Fascinating documentary on what was a negligible late 90s festival. The director makes the case Woodstock 99 was an expression of “white rage” and examines the musical performances as a bunch of shallow musicians egging on the primarily “frat bot” crowd to misbehave — which they did.

I remember in 99, thinking how awful music had become and witnessing every event being horrible, so I would make the case it wasn’t just Woodstock 99, but everything that year was filled with chaos. Whether its the the fault of MTV sinking backwards to pop acts, the rage of nu-metal acts or a statement on “white behaviour”, its up to you in the end. What you get out of this documentary will entirely depend on where you fall in relation to those aspects. Gen-Z respectively might not care at all and see Woodstock 99 as a primordial pig stew of their parents culture war. Gen X however, might be able to squeeze some meaning out by remembering where they stood in relation the the nonsense at the event. I know I was too busy trying to build a career and saw the burning stages on the news as a sign that American alternative music culture had completely failed to escort us into the diverse daydream of a Nirvana based early 90s promise.

Lollapalooza 1 and 2 were better than Woodstock 99 or 94 (the latter is constantly referenced as being this ideal version when in fact, the absolutely never-mentioned Beastie Boy "Tibetan Freedom Concerts" were the real evolution of the Woodstock vibe.)

So, its a good documentary, but it’s based -- because it doesn’t consider the "better festivals" I mentioned above, which require critical examination in our culture on how we do a modern peace event. For example, where's the Uygher Awareness music festival (to match the Tibetan Freedom Concerts of the 90s) or the Anti-Fascist Music Festival (to match the LiveAid Anti-Apartheid festivals of the 80s, which can be argued effectively ended apartheid in South Africa.) Right? Where's the discussion on what worked instead of documentaries on festivals that failed due to privledge and whiteness - we know about Fyre, we know about Woodstock 99. That examination is nowhere to be seen, therefore the documentary is based -- a symptom of an overwhelmingly cultural bankruptcy in American culture right now.

America had a single export in the 90s -- our music culture, an attitude of anger towards racism and white supremacy, a repulsion towards the objectification of women and the privileged materialism of the 80s, all wrapped up in our music scene (conscious hip hop included within Nirvana, RATM and even Janes Addiction/Sublime/Pixies mystiques.) All of those mystiques were systemically dismantled by a war-mongering mindset of corporate commodification of (a) our concerts and (b) the acts that played in them. By the late 90s we were back where the 80s left off, overwhelmed with contrived boy bands (Limp Bizcuit included) through various consolidations of media companies, betrayals of peace-love-unity vibe and "colonization" of a rave scene that was probably the most vital historical outgrowth of it all. The commentary by Moby in the documentary contains gems to this perspective which can be expanded on tenfold for another documentary -- we'll see. The point is that Durst did go on to run Sony Music, so his moronic display in 99 had some kind connection to what the record companies saw him as beholden to. As a kind of white-Kali destroyer to the white-Christ Moby figure.

These aspects of white-rage, the subtleties explored in Woodstock 99 are now active in US politics (down to the unironically adornments of "red hats" repeating echoes of Fred Dursts moronic manipulations of the crowd. Much like the red hats storming the capitol looking to "break stuff." In that sense, Woodstock 99 begins a conversation about the poisons in American culture actively still destroying us, that began in the late 90s. What we do know is that the exported American coolness that went out to the rest of the world — our musical diversity, our punk rock, our skate scene, our real street music, our real trauma inspired grunge scene -- have been gutted by something. The mystery of what that was will not be answered in Woodstock 99 but maybe in a future revolution we will rediscover who we are again. The central question Woodstock 99 brings up therefore is not so much how to get it back, but to ask ourselves why, in 22 years since has not a single "good cause" festival occurred.

I can't argue with the people who claim this is more of a wiki page visualization than it is a documentary, but Woodstock 99 is a wiki page worthy of this treatment.

The found footage and framing device of attendee journal entries adds a interesting narration element to this story and provides a unique insight to how the festival was perceived at the time.

The major flaw of this film is choosing to focus on the societal and political factors that led to the angry "white dude bro" crowd and eventual rioting. I am not denying that those forces outside of the festival were a factor, but I believe it was opportunistic and bias driven to make those the main target of the documentary. I believe it is fairly apparent that the prominent white dude bro crowd was attracted by the nu metal heavy lineup and the aggressive angry vibe of the festival was more caused by the poor planning and high water/food prices than it was having first generation feminist parents.

The incredible footage combined with my potent nostalgia for late 90s culture was enough to overcome some of the forced political commentary and enjoy the contextualization of this infamous event.