the same year, bands and tunes like Sha-na-na and "At the hop," or Richie Havens with his rendition of "Motherless child," pop with fabulous zest that even some of the most far-flung of modern artists, far removed from the rock 'n roll of the 60s, just can't compete with. As an even better example, consider Joe Cocker's rendition of "With a little help from my friends" - practically "traditional" and "standard" by the sensibilities of the twenty-first century, we see this classic brought to life with a spirit that I can only describe as zealotry. I've attended hard rock and metal shows where the folks on stage couldn't even dream of comparing to what we watch here, and of everyone, among so many others, Cocker is an exquisite illustration of exactly that.

We're just getting started, though. It seems important to emphatically cite several names in addition to Wadleigh, including Malcolm Hart, Don Lenzer, Michael Margetts, David Myers, Richard Pearce, Alfred Wertheimer, Jere Huggins, Thelma Schoonmaker, Stanley Warnow, Yeu-Bun Yee, and (of all people) Martin Scorsese. These individuals were paramount to the success of 'Woodstock,' and the brilliance of the viewing experience, because the cinematography in this production - and the stupendous choices of editing, including split-screen presentation - are honestly just as lively and invigorating as the music itself. These facets elevate already excellent, exciting performances to even higher echelons of bewitching artistry, entertainment, and fulfillment, and accentuate the momentousness of each act in succession. In and of themselves the cinematography and editing are rather enough to make this worth exploring; how often can we say that about any movie? Even when the musicians aren't the focus, 'Woodstock' can claim tremendously gratifying mindfulness and attentive care in the fundamental construction of the feature, and in how it was filmed. As if it wasn't enough for Wadleigh to have access to one of the quintessential events in cultural history, he and his collaborators tackled the project with skill, professionalism, and passion that even the narrative fiction side of cinema can't always claim.

And we're still not done, because this is more than just an exceptional "concert movie," and it isn't just a terrifically well-made slice of cinema. 'Woodstock' is a distinct, remarkable moment in time, captured on film for all posterity, and Wadleigh captures it all from start to finish. The preparation of the field and the stage, the reactions of Bethel locals, aerial footage showcasing the mess of vehicles in the area, the preposterous logistics (or lack thereof), shots of the enormous crowd and many of the individuals therein, all the comings and goings and little ways that people spent their time during that long weekend, the rain, the mud, the pure essence of celebration, love, and peace: we see all of it. We even get acknowledgement that, yes, for as surprisingly well as the whole event went off, there were still instances of people getting sick, or hurt, or overdosing, or dying, and supplies and facilities of all kinds were lacking. The sudden huge influx of people was in no few ways a nightmare that did impact commerce, and the ability of some folks to work or meet their needs. Woodstock was an should be remembered as the fantastic, one-of-a-kind happening that it was, but there's always a trade-off of some kind, and something can't come from nothing.

And all this, everything that Wadleigh shows us of all that those three days were, underscores that it was, truly, not just "once in a lifetime" but "one of a kind." The ever-growing encroachment of the evils of capitalism, expanding sociopolitical forces and bureaucracy, heightened and tightened standards of health and safety, and ever greater divisions between people (particularly for lack of an especial unifying factor) have all meant in the past fifty years that no attempt to recreate Woodstock '69 could succeed in the way that it did, with overwhelmingly positive vibes and responses, and without the corrupting influence of significant corporate involvement. Fifty years on, we must even reckon with the future of live music generally, and of destination festivals specifically, as looming environmental catastrophe means that the expenditure of resources involved in the execution of such events can no longer be taken for granted. As a result, Wadleigh's 'Woodstock' isn't just a concert film, and it's not just an exploration of a preeminent event - it's a time capsule, in the way that can be meaningfully said of very, very few pieces of cinema. In another fifty years, this will stand taller still.

Any feature of so substantial a length, of three hours or more, is already guaranteed to less than the widest of audiences. That goes double for documentaries, and if one isn't on board with the styles of music on display here, or with footage or frank talk of nudity, sex, and drug use, then suffice to say that maybe this picture is something to pass on by. But if none of these are obstacles in and of themselves, then ultimately Wadleigh's 'Woodstock' can only earn my very highest recommendation. My anticipation was at most middling when I first sat to watch, and I've been utterly blown away by what this actually represents. In literally every way this movie is altogether exemplary, nearly as peerless as its subject matter. From the opportunity to bear witness to those few days in August 1969, and footage of performances that puts to shame most live shows I've ever seen, to the immense genius and hard work of Michael Wadleigh and everyone else who was involved in the creation of this documentary, 'Woodstock' is quite simply a masterwork that isn't to be missed. However you need to go about it, this is well worth going out of your way to watch.

The 1969 Woodstock concert might very well be the most legendary concert of all time. Not just only because who all performed but even more so the stuff and atmosphere surrounding the entire event. It was held at the height of the flower power craze and the entire event became much bigger and longer than eventually anticipated, resulting in some crazy events, as can be seen in this documentary.

Yes, it is a documentary but it doesn't really feel like one. This sounds like a bad thing but it really isn't. It isn't a documentary that gives you any insightful information about the planning and execution of the whole event, with lots of backstage footage but it more is one that simply shows all of the stuff, as it happened. This gives you more the sort of feeling of what it must had been like, on and around the farm fields, the concert was being held on. Nothing about this documentary feels planned, as if they were just simply shooting away as much material as possible, which later got put together in the editing room by none other than Martin Scorsese, among many others.

