donegalcat
I was reluctant to watch Stonewall as I had read much of the criticisms regarding the whitewashing of the historical events. And the criticisms were born out. The Stonewall Inn in the film is overwhelmingly populated by young white men with the lead role going to a white, Midwesterner, new to New York, escaping his small homophobic town. The narrative of this character is a worthwhile story to be told and could have made a decent film. But it does not fit with the story of Stonewall. The film sidelines the trans people, the drag queens, the lesbians, the Latinx and African Americans who played the central role in the actual events of Stonewall. They are given tokenistic roles, in a sop to history, presented there to be mocked and beaten while given no agency in the events of Stonewall.But even beyond the whitewashing of history, this is a poor film. The film, despite is 129 minute length feels far too short as there is no depth to any of its characters. They are merely tokens and plot devices. The plot piles on cliché after cliché. It feels like almost every LGBT film we have ever seen before.But almost worst of all, is that the Stonewall riot barely features in the film. The film is over two hours long, yet its central event lasts just a few minutes near the end of the film. And there is no real build-up to this climax in the way of say 'Do the Right Thing' which is a great film about life in New York.The only good things about this film are the acting performances of Jeremy Irvine and Jonny Beauchamp and a decent soundtrack.Other than that, it is predictable, clichéd and boring on top of whitewashing history. A shameful effort at portraying Stonewall.
Mark Iaconetti
I 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.
bimbowes
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.
hjames-97822
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.
AD
