Always Woodstock (2014) User Reviews

Well, I found something to like.

[TheInbetweener · 6/10 · 3 April 2015]

Reading the other reviews for this, I have to smile ruefully. Saying a film has absolutely zero merit is completely understandable - expected - with soulless box office cash cows. I mean, it isn't really - considering people have toiled tirelessly and put in insane hours to create it, and at least one person in the cast is probably insanely invested in it and will cry their little heart out when they read the reviews - but it's understandable. Because it's just a product.

When it comes to little hopeful offerings like this one - an idea some budding director has probably had for years, worked so hard to get made, and probably never expected it to - it's not only a little cruel but stupid.

Because you can tell the director of this little film, Rita Merson, cared a lot about making it. "I watched 'Pretty Woman' and it was all over," says Merson. "I became a connoisseur of the romcom."

She made this with a recently broken heart. That went into the making of this film. As cliché as it is, getting your heart broken is still one of the most intense, multi-layered and transformative experiences of grief and longing in existence. So, no. I have a heart, and that automatically makes this film something to me.

That doesn't mean it's a very good film. It doesn't pretend to be. It's warm, strange, neurotic and often desperate, but it doesn't try to make any great Statement about love and music and self-discovery. It does what you want a little romcom to do - tell a story and make you laugh and feel things. And it does that just fine.

I was sometimes frustrated watching it. It was light. Sometimes frothy. The subject matter, under the hand of a more indie director who takes themselves a little too seriously, could have given something a little more raw and meaningful.

But this was sweet. The lead actress was wonderful to watch, very different. Her neuroticism, meant to make you fall a bit in love with her, worked. She wasn't too adorable. I liked her, and her voice, if it's hers, and forgave her for seeming to know absolutely nothing about music or authenticity.

Sometimes the dialogue was hilarious. Never inspired, never Nora Ephron, but original and laugh-out-loud. Almost every encounter with the doctor, who wasn't bad himself.

I'm just saying. It had a heart. It made me feel things. It was fun. It was warm and sparky. It cheered me up. And her voice is very good.

So thanks, Rita Merson.

Almost good

[Air_Traffic_Supervisor · 5/10 · 30 December 2016]

A good idea (altough not original) that could have resulted in a good film. But unfortunately it's not the case. So sad, because the plot has some potential.

It's hard to go along with a character when you simply don't care about him/her. Not that the actress is bad, but I think the problem here is poor scripting/directing. The locations are cute, photography is correct, the songs are OK and the film has it's charm, but it can't help feeling somewhat undone or poorly done, at least.

Not the worst film in the world like some people here say, but not a good one for sure. Sadly, the premise could have resulted in a much better work since there's a heart here.

it tries to be good

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 21 August 2018]

Catherine Brown (Allison Miller) is stuck in her life which has her silently screaming. She has long abandoned her dreams of singing. She lost her parents early in life. Her boyfriend Garret (Jason Ritter) is a self-obsessed actor. She hates her job as a musician rep and then is forced to wrangle hard-partying Jody Sinclair (Brittany Snow). When Jody accuses her of assault, she gets fired. She comes home early to find Garret cheating on her. She's sleeping on her friend Ryan's couch. She decides to go upstate to live in her childhood home in rural Woodstock. Emily (Rumer Willis) is the tough local bartender and Noah Bernstein (James Wolk) is the cute doctor. On the drunken first night at the bar, she proclaims her love to Noah. Coffee shop owner Lee Ann (Katey Sagal) nurtures her music dreams.

Miller and Wolk are a perfectly cute rom-com couple. They are both photogenic and sweet-natured although they are more like sidekick material. I want to like this very much for them. This is director Rita Merson's debut. The newcomer doesn't have all the skills to make this work. The timing is not there. The jokes are lacking. I'm surprised at the number of solid actors in the cast. Even the minor roles have familiar names. It doesn't make this good and may actually hinder the small town feel needed for Woodstock. It feels like Hollywood trying to pretend to be small town. The same can be said of the record company. It's some kind of Hollywood facsimile of a record company from the recent past. A lot of this movie falls flat despite my desire to root for the couple. Even at its best, this is a formulaic rom-com. It's not until Forever Sex when I finally get my first laugh. I still don't understand Emily's motive. This tries to be a fun quirky rom-com. It tries.

