I watched Stonewall last night and did not find it to be the horrible film I expected. It was not a great film either, a solid 6 out of ten. It was visually interesting, the dialog was a bit awkward and a little boring but IMO it accurately portrayed the feeling of 1969/70. Most of the characters were poor LGBT runaways living on the streets who were POC, transgender, dykes/lesbians and a variety of ethnicities. All the cops were white, mostly portrayed as assholes. Was the movie flawed? Absolutely. Perhaps the biggest flaw was calling the film Stonewall. Still I think it is worth seeing. If you can get past expectations of it being a historically correct documentary and watch it as a coming of age/out story about a young man from the country running to the city (which many did), at the end you can get a real reminder why we celebrate LGBT Pride today.
Add a Review
-
Curly-426 September 2015In spite of the protests. In spite of the bad reviews. I saw the movie. I went to see it on its own merits. To me, history depends on who wrote it. And, accuracy is never a top priority. I can't think of any movie that is based on real events or real people that was completely accurate. For instance, the recent film "Iron Lady". I doubt it had scenes where Thatcher dismantled social services, and ripped cartons of milk out of school kids hands.
Hell, history in life is never fully accurate. Many times I have had conflicts with people because they didn't remember things that happened like I did. Chief among their excuses are, "I don't remember. I don't know what you're talking about."
But, back to "Stonewall". It was a better film, and more accurate than the movie "Stonewall" of 1995. Perhaps it's because this year's film had more than $12.50 as a budget.
Suspiciously, both films center on a Latino drag queen, and a white boy just off the bus.
Which leads to my problem with this years "Stonewall". The script. When they could have created an interesting story to follow, they went with plot points that have come from other films. Even "Brokeback Mountain". Toward the end of the film, I expected Danny to say to his high school chum, "I wish I knew how to quit you." Actually, the whole end of the film went off the rails in my opinion. There was a point where a character seemed to look into a crystal ball to say that everything had changed, only one day after the riots. But, before that was hit or miss. It was an hour into it that I realized that the movie should have centered more on the relationship between Danny and Ray. Maybe it did, and I wasn't paying attention.
I hope that the film makes people learn more about the riots, and how gay life was. What happened before, and what happened after. What they are apt to learn is that history is rarely accurate. That those who tell of it sometimes fudge the facts, and contradict others.
Also, to learn from it so that history is not repeated. -
bimbowes27 June 2016The film is derivative, as well as whitewashed.
There are so many factual goofs, when it comes to clothes, music, etc. The filmmaker needed to spend some time doing research and fact checking.
I also find fault with the film centering around a kid from Kansas. The uprising was started by Puerto Rican and African American drag queens, and there is strong support that the first police resistance was by a lesbian, not some white football player from the mid-west.
I suggest watching the British 1997 film, which really feels so much more authentic. -
Neon_Gold29 June 2020This movie is so trashy i don't even know where to begin.
First if you know anything about the Stonewall Riots you are going to hate this movie. It takes the real heroes from the real life story and replaces them with a White, "Straight acting" protagonist. They were also the words of the director not mine, who i was shocked to find out was actually part of the LGBTQ community because from watching this film i honestly couldn't tell.
It is really, really offence to take Marsha P. Johnson out of the spotlight and just have her as some character that shows up and just farts around doing nothing. She started it along with some of her other friends not this random boy who shown up in town and is now everyones hero.
I honesty can't believe they thought this would fly. I understand that they wanted to include this character that they made up but there are other ways to do it. They could of had him looking up to Marsha or Stormé DeLarveri who was also a figure in the uprising. He didn't need to be our "Hero" we could have just been on the journey that these people were on with him.
There are other issues like the elitism that the main character has like he thinks he is better than these other characters. It was just garbage.
