Some material may sound better on paper than it actual translates on screen. And while this will not be up every-ones ally (which you can tell by the rating and the discrepancies in high and low ones), this did happen to a degree and was worth telling. So while you may not belong to a community that is affected by this, it's a universal theme nonetheless at the end.I haven't checked facts or read upon the real events, so I wouldn't be influenced going into this. But that also means, I can't confirm to what degree this got it right (something quite a lot of people seem to criticize). From a drama point of view it does kind of work though and while it doesn't seem perfect, it is decent

Excellent 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.

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.

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.