“Considering the iconic event at its center,” writes Eric Kohn for indieWIRE, “the most surprising aspect of “Taking Woodstock” lies with the decision to make it into a rather flat comedy.”
Perhaps that “trailer” introduced by Demetri Martin during the “Important Things with Demetri Martin” show wasn’t much of a joke after all? Kohn continues, “Even with the ever-versatile Ang Lee behind the camera, this messy historical fiction plays like a two hour “Saturday Night Live” sketch, and not a very good one, either.”
Kohn isn’t the only one with the unfortunate impression that “Taking Woodstock” is just a forgettable, comedic filler in between far more memorable Lee works, as Allan Hunter puts it, “Enjoyable in places and merely humdrum in others, ‘Taking Woodstock’ ultimately feels like a minor Ang Lee digression in between more memorable works.”
Kirk Honeycutt of the Hollywood Reporter finds himself disappointed but not entirely dissatisfied by Lee’s latest, “Lee’s new film “Taking Woodstock” runs counter to any expectations that a world-class director would plumb the meaning of this transforming event. Instead Lee delivers an entertaining light comedy about a real-life person who somewhat inadvertently helped the whole iconic concert to take place….It’s a low-wattage film about a high-wattage event. Which is somewhat disappointing, though you do get a thoughtful, playful, often amusing film about what happened backstage at one of the ’60s’ great happenings.” Honeycutt concludes, “The old joke goes that if you remember Woodstock, you probably weren’t there. “Taking Woodstock” creates a new one: If you do remember Woodstock, this movie is not how you remember it.”
Todd McCarthy sees “Taking Woodstock” as a “sort of let’s-put-on-a-show summer-camp lark for director Ang Lee after the dramatic rigors of ‘Brokeback Mountain’ and ‘Lust, Caution,’ the picture serves up intermittent pleasures but is too raggedy and laid-back for its own good, its images evaporating nearly as soon as they hit the screen.”
Jeff Wells agrees with McCarthy, “This backstory saga about the legendary Woodstock Music Festival of ’69 works in spots and spurts, but it too often feels ragged and unsure of itself, and doesn’t coalesce in a way that feels truly solid or self-knowing.”
“The business end of the Woodstock enterprise holds some interest, but the family dynamic is sitcom-broad, and contains a near-libelous caricature of immigrant Jews,” write Richard and Mary Corliss before reiterating some of the on-scene buzz, found newcomer Jonathan Groff to steal the show, “A few actors crawl out of the rubble. Give Jonathan Groff (a major new cutie) a hand for turning the Woodstock weekend’s chief promoter, Michael Lang, into a figure so charismatic, and so central to the actual concert, that viewers will think the movie should have been about him.”
However, the pair conclude: “The rest of the movie is a mess — Lee’s first total miscalculation, his first wholly inessential film. He’ll do better; he almost has to. The rest of us with any interest in a 40-year-old rock concert can get the DVD of Woodstock.”
“Once the concert starts and Elliot has his inevitable LSD trip and introduction to free love, the film drops the comedy for a needless coming-of-age denouement in which Elliot breaks from his parents,” Kaleem Aftab writes: “It would have been better had the movie ended when the concert began.”