If you are interested in learning the actual story about the riots or a bit more about Marsha please watch The Death and Life of Marsha P Johnson (2017) it is o Netflix or if you are wanting to watch a "True Story" LGBT movie please watch Pride (2014), it is a great movie and doesn't take as much liberties as this movie and doesn't White Wash actually real life hero. -
ferguson-623 September 2015Greetings again from the darkness. Dramatized versions of real life events are always a bit tricky, and hindsight often proves it's best left to the documentary format. However, sometimes, a dramatized version helps us more easily relate to, and empathize with, those who were involved. That seems to be the approach taken by director Roland Emmerich in his re-telling of events so important to him and the LGBT movement the Stonewall Riots of 1969.
The Stonewall Riots of June 1969 are often cited as the beginning of the Gay Liberation movement. Of course, there had been many previous clashes between gays and police, as discrimination was so extreme that these folks were labeled as mentally ill, and it was actually unlawful for gays to be hired for many jobs. On the streets of many big cities there existed a melting pot of minorities and the LGBT community. Many were young and homeless, and did whatever necessary to survive. So how best to tell this story? Director Emmerich and writer Jon Robin Baitz put blonde, white, Midwestern, pretty boy Danny (Jeremy Irvine, War Horse) front and center. How insulting to those involved.
To his credit, Emmerich does cast actors of various races to many roles, and he does seem to treat this as a sincere tribute or homage to those street kids who finally pushed back. Unfortunately, it's these characters that seem to be the drag on the story. Despite such names as Queen Cong, Little Orphan Annie, Quiet Paul, and the inclusion of real life activists as Marsha P Johnson (Otoja Abit), Bob Kohler (Patrick Garrow) and other key players like Ed Murphy (Ron Perlman) and Deputy Seymour Pine (Matt Craven) the film comes off more like a staged musical sans music. The closest thing to a real character is Ray, played with aplomb by Jonny Beauchamp ("Penny Dreadful").
Having the Columbia University-bound pretty white boy as the focus might make it easier for mainstream audiences to connect, but it skims over the real struggles going on at the time. We see Danny at home with his worried mother, observant little sister (Joey King), and macho football coach/father (David Gubitt). Everyone is uncomfortable over what is not being said, and the breaking point occurs when a tryst with the star quarterback becomes public knowledge. Just like that, Danny is booted from home (Indiana, not Kansas) and lands on the streets of New York. The comparisons to Dorothy (gay icon Judy Garland) and the Land of Oz are obvious, and repeated numerous times for those a bit slow on the take.
Christopher Street and the Stonewall Inn are the main settings. The mob involvement is noted, as is the desperation of the community, the use of flop houses, and the long-standing "quiet" demonstrations. Even the practice of gays trying to "fit in" to society – to prove they belong – by wearing suits and acting "normal" is addressed. The riots are reduced to a single evening in the movie, and of course, the pretty white boy gets to toss the first brick. As a 'roots of the movement' film, it's hard to believe this film won't create more anger and frustration than thanks and awareness. Fortunately, there are many exceptional books and yes, documentaries that provide a better perspective on the events that occurred more than 45 years ago. We do see the first Gay Liberation Parade held the following year in honor of the riots – a tradition that continues today. The closing credit sequence catches us up on the key activists, and even provides a startling statistic: 40% of today's homeless youth are LGBT. -
gayspiritwarrior27 September 2015Roland 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. -
SnoopyStyle27 January 2018Government action against homosexuals leads to the 1969 Stonewall Riots in NYC. Danny Winters is a runaway from Indiana. He is befriended by Ray and his group of gay friends. They struggle to find a place in the world.