So, so badly done

[v-ley · 1/10 · 16 July 2016]

I tried watching this movie, without pausing or fast forwarding, but it was difficult. The lead Actress has a pretty good voice, if that's all she did through the entire movie, it may have saved it. But, no, she actually tried to act or tried acting through a poorly written script. The talent of the cast was there but the plot and scripted word was not. Had it been done by another Directer or Writer or even Producer, who knows how well it could have turned out. I hated every squeaky minute of this girl's poor attempt at acting. Good God, a toddler would have done better. The music chosen was great, Katy Segal was great and under used, but the rest was just awful. I feel bad for anyone who had anything to do with this script or movie, I'm sure they tried, but failed miserably. I don't think I've ever rated a movie this low but it just doesn't deserve much better.

Painful

[thetheresahernandez · 29 August 2020]

I randomly watched this movie on T.V tonight. It was truly painful to watch. Between the horrible, unrealistic dialogue to the awful acting and character development - there is NO point in recommending this movie to anyone. The music was awful. The main character was awful. It is at the absolute bottom tier of terrible movies that exist. Please don't waste your time watching it.

Teenie movie for grown-ups

[blumdeluxe · 6/10 · 10 June 2019]

"There's Always Woodstock" tells the story of a young woman who moves to the long time abandoned house of her parents in Woodstock when she finds herself in a life crisis only to newly connect with herself.

What you get is pretty much your average teenage movie of becoming yourself and finding true love, overcoming obstacles and a dramatic dance on the edge brefore the happy end. The characters are quite stereotypical and not very near to life but the plot is entertaining enough to at lwast mildly satisfy your viewing pleasure. Unfortunately, I don't think that many will remember this film though because it tends to feel a bit disposable.

All in all this is a harmless film, professionally produced but not hugely thrilling. Something you might need some days but nothing that leaves an impact.

One of the Worst

[Moviegoer19 · 1/10 · 15 November 2014]

...movies I've seen in a long time. While watching, I asked myself "how did this movie manage to get made? Who was the writer/director sleeping with?" I'm normally not that critical of films... I get engaged in them pretty easily and can suspend disbelief like a child. But when I can't, I know a film is really bad. In this one, which first hooked me with the title, a chipper young woman who is about as unlike "Woodstock" as Martha Stewart, decides to return there where she last was at age 4 and actually owns a house. She leaves her expansive NYC apartment (it's inexplicable how she can afford it) and, after her meek attempts at standing up to an emotionally abusive fiancé and bosses at her job fail, she drives up to Woodstock via the scenic route which most people don't even use. She enters this house in Woodstock that, despite covered furniture and a bit of debris, looks freshly painted. She then goes to a bar, her bright red lipstick still shining, gets drunk and meets Mr. Right, who is handsome, nice as can be and is also a doctor. She meets a couple of Woodstock people, e.g., Rumer Willis dressed in short shorts, cowboy boots, dyed red hair and a nose ring, and gets back into song writing. There are meager attempts to make the town look like Woodstock, which in reality, is colorful and unique. To me, this movie felt like one of my short stories which was rejected over and over because it was a good idea but not well executed, which led me to the original question of how this movie managed to get made.

Absolutely a romcom

[mikeandkaradameron · 7/10 · 27 June 2021]

Wow, negative reviews galore. For me, movies are escapism and this one fits nicely into that category. It had great music, which I love, and a likable cast. The story is relatable in certain areas, enough get your attention but distant enough that you're not spending the next few hours dragging up ghosts of past relationships and poking at them like a sore tooth for days on end. I enjoyed it for what it was. I think most people who enjoy romcoms will. Doesn't have the high cheese factor of a Halmark romance nor the depth of a real tear jerker... it's just a safe, happy, enjoyable ,"girl learns lessons and maybe finds love, while reaching for who she wants to be" kind of movie.

