Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!utfyzx!sq!murray
From: murray@sq.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Woodstock
Message-ID: <1986Nov26.195103.12843@sq.uucp>
Date: Wed, 26-Nov-86 19:51:03 EST
Article-I.D.: sq.1986Nov26.195103.12843
Posted: Wed Nov 26 19:51:03 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Nov-86 02:24:26 EST
References: <3927@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: murray@sq.UUCP (Murray Maloney)
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto
Lines: 20
Checksum: 41527

In article <3927@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> thakur@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes:
>
>I would like to know more about the movie "Woodstock."  Is it a
>documentary or is it more of a concert film?  I know that it is three
>hours long.  What I want to know is whether the film is a boring
>documentary that college-age people won't see or whether the film is
>reasonably interesting enough to draw people to see it.
>
>P.S.  In case you're wondering, I am trying to get the film group here
>at MIT to  show the film.  There was some question as to whether
>people would come to see it today or not; that's why I asking for
>others' opinions.

Woodstock is a pop/rock-documentary.  For those who still enjoy
the music of the late sixties, the film would be enjoyable.
On second viewing, it might even be educational.  But it is not
a great film.  The sound recording quality was not up to our
current standards, and the projected image is often fuzzy.

	Murray C. Maloney