Everybody is played over the top including the flat doe-eyed Danny. There is only so many Danny jaw drops that I can take. It's overwrought at almost every point. I want to say it's unflinching but it's more like pulp fiction. There are hints of artificiality which are the flat notes of this historical drama. The struggles of the fictional Danny Winters in his home town could be a compelling story by itself. Roland Emmerich's insistence of tying it to the Stonewall Riots is questionable. It's like saying the history cannot be comprehended without a white middle America protagonist. Ray is a more compelling character. The plot is also overstuffed which sidetracks the story and drags the pacing. This is problematic especially considering the needs of this important history. -
pyotr-327 September 2015Having read so many hostile reviews about this film I expected it to be horrible and historically inaccurate. One reviewer asked "Where was Marilyn P. Johnson?!?" So I expected the worst. But the movie started and BAM! There was Marilyn P. Johnson, Big as you please. So I quickly saw that some negative reviews are by people who didn't see the movie. I believe that making a handsome white guy the main character of the film is what is making some people angry. The film is full of black, transgender and lesbian characters, except for the Mafia & Police, who were all white then and they are all white in the film. Having read some good books on Stonewall, I'd have to say the film depicts the Stonewall riots in a very accurate way. Practically none of the accusations I have read in hostile reviews are justified. I hope everyone sees this movie. There is one scene in which one main character (who is not white or cisgender) pours out her heart because nobody wants her. It is a very powerful scene which everyone needs to see.
-
apache671 October 2015First off, I am gay. I was mercilessly bullied as a child back in the late 70's early 80s. It's nothing new.
I have read books, articles, and seen documentaries on the Stonewall riots......having said that, the LGBT community's lynch campaign regarding the film Stonewall has once again proved that as a group we are so self indulgent and petty, so mired in our own little dramas that we cannot see the big picture.
We should have lined up by the thousands to see this film (so starved we are about representation of our history, especially since integration) good or bad, accurate as we would want it to be or not. Instead what we have done is gleefully, shrilly and self-righteously and most of all in the most ignorant of ways, we have torpedoed it. What we have also done is send Hollywood a message that we as a group do not want to see movies about our history because we are so focused on being divisive as a group, and so intent into looking out for our own self as opposed to our collective well being.
We always have been selfish, petty, vain, superficial...in the 70s right after Stonewall, the athletic muscle boys scoffed and ridiculed the political queens because they were too busy being liberated and getting laid.
Black America stands together and supports each other....Tyler Perry can crank out countless drivel with his Medea movies and that demographic will flock. Any instance of police brutality towards an African American and that community ,rightly so, will make their voices heard.
For us that is not the case. Countless gay bashings and no one ever riots in the streets.
Two films have been made about the single most important event in our history. One in the 1990's and this last one. And what is our reaction? To squash any chance for some kid in the mid west to see it and have a spark of interest set off to get him or her and everything in between to go read up on the actual event.
POSSIBLE SPOILER: The film is not bad, it's not great, the script is a little weak, but everyone is represented. Martha P. has her moment in the limelight. A Hispanic character very much resembling Sylvia Rivera comes very close to throwing that first brick. And the lesbian dragged out kicking and screaming that howls anguishedly "Why are you just standing there, why doesn't anyone help me?!" is featured prominently.
So there's a white kid from the Midwest that provides the narrative for the story.
Big deal. One thing for sure, this could have been a chance to provide awareness of this event, and like self righteous idiots we have screwed this one up. You can be sure now that Hollywood will steer clear of anything dealing with LGBT issues. Good luck making that movie on whatever fluid sexuality topic now. We've killed it. A round of applause. -
Historian-33 November 2016I was not previously aware of the negative reviews of this film. And that is a good thing, since they might have deterred me from watching. Having now seen the film, and having done so as A) someone who is old enough to remember firsthand what it was like to be gay in middle America in 1969 (far worse than what is depicted in this film!), B) someone who was disowned and thrown out by his parents at age 17 for being gay, C) a long-time gay activist, and D) a professional historian, all I can say is that the critics need to get past the fact that this is *not* a dispassionate, objective documentary about the Stonewall Riots. Rather, it is a fictionalized evocation of the social, cultural, and political circumstances that eventually triggered the riots. And in that regard, I think the film did an outstanding job. Those born after about 1970 largely have no reason to remember bar raids, police payoffs, anti-cross-dressing laws, or even the overt involvement of organized crime in the operation of many gay bars. And that is in large part thanks to the bravery of the "deplorables" (to use a word circulating in this election cycle) who finally said, "Enough is enough." From my perspective as an elderly gay man who continues to be utterly dumbfounded (and delighted!) by the social changes that gay militants have achieved over the past half-century, I can only say "Thank you" to the makers of this film for at least trying to tell the story in a passionate, subjective manner. If you want cold, emotionless history, tune in to the National Geographical Channel. If you want some sense of what it *felt like* in 1969 (and for many years thereafter), see this film. Is the film "flawless"? No. But despite a few flaws, it is an excellent film.
