Woodshock (2017)

best movie i've ever seen.

Absolutely the worst movie.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Drawn to this movie by Kirsten Dunst and the guy who played Batou in "Ghost in the Shell", I was very disappointed in what I witnessed. Unlike "Upstream Color" which deals with a similar drug-induced action theme, Woodshock had none of the beauty or comprehensibility of that film. It was a journey--back and forth into the same sets--that went nowhere. Dunst is like a rat in a maze--smoking more and more joints for less and less reason.

It's always very hard for me to rate and review these types of films, but I'll try my absolute best here. A lot of people will not like this movie, as it is clearly not intended for the mass appeal. These art films rely almost entirely on aesthetic elements such as intricate and thought-provoking visuals, unconventional use of symbolism, creative directing, imaginative editing and experimental music. Here we have a surprisingly strong directorial debut by the Mulleavy sisters. The film is beautifully directed and edited all the way through. Some of the scenes are very artistic and aesthetically pleasing. The plot becomes hard to follow at times, but that is something you would totally expect in a film like this, as the main focus is clearly the art direction and production design. Peter Raeburn crafted a beautiful score that fits perfectly with the atmosphere and overall tone of the film. Acting is a bit weak at times by some of the supporting characters, but Kirsten Dunst delivers an amazing performance as you would expect from her in a leading role. If you're in the mood for a sad and melancholic arthouse flick, go ahead and give this one a chance, it might be a pleasant surprise.

"Woodshock" follows a young woman in Northern California who is devastated by the recent loss of her mother. Her grief becomes compounded by a successive tragedy, after which she begins indulging in a powerful cannabinoid that alters her mental state to dangerous proportions.Contrary to what the current IMDb rating may indicate (4.5, for the record), I found "Woodshock" to be undeniably beautiful and not deserving of the critical hits it's taken. It's emotionally-driven to the point of being almost anti-cerebral, but the good fortune of having someone like Kirsten Dunst playing the lead character makes the endeavor appear seamless. She is fantastic in the role, conveying inordinate amounts with so few faculties. Her emotional work is felt more than it's seen, which I suppose is true for the bulk of the film—in any case, Dunst is incredibly naturalistic here, as is the rest of the supporting cast. They each feel like people I could have known in the rural town I was raised in.This is not a movie where much "happens," so-to-speak; I wouldn't call it an experimental film by any means, but it is certainly an art film that revels in experience rather than explanation—there is a narrative, but it is not narrative-driven, instead more concerned with impressions and sensibilities. There is gorgeous cinematography throughout with overlays and crossfades that seem to be invoking Tarkovsky, and montages that recall Terrence Malick. The writer-director team (sisters Laura and Kate Mulleavy, founders of the fashion label Rodarte), said they were greatly influenced by the Redwoods of Northern California where they grew up, which were incorporated into the film. I will say that the trees themselves do not take up as much visual or narrative space as I had expected they would, but there is an ominous, majestic, yet haunting representation of them. I was raised in the Pacific Northwest, so the landscapes, towns, and even the characters feel very familiar to me. Each of the characters, from the sparsely-drawn to the most significant, register as "real" people, which helps ground the film's darker and more tragic turns.In the end, I found "Woodshock" to be a legitimately well-made film that's been slagged off by anti- intellectuals, which is ironic given that it's not an intellectual movie per se. It's an emotional journey if anything, set in an extraordinary place, among ordinary people, in unusual circumstances. Dunst's performance alone is haunting (or haunted), and reason enough to view the film—I found it even more interesting than her more muted (but equally great) performance in "Melancholia." This is certainly a love-it-or-hate-it-type film, but as a dark, impressionistic endeavor, "Woodshock" succeeds largely with the help of realistic characters and realistic performances. 9/10.

"Woodshock" (2017 release; 100 min.) brings the story of Theresa. As the movie opens, we see Theresa taking care of a woman we later learn is her mother. Theresa, upon her mother's request, gives her a spiked joint to smoke. Later, when we see the room empty, we understand Theresa is grieving for the passing of her mom. Meanwhile, we get to know Nick, Theresa's boyfriend, and Keith, Theresa's colleague at the medical marijuana dispense store. At this point, we are 10-15 min. into the movie, but to tell you more of the plot (as it is) would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.Couple of comments: this movie is co-written and co-directed by the sisters Kate Mulleavy and Laura Mulleavy, who are respected fashion designers without any prior film-making/directing/writing experience. I admit that I knew very little about the movie going in, other than it starred Kirsten Dunst in an indie movie about someone grieving. That sounded it might be in the realm of "Melancholia", so sign me up! From the opening moments of "Woodshock", it all feels quite "artsy" and you are left on your own to figure out what is going on. I have absolutely no problem with that, and figure that if the movie is good, this will sort itself out at some point. Here we are left wondering, and wondering, and wondering… Things play out on the big screen and at one point you hope to be emotionally involved and invested. I couldn't have cared less about any of these characters, whose random scenes left me utterly unmoved, if not bewildered. There are a couple of plus points, including the at times gorgeous scenery (when Dunst goes walking among the sequoia trees, etc.), and of course Dunst herself. She tries her best, although looking equally lost as we are, and in vain looking for clues (at one point literally, as she searches her house top to bottom for … what exactly?)."Woodshock" opened this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati, and I couldn't wait to see it. The Friday matinée screening where I saw this at was attended poorly (just a handful of people). About 30 min. into the movie, I mumbled to myself "what's going on here?", and the guy seated a few rows before me turned around and said "you and me both!". This will give you an idea as to the state of affairs in "Woodshock". I honestly cannot recommend this movie in good conscience to anyone, but of course encourage you to check it out in the theater (although I cannot imagine it will play more than a week or two, tops), on Amazon Instant Video, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.