Stonewall

This 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.

source: Stonewall

This film is representative of something very vile within the American mainstream culture. The American mainstream actively sidelines or erases contributions from women, people of color, transgender population and other subalterns. The reasons are quit simple they do this in pursuit of ratings, money and awards. The movie has a cisgender protagonist because the mainstream cinema cannot generate immense wealth putting a trans person of color in his place (This would have been more honest to the truth of stonewall). Simple success or respect for the truth are put aside in order make a lot of money. This movie is showcased as a brave venture when it is not. This movie attempts to show the distinction between the mainstream and radicle queer movement in the country but does justice to neither representations. A proper representation of radicle queer movement and the contributions of the lesbian, trans and trans people of color in the movie would have resonated with the current race and class struggles in the country and would have been appreciated greatly. But these narratives are always sidelined as people who want to make a lot of money don't take sides when it comes to politically charged issues. I have read reviews from a lot of very privileged individuals who say there isn't anything wrong with this movie. I suggest that you don't see anything wrong and the protests unwarranted because you won't put aside your privilege. When one borrows the name of great events one must deliver with a brave narrative and should not belittle the of those brave masses by putting a white cisgender man as the architect of stonewall.

Director Roland Emmerich (Whitehouse Down - 2013) retells the story behind the 1969 Stonewall Riots (the beginning of the gay rights movement). Skirting over the primary players in the upraising (drag queens and lesbians), at least his main character Danny (the husband Jeremy Irvinew - War Horse), activist Trevor (Jonathan Rhys Meyers - The Tudos) and rough trade pimp/bar owner Ed Murphy (the amazing Ron Perlman) keep the storyline interesting. Danny's street boys are ever present, but their cheesy dialogue (or lack there of) are what pull the film down. David Cubitt (Medium), as Danny father, Joey King (The Conjuring) as Danny's dedicated sister Phoebe, and Karl Glusman as Danny's HS interest respectively represent the different fractions of society during the early days (and at time current days) of gay life. "Stonewall" is decent film for anyone wanting to know more about the start of the gay rights movement.

This movie is a waste of time: two hours of embarrassing writing and historical inaccuracies that really symbolize why not all filmmakers deserve their two cents on the big screen. Emmerich is an embarrassment to many communites, film included. You don't have to be a history major to understand that this movie is a pathetic excuse for a representation of what happened decades ago. Even ignoring the historical inaccuracies, the film fails to impress even through basic screen writing standards: strange jumps, logical gaps, and shiny dramatic silhouettes replace real, important events that this film fails to honor. Seriously - save yourself some time and frustration and don't watch this movie.

I found little to object to and much to praise in this movie. While I thought Jeremy Irvine and Jonny Beauchamp turned in outstanding performances, all the supporting characters were played well and convincingly. The real events make quite a compelling story, but this is a work of fiction, and should be viewed as such. It's not a documentary. I did gasp when Danny threw the first brick, as such a pivotal act should not have been performed by the least likely character, but otherwise, the story was entirely believable, as were the sets, costumes etc. Much has been made of director Emmerich's use of the term 'straight-acting.' I always assumed it meant 'not conspicuously gay,' but it seems to have taken on the meaning of 'someone pretending to be straight.' Though I'm sure there are those who do this, (Russell Tovey of "Looking" recently admitted to doing so while growing up,) Jeremy Irvine's performance is subtle enough that his character could be either gay or straight at any point in the film. So, a fictional character in an often fictional story about compelling real events depicting a desperate struggle that came to a peak in June of 1969 can make for a good viewing experience. Give it a chance!

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.

The 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.

I wonder how many of these negative reviews are from people who have actually seen it rather than just read a bad review and jumped on the bandwagon? My guess would be around 90% or more. This movie has been way too harshly and unfairly judged before it was even released. I'm disappointed in my LGBT brothers and sisters for not even giving it a chance. Tisk tisk. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. People are watching this movie as if it is 100% historical. No movie aside from documentaries are 100% historical. I've heard so many different accounts from people who claim to have been at Stonewall that it is hard to tell fact from fiction. There are many different contradicting accounts, which is the case with any historical event, it depends on who you are and where you were. Memory is also not like a film reel, it is open to our own interpretations distortions and misconceptions. What matters the most though is what was achieved and remembering that this is just a movie that is based on those events.

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.

Stonewall 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.