-
gregsrants20 September 2015Roland Emmerich will always be known for his work in big budget films. The director has such iconic titles as Independence Day, Stargate and The Day After Tomorrow on his resume and usually his name on a film poster means 'big' and 'loud'. But that doesn't mean a director can't stretch its legs every once and a while and that is exactly what Emmerich has done with Stonewall his new film that chronicles actual events in 1969 New York. Stonewall follows the experience of Danny Winters (Jeremy Irvine) who is forced out of his small mid-American town after he is discovered to be a homosexual. This is 1969. Homosexuals in America were not allowed to hold government jobs. They were not allowed to congregate. They were not allowed alcohol. Danny's unaccepting parents and his lack of understanding from his peers lead force him to travel to New York City where he finds refuge in Greenwich Village with other homeless homosexual, lesbian and transgender individuals in what is known as the Stonewall Inn. The area to which the Inn is located is anything but safe. Crime, drugs and the mafia have an ever presence in the community and the residents are continually harassed by the over anxious and homophobic police. The police continually raid the bars to which the group congregate until one such day when the community rises up to their oppressor and fight back in what is considered a landmark of the LGBT movement. Danny and his new found friends are at the heart of the rebellion and it is their 'we're not gonna take it anymore' attitude that leads to violence and a dramatic shift in the movement. Emmerich has never been known for his strong characters and intelligent dialogue. But he outdoes himself here with stupid verbal exchanges from his characters that is so bad you would think it was a foreign non-English speaking director who doesn't have a grasp of the English language allowing such dead dialogue. The incomprehensible dialogue only makes for worse acting among the cast. Not a single character in the film is likable or relatable. With the exception of Danny they come across as thugs, thieves and drug addicts. Hard to lean to their side of the conflict when its routine for them to steal from local stores and throw bricks through storefront windows for trivial fashion accessories. Still, even if we were to overlook their flaws the acting is trite and hollow with not a single character rising above the script pages. Only recognizable face Ron Perlman is able to escape without wrath, but he has such little work to do in the film that it is clear he was only added to the feature to at least have one familiar name on the marquee. The filmmakers likely believed that the final reel of their film would bring an audience to its feet. To have people inspired and applauding in the victory the legacy of the real life event. Instead, it brought snores. It brought the painful realization that you just spent 129 minutes watching something that you hoped would give you better insight into a piece of our history but instead was a painful experience where the checking of our wrists for the latest time was our utmost importance as we counted down the minutes. This is easily Emmerich's biggest pratfall. Not only is it his worst film of his filmography but it is also a front runner for the worst film of the year. Side note: There were protesters outside the cinema to where Stonewall had its screening protesting the inaccurate portrayal of the events. The protesters likely had not seen the film. If they had they would know that the inaccuracies are the least of the films concerns.
-
jimbennettnyc29 September 2015Excellent overview of what happened in NYC's Greenwich Village in 1969 when the Gay Rights Movement was given a spark thanks to Stonewall Inn patrons who refused to be abused by the oppressive thug cops one more time.
Jeremy Irvine is superb as the kid from Indiana, who's thrown out of his middle-class home for being gay. He learns what he needs to learn in order to survive on the streets in Manhattan. He connects with a group of drag queens and hustlers who are usually without money, and he also gets a view of the beginnings of the Gay Pride movement thanks to Jonathan Rhys Meyers, terrific as Trevor the Mattichine Society activist.
