-

“Hans Landa would have loved this movie.”
-Scott Marks

For those wondering, Mr. Marks is a pretty good friend of mine who often shares a radically different opinion than my own. Generally, I’ll come out singing the praises of Watchmen whereas he’ll yell at me for being wrong and rip the film to shreds. I can’t remember the last film I didn’t like that Scott loved, but the point has more than been made; unless it’s a classic piece of cinema, we don’t usually see eye-to-eye. Taking Woodstock should be considered an achievement just in that the two of us agreed completely on a movie. Shamefully, neither of us can raise our glasses and salute Ang Lee for making a great film. Truthfully, he’s done just the opposite and made what we agree is a horrendous picture.

What’s so offensive about Taking Woodstock isn’t any of the lack of filmmaking on display. In fact this film’s biggest crime is why I chose to begin this critique a little differently than normal. Ang Lee has decided to throw everything out that entails making a good drama and has instead littered it with every single stereotype he can dig up. The Jewish community gets the worst of it, with Imelda Stauton and Henry Goodman portrayed as the biggest Jewish caricatures likely ever put to screen. Now, I’m not Jewish and find it quite entertaining when a film plays on its stereotypes. This movie doesn’t do that and tries to make the stereotypes full-on characters.

The Jews may get it the worst, but Lee hasn’t forgotten the typical trolls who inhabit these stories. Aside from not being able to carry a picture to save his life, Demetri Martin’s Elliott Teichberg is the typical “miracle boy down on his luck.” Rooting for him is difficult when he (and the film) instill absolutely no more desire in the audience than to grab the complimentary hammer theaters will hand out to those who buy tickets and beat their own heads in. Emilie Hirsch, usually reliable, just floats in and out when the lack of a plot calls for him. Hirsch’s Billy is the “crazy Vietnam vet” that’s been done and done better. The hippies, led by Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff), feel anything but authentic. As for Liev Schreiber, he should be ashamed for playing a character like Vilma. He, she, or it isn’t funny. It’s outright disgusting.

None of the cast get any help from Ang Lee, who has decided that instead of a film, he wanted to make a sleeping pill. Lee has managed to take one of the most exciting events of the 1960s and turn it into a snoozefest. Lee’s reliance on split-screen to show us two different things happening in the same room serves no purpose at all and wears its welcome out quick. He’s not alone in creating a full-on forward assault of suck, thanks to his partner in crime, screenwriter James Schamus. The man’s scripted a film without any identity. Drama won’t be found here, nor will laughs, and excitement didn’t even get an invitation. Schamus also forgot to call a friend that all good screenwriters use: relatable characters. Instead, he opted to show us everything that makes bad cinema, for his lack of a story and lack of character development. His next assignment after this should be writing for the next studio-produced kids movie if he’s going to be so lazy with his methods.

If there’s a purpose to Taking Woodstock I couldn’t find it. This film is so terrible that it almost doesn’t want to be recommended. While most bad movies sometimes have good intentions, Ang Lee goes for the opposite and seems to be set out to make one of the worst films ever put to celluloid. Can’t say he and James Schamus aren’t successful, as together they’ve made an earnest abomination. In fact, the only people who have any business watching this film are insomniacs who have constant sleeping problems. Five minutes in, their problem will be solved and they won’t have to endure this offensive, lurid piece of something.

Rating:  

If you survived this review and are somehow still interested in the film, check out our giveaway.