Always Woodstock

[DreamyOneNumber1 · 1/10 · 14 March 2015]

This had to be one of the worst movies I've seen in the past ten years. In fact, I can't think of anything worse ever. Poor acting, poor script, very little to redeem it except for Katie Segal, who only had a very small part. The acting is sorely lacking, and the dialogue is poorly delivered much of the time. The ending lines (no spoilers here) are spoken by the main character in such a tone that it makes the bad even worse. Given the poor script, it was difficult to even give this movie a one rating.

I can't understand how this movie was ever made. We tried to watch it on Pay Per View. Everyone gave up except me, but sadly, it got worse and worse. There's nothing to recommend it. I agree with the two other reviewers. It's not good at all. I wouldn't advise anyone to waste money on it since there's so many better movies available. I would almost label this unpleasant. Don't waste your time.

Whoa! This Is As Bad As It Gets

[jlthornb51 · 1/10 · 17 June 2015]

I have to agree with freedjo, above, who I could copy word for word. My feelings are exactly those of that reviewer. This is the worst thing I've seen in quite some time. I think freedjo is absolutely right when she mentions Katie Segal being on redeeming feature but she is in this turkey far too briefly. One has to wonder how this could even be made. Didn't anyone notice during production that the film wasn't coming together and was a complete and utter disaster? How could they miss that? The audience was beat over the head with the reality the producers refused to face. Terrible acting, poor writing, and abominable direction sink this thing after 5 minutes pass. Skip this one.

Good music. Plot is what one would expect from title.

[brasled · 8/10 · 17 June 2018]

I enjoyed the young actress in the lead role. Felt connected with her, and wanted to watch her grow. What else can I say. I always wonder why some responded so negatively. oh well.

Absolute Dreck

[divab202 · 3/10 · 26 November 2014]

What.a.disappointment. Caught it on pay per view on a snow day. I'm embedded in the NY/NJ singer/songwriter community so I was looking forward to it. A 24-year-old working woman would never be able to afford an apartment like the one in this film without 10 roommates. Singer/songwriters who are overnight successes are very few and far between, and here we have a young woman lose her job at a corporate record company, return to her childhood home in Woodstock to lick her wounds and write songs, and voilà! instant success, with Katie Segal, a one-time musician herself, mentoring our heroine. The film is riddled with clichés (finding your boyfriend in the shower with another woman), bad acting, and ridiculous plot lines. That's about 90 minutes I won't get back.

Less-than pro acting

[repete52 · 5/10 · 24 June 2022]

The acting is in the exaggerated style of live stage, high school level. It could be a good story. C'mon actors, you can do better. Who directed this? Isn't the director supposed to direct? The opening scene in the bedroom: tacky, gratuitous, unnecessary; did the director feel the plot and story were so lacking that she had to resort to that?

45 minutes in, kept watching hoping it might get better, the acting got better.

A Bad Watered Down Version of Several Good Movies

[solojere · 1/10 · 21 October 2020]

First off, let me say that chances are you have already seen a good version of this movie. The film can be summed up by the following: A struggling writer who is in a bad relationship gets a chance at love. Does that sound familiar? Well, it should because those are the plot points from at least a dozen different movies (The Hanna Montana, Movie, Begin Again, Pitch Perfect, Pitch Perfect II, A Star is Born, How To Be Single, etc.) However, that isn't the problem. The problem is this movie has no upside to it. The main character is annoying and an awful person. The love story is forced and undercut by a lousy protagonist. And the side characters are all bland. The music is okay but nothing special. Also, the film claims to have Brittany Snow in it. However, she literally only in it for the first 5 minutes, which is a shame because it was cool to see her act against her normal type of character as the whacked-out D.J. I wouldn't even consider it a Brittany snow movie since she is in it so little. They must have just hoped that her name would be enough to get people to watch, and sadly it did. But don't make my mistake. Save yourself. Watch her scene on YouTube and call it good.