Fiasco total: Woodstock 99

The documentary is good - but the event itself - was just a massive failure on soooo many levels! Everyone from the artists, to the promoters, to the fans - all pitched in together to create a massive embarrassment, and a shameful event! There's nothing good that can be said about Woodstock 99 - it's just a terrible example of human greed and depravity!!!

Let's just say it right now and get it over with - Trainwreck: Woodstock 99 is easily one of the best documentaries Netflix nas come up with in recent years; it's partly because most of those has been utter crap, but in a way, Trainwreck can really hold up its own. And if you're a fan of seeing things go south (and you are, aren't you, why else would you be here?), then you'll enjoy every bit of this one.

But of course, Oscar for best documentary short contender this one is not. And it isn't for the lack of trying - it's properly produced, nicely put together, with a clear vision almost till the end. Because -much like the event it's trying to portray- it's towards the end where things really start to fall apart. Are there repercussions? Ramifications? What do we really feel about the festival, 20+ years later? Have we learned anything or, was this documentary -again, much like the event- just an excuse to see s#it burn? Is saying, no plans for another Woodstock, really it?

A good documentary is a pure and simple art form - it's a music piece, an opera. It must come together effortlessly and it must make sense from the start till the end - here, you're left with an unfinished symphony. Unless this has always been the idea. Much unlike the even it's trying to portray.

I happened across this documentary by accident, and being a huge music fan, I was intrigued by the subject. What unfolded was more of a statement of the social status of the US at the time than the music scene. The thing I took away from this was the unbelievable naivety of the organisers, the lack of understanding of the current music scene and the rampant capitalism of the licenced vendors. Back in the '60s, the music scene was all peace and love and hippies. Hendrix, Lennon, Crosby Stills and Nash, Santana. All mellow stuff. Cut to post grunge USA, the music is angry, violent and aggressive. Korn, Limp Bizkit, Chilli Peppers, Rage Against The Machine. Add to that the appalling facilities, price gouging for food and drink and the 100c + weather. It is almost an A-Z of how not to organise a rock festival. The scenes of 300,000 people undulating to Limp Bizkit on stage is mesmerising, and must have been intoxicating for the artists. The organisers seem to ty and deflect blame on the artists for getting the crowd over excited, particularly Korn, Limp Biskitz and RHCP. That is literally their job FFS! Recommended viewing for any music fans, or anyone interested in the Mob Rules mentality.

Slightly longer than last year's "Woodstock: Peace Love and Rage" documentary, and the 3-episode chronological format (covering each day) works better and seems more focused. As another reviewer pointed out, this could've been several episodes longer, or at least longer than 45 mins an episode; for anyone who listened to music critic Steven Hyden's 10-episode podcast in 2019 ("Break Stuff: The Story of Woodstock 99") both of these documentaries seem lightweight by comparison. But in the end, I guess there's only so much available footage to use and people to interview.

And to the reviewers who said they never mention Woodstock 94 or blame the organizers instead of the bands, what documentary were you watching? 94 is mentioned in the first episode, and the organizers are painted throughout as being ignorant to the many problems happening, and then spinning the truth for damage control and refusing to accept any blame in the aftermath.

The original Woodstock was a cultural turning point, Woodstock 99 was also a turning point but in the opposite direction.

It's clear from the start that Lang doesn't know what he's doing and that it was only will hardwork of his 3 partners for the original Woodstock that it actually work. Without them Woodstock 99 failed.

John Scher defending all the rapes (especially of children) was just sickening, what an absolute disgrace of a human being.

The tried to capture the hippy magic of the original but then decided to play metal/rock/aggressive musics/bands, so obviously that's not going to bring in a hippy band. They you don't do the festival in a field/farm, the idiots decide to do it on asphalt in 40C heat. Banning drinking being brought in was ridiculous and letting a bottle of water go for $15 (in today's money) was just an absolute joke. No wonder people were kicking off.

The original Woodstock wasn't about money and it had even less regulations and security. People were giving out their food and drink for free. Woodstock 99 you'd be lucky to get a slice of bread for less than $5.

I'm glad they didn't do any other Woodstocks after this as Lang clearly was riding on the coattails of his original peers, and the greedy corporates pigs as responsible for it's death. Thank God Glastonbury still knows how to do it right.