cjmarbutt There are potentially two great movies here. One about a Midwestern kid growing up gay in the late sixties, the other about the Stonewall Riots. However, when you put the two movies together, it becomes one mediocre movie. Danny is a fictional character and ever minute spent on him and his fictional town takes away from actually telling the story of Stonewall and since the movie is named "Stonewall" we might expect it to be about, well, Stonewall. Meanwhile the characters that are based on historical people who were there are left as cardboard cut outs, propped up to move Danny's story along. Factor in that the police are actually portrayed as justified in raiding the bar towards the end and the lack of any actual serious romantic relationships on the parts of the leads and it is not hard to see why the LGBTQ community in general panned the film.

Historian-3 I 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.

levicarpus 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.

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.