Taking Woodstock (2009)

Tags

Comedy, Demetri Martin, Drama, Emile Hirsch, Eugene Levy, Henry Goodman, Imelda Staunton, Liev Schreiber, Movie, Taking Woodstock

oh, a hippie? I thought you guys said to dress up as a Hobbit...my bad.

R

Demetri Martin, Imelda Staunton, Emile Hirsch, Henry Goodman, Liev Schreiber, Eugene Levy

Elliot: Have you guys been down to see the festival yet?
VW Guy: We’re cool…we’ll get there again.
VW Girl: We got to the top of the hill and looked down at the sea…and the tiny little people on stage…with their waves of tiny electric voices.
VW Guy: Like ants making thunder…man…it was cool.  But you couldn’t really tell who was jamming down there.

Elliot (Martin) is helping out his parents at their little hotel, despite wanting to be back in New York working as an interior designer.  After learning that a neighboring town wouldn’t let a music festival use their land, Elliot contacts them to say that his family has some land they could use.  One thing leads to another, and pretty soon there’s millions of hippies descending on this unsuspecting little town.

I’m not real sure what to think about this movie.  It’s like an inside look at the lead up to Woodstock, but it’s still stuck on the outside once the festival starts.  We don’t see any performers on or off stage, just a few echoes of music in the distance here and there.

Elliot is our doorway into the whole event, but he’s stuck trying to help his parents back at the hotel.  That is, until his dad says he should go see the festival himself.  Even then, he doesn’t quite make it to the stage.  He just gets sidetracked doing acid with some hippies in a VW.

Maybe the point is that it was more about the experience of being there with other people like you, rather than the music.  If so, fine, but it doesn’t make for a very compelling movie.  In fact, I think “plodding” would be the best word to describe it.  A plodding movie.  It seems like it’s slowly building up to the big Woodstock experience at the end, but all we get is that hippie van and some people sliding around in the mud.

Don’t get me wrong, it captures all of that atmosphere very well (I assume…I mean, I wasn’t there or anything), but it just never really leads us anywhere.  It’s almost like watching a documentary that couldn’t afford to buy the rights to use the music played at the festival.  So they were left just showing everything else.

I suppose all of that would have been okay if the characters were more compelling.  Unfortunately, aside from Elliot’s rather intense mother, there isn’t much interesting going on with anybody.  Eugene Levy was good as the farmer who charges a very high price for permission to use his land for the festival, but he’s not on screen very much.

If you want to see a nice looking, glossed over glimpse into the atmosphere surrounding Woodstock, without the magic of the performances, this could be worth a look.  Just don’t expect a compelling story or interesting characters.  But hey, you can definitely expect a lot of naked hippies!

Woodstock was…kinda boring.

10 – 2.1 for not having a particularly compelling story or characters – 1 for being so plodding/slow – .9 for lack of any performance scenes = 6.0

Best In Show (2000)

Tags

Best In Show, Catherine O'Hara, Christopher Guest, Comedy, Eugene Levy, Fred Willard, Movie, Parker Posey

I woof you.

PG-13

Catherine O’Hara, Eugene Levy, Fred Willard, Parker Posey, Christopher Guest

Buck: Well, the judge is Eddie Franklin…
Trevor: That’s EDIE Franklin.
Buck: Edie?
Trevor: Yes, a retired school teacher from New Jersey.
Buck: You’re right, that’s a lady…

Various dog owners are followed around as they prepare for the Mayflower Kennel Club Dog Show.

I feel like I’m about the last person in the world to finally see this movie after hearing so much about it, and honestly, for most of its running time, it was a bit of a let down.  I laughed some in the first half, but I also sat patiently for much of it as well.  The improvised dialogue can be funny, but it can also be tedious when it goes down an unfunny path.

Fortunately, Fred Willard showed up for the final third of the movie and just about saved the day.  He delivers one great line after another as the color commentator at the dog show.  I think he makes this movie seem funnier than it is overall.  The nutty character traits of the various owners are developed early on and then just shown over and over until they’re run into the ground.  A few of the running gags work, like Cookie’s (O’Hara) various ex-boyfriends that she’s constantly running into, while others don’t.  Parker Posey and Michael Hitchcock grated on my nerves early and often with their constant bickering.  Though, Posey does have a good scene in a pet store later when she’s trying to find a specific squeeze toy for her dog.

I know this is referred to as a “mockumentary”, but it seemed to jump back and forth between a documentary and a regular movie about as often as District 9 does.  Some scenes, the actors are completely aware of the cameras.  Other scenes, they’re not meant to be aware of them.  That’s a small point…I just thought it was weird.

For the most part, it’s a pleasant movie with a mildly funny first 2/3 and a very funny final 1/3.  I didn’t think it was the all time great that I’ve heard it is, but it’s certainly worth a watch.

I think I learned that Blood Hounds might be telepathic…

10 – 2.2 for a first two thirds that was very hit and miss to me personally – .9 for a few annoying characters + .2 for Fred Willard = 7.1