There's Always Woodstock (2014)

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.

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.

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.

...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.