The movie hasn't opened and far too many comments here are from people who obviously haven't seen the film, which is a crime against art. I have seen the movie, and it works well on many levels, including as an expose of corrupt cops, an examination of the Mafia's control of gay bars, and the nature of homophobia and the closet in America.
People who are whining that the movie ignores this group or that group have no idea what's in the outstanding film, a work of complexity that dares to reveal the truth about brutish law enforcement and how the longing for love will conquer all manner of oppressive forces.
See "Stonewall" and judge for yourself. -
gradyharp24 January 2016Gay 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. -
jakob1327 September 2015Were it not for Jon Robin Baitz 'Stonewall' would be a less interesting film. His script is narrow focus: the three months leading up to the 'rebellion' at the Stonewall bar on Christopher Street in New York's Greenwich Village. Roland Emmerich use his camera to capture the nights and days of those 90 days that gave rise to Gay Liberation, as seen through the least and most vulnerable of homosexuals--the drag queens, the bum boys and the homeless who risk life and limb by living on the street, and who are at the mercy of the mafia that own the Stonewall and the corrupt police who they pay for 'protection' or whose billy clubs bruise them or the Black Maria that haul them off to prison. Is it by chance that 'Stonewall' opens during Pope Francis' visit to New York? The Roman pontiff came with a message of love the least among us, even the homosexual. What is missing is the context of a US in the throes of 'revolutionary' turmoil in a mass movement against the war in Vietnam and the rise of the Black Panthers, a 'revolutionary' movement of liberation that proved to be an example for a revolt from below. Emmerich's camera recreate the cruising world of the piers, the bars and off screen the death that awaits the rent boys from predators. Baitz slights the Mattachine Society who labored in the years before the ferment of the 1960s for equal rights for homosexuals by peaceful means. He's got it right that the younger homosexuals rebelled on 28 June 1969 at Stonewall, and more to the point, it was the 'despised' drag queens who confronted the police and openly resisted the police, resulting in three days of rage and rebellion that gave rise to Gay Power. He's got it wrong in saying that the drag queens, in the person of Ray, based on the ironic Sylvia Rivera, had no political consciousness, but rose up in a having it had it sense of frustration. Rivera later was a simple member of the Young Lords, an activist group of Peurto Rican nationalists, modeled on the Panthers. 'Stonewall's hook is a young Johnny Appleseed from Indiana thrown out by his father for being gay. Ray adopts Danny Winter and brings into life on the streets. There are a class angle to this since Danny will go to Columbia as a scholarship, thereby escaping the streets, yet firmly gay and proud of his 'sister' Ray and her friends. There is a minor frisson of tension in Danny's kidnap and delivery to a predator who made us strangely think of J. Edgar Hoover, grotesquely tarted up in drag.
-
preppy-329 September 2015Stonewall happened in June 1969. A gay bar named Stonewall was raided by the police in NYC. That was a common occurrence back then and all the drag queens, gay men and lesbians usually went quietly. But something happened this night. A drag queen fought back and everybody joined in. It turned into an all out riot with the police being attacked by the crowd. It was the beginning of gay liberation. This movie uses a fictional protagonist named Danny Winters (Jeremy Irvine) who moves from Indiana to NYC to attend college. His family has disowned him after he came out. He falls in with a group of gay guys and drag queens led, more or less, by flamboyant Ray (Jonny Beauchamp). It follows his coming of age (hitting all the familiar notes) and accepting gay love and romance. It climaxes with the first gay pride march in 1970.