But the main emphasis is really put on its music and artist, with occasionally some footage of the festival attendees and the people living in the area, responding to all of the events. I liked it that it showed all of the events from many different perspectives and wasn't only just focusing on the beautiful and positive things that went on.

But really, when the music plays, there are absolutely no distractions from it. The camera is filming the artist from the front only and doesn't ever cuts or swirls away from them. I liked this approach, which is quite different from normal other concert movies that often tend to focus on the audience as well.

And there truly is some great music in this movie, played by some big name stars. I was actually surprised how I was able to recognize pretty much all of the artist that were on stage, even though all of them and their biggest hits were far before my time. It should tell you something about how legendary some of the persons that perform at Woodstock were. Janis Joplin, The Who, Santana, Joe Cocker and of course Jimi Hendrix, just to name a few, all make their appearances.

The documentary is also really a testament of its time. It shows the atmosphere and the whole state of minds and mentality of youngsters, around that time. Searching for love and peace, with the help of some music..and lots of illegal substances! I can imaging how this bothered some 'older' people and different people around that time but now days, it's actually quite fun to watch all. It putted many of the festival goers into a certain mood, which also made them do some crazy things. One of the craziest things I saw in this documentary was a naked man dancing with a real sheep in his arms, in the middle of a big crowed. Why? Because he could of course! No one that looked surprised or bothered by it, just because it fitted in with the whole ideology and mentality of certain youngsters around that time. Everybody was allowed to do what he wanted and whatever made him or her happy, as long as it didn't involved any aggression.

It's a really long and extensive portrayal of the Woodstock events. Depending on which version you are watching, the running time is close to 4 hours. And not only that, it often is using split-screens, so basically there is about 6 or 7 hours of footage to be seen in this documentary. It probably also helps to make it good and suitable for repeated viewings.

Simply a must-see for the movie lovers and for those who enjoy a good concert registration, or are curious to find out what all that buzz about that 'old' Woodstock concert event was all about.

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Although I am sure most of you don't use captions, you might want to use them here so that you can follow the lyrics as folks are performing their songs. Plus, if your kids are around, you can then sing along with the musicians--and really annoy the young ones in your house!

This is a VERY lengthy documentary about the famous music festival held in 1969. It ranges from 184-228 minutes (depending on which of the MANY versions you see--I saw the 45th anniversary edition). This is important to note because depending on which one you see will depend on just how good the documentary is. I was annoyed when I read after I was finished watching the movie that in SOME versions (and NOT the one I saw), Creedence Clearwater Revival does not appear even though they DID appear at Woodstock*. Considering they were the top group (albeit briefly) in the country at the time, you'd THINK they'd include them on the DVD!!! Additionally, because there are so many acts, you only get a small bit of most of the performers you see. I really love The Who--but most of their songs, for example, you don't get to hear. Likewise, you don't get to see Pete Townsend attack the director or toss Abbie Hoffman off the stage during their performance! Now I am not saying you should get to hear and see every act, but a few simply are inexplicably absent...and a few times interviews and other non-instrumental bits are included instead of more music. So, understand that this is the director's idea of a greatest hits account of Woodstock and may or may not meet your expectations. As for me, I hated a few of the acts and would have loved if they'd chosen a bit differently. After all, Sha-Na- Na DID appear in the film (although they were quite atypical of the rest of the music and they really sucked) but other acts performing (CCR, The Band and a few others) were omitted.

*By the way, apparently when the Grateful Dead performed on the very wet stage, the band kept getting electrocuted and their songs were not surprisingly bad. They sued to prevent their inclusion in the film, though you see a few clips of Jerry Garcia near the beginning.

Woodstock is one of the few documentaries I ever watched and definitely the longest I ever watched. The version I watched was 224 minutes long, some parts were a tad boring, but on the whole it was a wonderful experience. So good that I did it again recently to remember it and write this review.

Being a BIG fan of the 50's, 60's and 70's music helps, they really don't make music like they used to.

This is more than just the music though, it is like being there. If you are young (15-30) get a copy and see this for the music and the people of the time.

Times change and it is good to be able to look back, this documentary allows us to see a glimpse of the past.

The musical performances-especially Jimi Hendrix-make this a keeper. But the other material is of decidedly variable value. Wavy Gravy works for a while, then becomes tedious as hell and most of the concert-goers aren't terribly interesting. I do hope the one young lady who lost her sister in the crowd was successful in finding her, though. The thought that runs through my mind watching this during crowd scenes and interviews is,"How many of these people are grandparents, CEOs of corporations,drive BMWs and the like?" After all, it has been 31 years since Woodstock. They have become the generation they were warned not to trust. Oh, well. Better luck next time.

I've seen "Woodstock" a few times now and basically its underrated. In my opinion the greatest rock documentary ever made was the " Isle of Wight Concert" which unfortunately hasn't been seen by many people. The only things outstnding about Woodstock were Jimi Hendrix, Joe Cocker and the incredible amount of people who showed up. I'd be interested in knowing what happened to some of the attendees who are interviewed during the film. I suspect they're either long dead from OD's, living in a cardboard box on one of America's many skid rows or they grew up and got their act together and are now Republicans, like this old hippie is.