Unlike Ang Lee's previous films, "Taking Woodstock" is a complete light comedy, with a smooth story, simple relationship between characters, a brisk rhythm, and funny dialogue ()
.
"Taking Woodstock" is a lighthearted sketch, but the film is very exciting. Although it is named after the music festival, it has almost nothing to do with rock culture and hippie spirit. Driven by utilitarian purposes, the protagonist unpredictably witnessed the occurrence of a revolutionary event. The director is only concerned about the transformation of the protagonist, and the discussion of family relationships in Ang Lee's past works continues in this film. The descriptions of the flower girl, Bohemia, LSD, hippies, etc. in the film are all properly performed. The description of the innocent age after the Vietnam War is neither overly obsessive nor straightforward to testify to history. It is a rare joke in Ang Lee movies. The screenwriter James Shams incorporates many political and social metaphorical events into his lines. Ang Lee is also good at scheduling actors’ interactions in front of the camera. Serious words that should have come into being The counter-effect of humor, and the way of performance at the music festival is also very unexpected. Ang Lee used split screens to create dreamlike memories of déjà vu, able to see and feel from a distance, but not directly involved. This may be Ang Lee's lack of experience in the hippie years and chose to cover it up. But people who have a strong affinity for hippie culture have a taste of uneasiness. The film compresses the core of the story on how a person re-understands himself. In the process of creating this revolutionary event, the protagonist is influenced by the people around him. These group-like characters add tension and magnificence to the film. Elements of success in the field. These characters with different personalities emerge in endlessly in the film, but they did not steal Eliot's light or cause the main line's attention to be distracted. It can only be said that this is the control that Ang Lee has as a master ()
.
"Taking Woodstock" is a downright comedy. It looks like a two-hour "Saturday Night Live", and it is an unsuccessful issue. The classic documentary "Woodstock" is interspersed in the film. The clip distracts the focus of the film. Although it is about Woodstock’s story, the focus is on the beholder rather than the music itself. It lacks a true restoration of an exciting event ()
.
In "Taking Woodstock", Ang Lee cleverly avoided the memory center of gravity that Americans have already matured. The images simulate the texture of the 1960s and 1970s, and still take his familiar "growth" perspective in his bones, with a cheerful and relaxed attitude. Treat the whole process. There is no positive concert scene in the film, nor is there a rock star who sings loudly, but it does not affect its authenticity. The protagonist of the narrative is Elliott and his parents, and the conflicts mainly come from the family. The only panoramic view of Woodstock that can be seen, also has a psychedelic color like a dream. Dimitri Martin’s temperament fits the film’s style very well. Levi Schreiber has changed from a "saber-toothed tiger" to a "transvestite". Many supporting characters are lively and cute, and even the occasional gay complex is in line with nature. Not obtrusive. "Taking Woodstock" is a brisk personal epic. There is no need to copy or fabricate. Ang Lee has become a competent reporter ()
.
"Taking Woodstock" is not subtle but the plot is more than complicated (). As a light-hearted and funny work, the film’s fun to the audience is intermittent, and the film itself is too rough and laid-back (); as a film about big events, it is thoughtful and interesting but lacks skill, which makes people A little disappointed (); I can only say that it is a film with few jokes and low demands (). It may touch the hearts of the audience a little, but in the end it is still easy to be Forgotten film ()
.
"Taking Woodstock" has both familiar old faces and new faces (). It does not trample on anything sacred, but there is also nothing interesting (). It is hard to call it a terrible experience, but it is very inconspicuous and irrelevant (), and it is also a novelty that it is photographed without being remembered ()
.
