Box office The film opened on a total of three screens in Los Angeles and New York City, grossing $15,908 over the following week. On
Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating to reviews, the film has a weighted average score of 39 out of 100 based 24 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews". Alan Zilberman of
The Washington Post praised the film's musical score as well as Asbæk's performance, adding: "It would be easy to write off
Woodshock as pretentious— weirdness for the sake of weirdness. But there’s something universal about Theresa, vs., say, the stoned high jinks of
Cheech and Chong. Introspective and withdrawn, she uses marijuana as both catalyst and salve. Even as the film warns against persistent, clouded judgment, it is no criticism of casual drug use. Sustained, chemically induced bliss can be a blessing,
Woodshock suggests, even up to the point at which the fog is the only thing left to see." Nathalie Atkinson of
The Globe and Mail awarded the film two-and-a-half out of four stars, deeming the film a "sensuous, visual tone poem of human consciousness," but noted that "The disappointment is when a baffling and unnecessary third-act coup de théâtre abruptly crashes a comedown from the elaborate high." Writing for
The Village Voice, Alan Scherstuhl noted: "
Woodshock is a study of a mind’s stoned studying, of its slipping in and out of a haze, rather than one of a mind’s unraveling or snapping. It’s just as interesting as that sounds — you’ll either embrace it or find it agony." David Fear of
Rolling Stone compared the film to
Repulsion (1965), adding: "
Woodshock is both gorgeous and pretentious in equal measures, and it's hard to reconcile the fact that you don't get one without the other." In
The New Yorker, Anthony Lane referred to the film as "hazy and half-dreamed," noting that "Hints of hallucination, compounded by shifting tricks of the light, mean that the real and the imagined are constantly sifted together; does Theresa, for example, spend quite as much time wandering past towering trees in her underwear as she appears to do? And do we care either way?" Sheri Linden of the
Los Angeles Times called the film "pseudo-
Bergmanesque" and a "death trip in pretty lingerie," summarily stating: "Sibling directors Kate and Laura Mulleavy’s Rodarte brand made them overnight couture stars; with their filmmaking debut, lightning has not struck twice."
The New York Timess Jeanette Catsoulis noted that the film is "pretty enough, in the superficially embellished style of a perfume ad or fashion video," but deemed it "depressingly dull and terminally inarticulate...a painterly bore."
The Boston Globes Ty Burr noted that the film "plays like a bad head-trip movie from the late 1960s...dreadful, [but] not quite bad enough to be much fun."
Slant Magazines Henry Stewart awarded the film one out of four stars, calling it "the obnoxious equivalent of trying to have a serious conversation with people who are high out of their minds." Kieran Grant, writing for the
Toronto International Film Festival, praised the film's visuals, and noted its placement within a historical tradition of psychedelic-influenced films: "Horror and suspense cinema were pushing hallucinatory imagery from the get-go...What’s different about
Woodshock and some of its forebears—whether arty or goofy or both—is that the film’s story world itself isn’t a portal to altered consciousness. Rather, characters’ ingestion of narcotics or psychedelics trigger the film’s—and the viewer’s—journey to the centre of the mind." ==References==