This has been blasted by critics everywhere. The largest complaints have been that the movie is historically inaccurate (this is true) and it whitewashes the story by giving us a white "hero" when it was a black drag queen that started it up. I can deal with that. This doesn't claim to be a documentary. Other movies that cover important historical events have used fictional protagonists. Why not this one? However that does not excuse the boring and thoroughly predictable script. It was insulting how clichéd and obvious this film was. Every single coming of age cliché you've ever seen is trotted out and put through its paces. Acting doesn't help. Irvine was tall, handsome and a total blank as Danny. He had the same confused look on his face during the entire film. Even worse his British accent slipped through a few times. It had my audience laughing. Jonathan Rhys Meyers (a good actor) appears to be drugged out in his role as Trevor. Only Beauchamp shows any life and gives a great performance. Also the film DOES look good and they capture the late 1960s fads and fashions perfectly. The recreation of the Stonewall bar is excellent too. It looks exactly like it's been described in books. Still this doesn't change that the fact that this is a terrible and boring picture. Check out the 1995 film "Stonewall" for a MUCH more accurate dramatization of the riot. Avoid this one. -
I'm seeing reviews that decry all the negative reviews because this movie was awesome. This movie was a cringe-inducing mess. The Filmmakers indicated it was supposed to be about Stonewall but they retconned the history (which could be a fascinating movie with very little embellishment) and refashioned it as some white-savior motivational flick. That, unfortunately isn't its biggest problem. The biggest problem is how pretty much every gay character in this film is portrayed in some sort of predatory fashion, something the community has tried to distance itself from over the years. And yet, this 'love letter' gets it wrong and claims to be representative. Overall, the movie is a large-scale mess. And it isn't even a lovingly crafted one at that.
-
ludanto31 July 2020This movie is a complete lie all the main characters are white even doh the people that started the movement in reality were black
-
mattmusko14 October 2020I do agree that the title is a bit misleading but the hate is overplayed. This is a singular tale about a gay teen who was kicked out by an unforgiving father in the Midwest who sought refuge in NYC during the Christopher St./Stonewall riot era. It isn't a documentary or reenactment story akin to the British movie "Pride". Nonetheless, this is a gritty and emotional tale that pairs well with the gritty and emotional time and place for which it is titled. I don't find it insulting but I was born after the riots so I don't have skin in that particular inning of the game so to speak. Overall, I think this movie adds value to the pro LGBT+ message. If titles really matter that much and the goal is to get not so tolerant heterosexuals to watch films like this then just rename it to "A Nice Love Story That Involves Sports, the Big City, and Male Bonding". Then give it rave reviews and call it a day. All that aside, the casting was great, the reenactment of the period was great, and the message to me is universal which is..."Be Kind and Don't Propegate Hate". Jeremy Irving being super cute is just gravy.
-
italbarenow22 September 2015OK....make up a fake white boy to lead the real cast to the future. I was a kid living on 4th street a few blocks away, my mom owned another underground twink bar called Sherrys Playground. We were no more than 1,000 feet away during this time. It's one cringe inducing scene after another, all bad. Just like the first awful Steve Jobs movie with Ashton which fades away out of consciousness. This hot mess deserves the dustbin. It's wrong, it's fake, it doesn't set the stage for the politics of 1969' it mentions Judy Garlands death but misses the point about the day of the funeral itself. All stereotypes, including of course "Drag Queen with a heart of gold". Just gross, wron(, and worst of all, cringe worthy bad story telling. Wait for cable.
-
beachiac-216 July 2016I loved this movie. Even though the subject matter occurred about 15 years before I was the lead character, my experience was in Chicago, so the difference in the time-line was only about 10 years. Im not going to comment about the acting, direction, cinematography, etc, What I need to say, is that this, albeit earlier, is by far the most realistic portrayal of what my life was really like when I first started to experience the gay scene in Chicago. I am also from Indiana, which I thought was a funny coincidence. Many of the reviews refer to cookie cutter characters, or lisping portrayals of the gay characters. Honey, for the most part way back then, for whatever reason, there was a lot more effeminism (?) frequenting the tiny hole in the wall bars and that was still the case well into the 80's. If you want to know what it was really like for a person quite similar to Danny's character, ignore the poor (ridiculous) rating and reviews and watch this very accurate film!!! At least for how it portrays what gay life was really like. If not what the Stonewall riots were like, though from all the literature I've read it seems pretty spot on to me.
