Powerful

Did you people see the same film I saw?

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

A movie that talks about an historic event ignoring history and the people who started the movement they talk about. No transgenders, black or white, in the movie. Only focus is Gay people, ignoring not only transgender issues, but the LGBT movement in general. And even without the cis and whitewashing, its still a poor movie, with no charisma and lacks emotion. It at least can bring people together, be straight, gay, cis or trans, everyone can dislike this movie together.

Gay themed films are n abundance right now and (lesbian couples, transgender stories, more gay characters in many films) so it seems only natural that yet another film be made about the beginning of gay rights in the US. STONEWALL does that and despite the emphasis on political corruption attempting to steal the thunder from the brave gays who initiated the change to Gay Pride it works for the most part.Many viewers will avoid the film because of the depiction of gays as being homeless, feminine street hustlers – too much so that it becomes a distraction form the other aspects of the story – but at least the message and the dates and the history are there. The plot revolves around the 1969 Stonewall Riots, the violent clash that kicked off the gay rights movement in New York City. The drama centers on Danny Winters (Jeremy Irvine), who flees to New York after an aborted coming out with Joe (Karl Glusman) and being ousted by his homophobic father (David Cubitt), leaving behind his sister Phoebe (Joey King). He finds his way to the Stonewall Inn, where he meets Trevor (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) before catching the eye of Ed Murphy (Ron Perlman), manager of the Stonewall who colludes with corrupt police and exploits homeless youth. Danny becomes close to a group of Nellie hustlers – especially Ray (Jonny Beauchamp) – and it is his association with this gay element that he eventually joins and fights for gay rights.The cast is strong, the script by Jon Robin Baitz is less than impressive, but director Roland Emmerich manages to make the blend of history and human tragedy credible. Not a great movie, but the intentions are worthy.

I did not expect a documentary. I expected a certain theatrical license here. But this film is insulting to LGBTQ people. They tried to appeal everyone and totally missed the mark.Jeremy Irvine should never, never have been cast in this role. In fact, the roll of white bread Danny should never have been written.Jonathan Rhys Meyers is miscast and useless. The best actor in the mess is Jonny Beauchamp who is nothing short of brilliant. They admitted to testing the roll of Danny (and Irvine) with straight focus groups. They said the character tested well because even though gay, he was "straight acting." Really? What an insult.Stonewall is OUR history. It belongs to US and we do not need anyone to sanitize our history to make it more acceptable to straights. They take it and us as we are or just stay home.There's a sex scene between Irvine and Meyers that is so routine and boring I just don't know why they wrote this in at all. I mean, really. Were they trying to show the suburbanites folks how we have sex? (Well, how some of us do anyway.) If and when this dog ever comes around again please do not waste your time or money. Gay people to not have to settle for second best anymore.

Roland Emmerich's biggest mistake was calling the movie "Stonewall" and marketing it as if it were the actual story of the rebellion. It gave people the wrong expectation. It's not a movie about Stonewall. It's a movie about a Midwestern gay man whose story takes place on Christopher street at the time of the riots. It's also in part the story of the first person he meets in New York, played by Jonny Beauchamp, who steals the movie. It's basically a very oddball romance and coming-out story. People wanted an accurate historical epic about the importance of the riots, and the movie isn't that and was never meant to be. For what it really is, it's a very good movie. Like most "historical" movies there are inaccuracies. The worst distortion is giving Danny the "first brick." That's upset a lot of people, but in the dramatic structure of the movie it's as much about Danny's becoming himself--a gay man throwing away his shame--as it is about the situation he finds himself in. The police are depicted as "bad" in the black-and-white morality of an old-fashioned hero-versus-villain Saturday morning serial. But beyond those inaccuracies and the impossibility of recreating Christopher Street as it was (which seems to be especially upsetting to some New York viewers), the movie is as faithful to its surrounding event as any Shakespeare history play to its, including sympathetic depictions of a very diverse neighborhood of LGBT types. As a long-time gay activist, I liked the movie a great deal. It feels real as I remember things to have been 46 years ago. I felt a genuine emotional rush during and after the riot. The movie ends with typical historical clean-ups, telling us what became of the real people, like Marsha P Johnson and others who appear in the movie, and mentioning the additional nights of rioting and how they went on to be regarded in LGBT history. For me the saddest thing about this film is the divisions it's exposed among various components of the LGBT community. This history belongs to all of us, black, brown, white, gay, lesbian, transgender, drag queen, troll, twink, and so on; if we can't honor it in all of our variations, no one else will either. Go to see it as a good story well told, not as a factual documentary. I write this knowing some of you won't be able to, some of you won't want to, and some of you won't believe me. I wish there were something I could do about that, but there isn't.