Woodstock 94 should not be judged against it's predecessor from 1969. It was it's own free standing entity, despite the clear attempts to link it to the 1969 show. Were there older acts at the 94 show? Absolutely. Bob Dylan, Crosby, Stills, & Nash, Aerosmith, and several others appear in this film. At the same time, this documentary clearly represents a early 90's mindset.
The concert was split into three days,as it appears in this film. Major acts of the time, including the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nine Inch Nails, Metallica, and Green Day, are all highlighted. As a film, it is a fairly good representation of the high point of the 1990's rock scene, how ever you term it ("grunge", "alternative", whatever).
I've heard people talk about how money allegedly was the real difference between 69 and 94. At the same time, many people seem to forget that the 1969 concert was meant to be a moneymaking endeavor. Just think for a second about those people who have "tickets" to the 1969 festival. How did they get them? Somebody had to spend a few dollars.
Once you consider this, the differences between 69 and 94 (and for that matter the 99 show as well) fade into the ether, so to speak. Being that I was right age, and in the right place and time to enjoy this show, I recollect it with all the excitement I felt then, even today. It's a fine concert, In It's Own Right.