-
djbvk2124 August 2022I liked it and it's worth watching
It's not 100% accurate based on the title - but a story from 1 person's journey. Yes he is white , not sure why that seems to be a problem with the reviews here.
There are many personal stories to be told this is just one of them.
Not meant to be historically accurate- a different title would have been better for context. -
hjames-9782214 October 2015I 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. -
steeleronaldr5 April 2020Not many film makers can make a movie based around sex and not dwell too much on sex. In a movie based around a gay community one would expect to see a full frontal yet the director worked around it cautiously. Jeremy Irvine was a good in the role of Danny a outted gay teen but I think a more seasoned actor would have done a better job. Jonny Beauchamp who plays a transgender steals every scene he's in. Ron Perlman plays again a bad guy who also steals every scene he's in. A southern boy caught with his boyfriend is outted by his classmates and forced to leave town. He ends up in Greenwich Village NY and struggle's to fit in. With the help of Ray/Ramano he slowly finds his way but not without a brutal journey. He leaves behind his mother who cares for him and his sister who loves and supports him. His father turns his back on him forcing him to leave his small town surrounding for the big city where his life takes a huge turn. What we get is the next couple months before the historic riots that began the first ever Pride Movement Walk for equal rights. With actual and fictional characters the story unwinds with again historic and fictional events. The acting above all is done well and the setting sets it off. While Irvine seems to struggle to keep up with the cast he somehow managed to get across the fact and made the viewer feel for him. It's a great movie based around the historic riots at the infamous Stonewall Inn that doesn't stray too far from the truth. Showing how the passing of then gay icon Judy Garland triggered the events that would unfold later that day. In all it's a great movie that somehow gets its point across without getting too vouge. Would I recommend this, yes, as it's as close as we're possibly get to the truth behind the riots that set forth to the equal rights movement amongst the LGBT community. I gave it 8 star's as I thought it lacked in chemistry between the actor's but somehow held up in story telling.
-
trublu21526 September 2015Stonewall chronicles the violent 1969 demonstrations by members of the LGBT community against police raids at the infamous Stonewall Inn in New York City. To start, this film had the perfect recipe for a poignant, well rounded and sensitive film depicting the darkest time of the LGBT community. Instead, director Roland Emmerich decides to make this film as haphazardly as possible and decided to shoot a script that was so undercooked and black and white in its politics that it borders being overtly offensive. Starring Jeremy Irvine, Caleb Landry Jones, Ron Perlman and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, the film's cast seems perfect on the surface but once the lights go on and the camera is rolling, these performances turn utterly laughable mostly due to it's stereotype laden script. Jeremy Irvine as Danny Winters is baseless, humorless and woefully miscasted. Winters is portrayed almost like a swindler of sorts, exploiting the notion of homosexuality throughout the film to cause these riots despite being one himself. The film portrays Winters almost like he started this entire revolution for his own personal gain when, in fact, that's far off from the truth. Another big issue is Marsha P. Johnson. If there was ever a useless character whose sole purpose was to make you laugh and instead gets you more agitated, it is Johnson's performance as the half assed comic relief that amounts to more anger and affliction than that of actual laughter. Writer Jon Robin Baitz doesn't do a good job here at all. The film has an aurora of failed Oscar bait to it, giving characters bolstered speeches that were clearly meant for specific A list celebrities that saw through the idiotic plot devices and stereotypical portrayal of all those who stood up for their rights on June 28, 1969. It isn't just wrong, it's baseless, offensive and pretty terrible. Overall, Stonewall features a poorly written script, a cast that couldn't be more wrong in their portrayal and a director that leaves you curious to his intentions with this film. This is a film that should have been directed by Joel Schumacher, at least then we would know what to expect. Instead, this just feels like Roland Emmerich kidding himself.
-
CriticsVoiceVideo1 July 2022The lead is not the kind of person that frequented the Stonewall Inn, therefore the story should not have revolved around him. Call it something else because this had everything to do with everything else except Stonewall. Boring and unfocused film. Some good production design though.