Taking Woodstock

Got this through Netflix 2 days ago, watched it... ... Just a few notes for Ang Lee.

Spoilers (kinda) in my notes.

1. The most obvious glaring issue with the film is that Demetri Martin doesn't have a dramatic bone in his body. While his monotone, emotionless style is good for comedy, it translates horribly into a dramatic role.

2. Speaking of Comedy vs Drama, this movie was billed as a comedy but it most certainly was not. How the hell is the viewer supposed to know what this movie is when the movie doesn't even know what it is? This movie had a clear identity crisis throughout the beginning, then settled into a boring drama.

3. The movie takes time to introduce and develop certain characters like the cross dresser played by Liev Schrieber and the Vietnam vet played by Emile Hirsch, and then does nothing with them. They make it a point to tell you about these characters' histories and use them briefly in the story. But with about 20 minutes left in the film, POOF. Gone. They never explain where these characters went or why, they just randomly disappear with no conclusion to their specific story.

4. Finally, Demetri Martin's character, Elliot. Elliot is gay and the film lets on to this fact but never says it out loud until late into the movie. That's all fine, but when Elliot does begin to openly engage in homosexual behavior in the film, it never causes any sorts of issues between him and his family or anyone else. The point is, the movie sets it up like his sexual preference will be an issue, but never delivers on it. Elliot could have been straight and it would not have affected the story in any way.

That's all. Ang Lee did a great job recreating what the original Woodstock looked like (from what I've seen on various documentaries) but strikes out in every possible way with the story.

Thoughts?