90 Queer Movies to See Before You Die...

Oh Emmerich, Emmerich, Emmerich, Emerich! Why do you do this to us?

Call me crazy, but I was honestly 'rooting' for this film when it was first being released, and I don't completely dislike it outright. I actually found the characters to be rather charming. The melodrama was hammed up a lil' too high for my taste, the dialogue could have been sharper, but all in all, there was a great, evocative relationship story to be had here, immersed in the midst of so much chaos, Emmerich 'drenched' the movie in.

But alas, my disappointment in the film doesn't so much as stem from what the film ultimately was, but from what I found out later it ultimately COULD HAVE BEEN. Perhaps a snippet from RogerEbert.com will illustrate my point?

For most of its 129-minute length, “Stonewall” mires us in the melodramatic doings of its characters, including frequent returns to unhappy Indiana. Only in its last quarter do the riots begin, and here the film’s miscues and mistakes really multiply. First, the four nights of rioting are reduced to a single outburst, which completely undercuts any hope of showing how a spontaneous bit of vandalism evolved into a conscious rebellion. Second, rather than the initially very playful and comic demonstration described by witnesses, the riot here almost instantly escalates into a huge, violent battle worthy of Emmerich disaster movies like “Independence Day.”

Third, the crucial role of the media—including negative coverage in The Village Voice, whose offices were a few doors from Stonewall—in turning the riots into a resonant public event is completely ignored. In a sense, “Stonewall” should have been much a bigger movie, one big enough to show how the struggle for gay rights was preceded by and bound up with the battles to end racial segregation and the war in Vietnam, political feminism and many other efforts at social change and consciousness raising.

At the least, though, the movie should have justified its title by showing how “Stonewall” gained its current meaning not from gay people hurling bricks through windows but from the political debates and decisions and often courageous activism that followed the night of June 28, 1969. There’s still a fascinating movie to be made from that story, one that Emmerich’s hyperbolic effusion doesn’t even begin to touch.

DAMN!! That actually sounds like it would have been a pretty sweet movie. And considering Spotlight won the big prize at the Oscars, I think HAD Emmerich made THAT movie instead, Stonewall would have had the chops to be movie of the year. It could have been one of the most invigorating political thrillers to be released since JFK (1991).

VISUALLY this is a pretty astounding cinematic work. But from a storytelling perspective, the premise kind of falls flat due to token-esque stereotypes. Aside from that really romantic beach scene (y'all know which scene I'm talking about) this film is almost so generic, it's insulting, and definite oscar bait if I ever saw one.

Still, it is one of the first wide release motion pictures to touch upon the still taboo subject of gay love in the African American community. I can at least understand with 'others' might hold it up to particularly considerate value.

Much like Stonewall (2015), this is another prime example of the little film that could have been...

I 'wanted' to like this movie so much. It's unfortunate the director was a hack, and the production was weak, this film could have been BRILLIANT, for underneath the hardcoding the narrative has much to speak of in terms of demonstrating how we all are the makers (or 'architects' if you will) of our own creation and suffering. We shape out reality, but we also shape the destiny of others by doing so.

That's a powerful idiom, but alas, coming off the white hot streak of last year's Crash (2004), this film was tailor made to be high-gloss Oscar bait, that ultimately failed on every level. (Fragments of David Greig's original 'intention' still linger though...)

I don't place this one very high, although I still approve of it enough to recommend it to others. Mainly, my disdain stems from the fact that this is one 'complicated' clusterfuck of a movie. I know from the IMDB that I'm not the only one that feels this way. What exactly the filmmaker was trying to say--especially with that messed up ending--I will quite frankly never understand.

Don't misinterpret me. I'm not saying it's a 'bad' movie. I'm simply reserving it to purgatorial limbo on my list because I can't make heads or tails of it. If anyone can help me out here, I'd be willing to take virtually anything into consideration. I can't fully say whether this one was good or bad, because the ending didn't make any goddamn sense. And it throws the entire film's events into question.

This is one of those, read-between-the-lines 'silent' indie films that leaves viewers wanting to drive a powerdrill through their skull after watching it. For either wasting valuable time, or refusing to offer conclusive resolution.

Maybe it's just me but to me this film seems to have little to nothing to do with homosexuality and more to do with 'mental illness'. Still, it's filled to the brim with hot sweaty naked men and more commonly 'vanilla' male viewers may get squeamish at some of the film's explicit content [including unsimulated sex]. When all is said and done though it's really a rather depressing, if not 'disturbing', viewing experience to sit through. NOT FOR THE FAINT-HEARTED!

Eesh! A lot of this film's content--I am of course referring to the pederastic narrative between the film's protagonist and male love interest--might make more 'conservative' viewers' skin crawl. I can't defend that. It really is pretty messed up taken from somebody who might like to be a 'father' sometime down the line. (Though I'm willing to bet all actors of this film were 'of age' during production.)

That said, the thing as a whole I can tell was not meant to be taken too seriously and in cases such as this the protagonist's flagrant overacting actually helps 'sell' this film's tawdry controversial themes and content.

It's definitely an unorthodox narrative and pacing method. But omg, some of the politics this film tried to reinforce, particularly the POV of that of the Chris New character, just made me wanna put my fist through the wall. MAN he was annoying.

Still, parts of it are funny, other parts sweet, and the sex is kinda steamy. It's not 'oscar bait' and doesn't try to 'overreach' it's target audience by launching some misguided socio-political crusade, and I have a lot of respect for this film because of that.

15-year-old Sieger has it all, he's the prodigy child, a gifted up-and-coming track 'n' field star, has the admiration and respect of both his peers and his father, as supposed to his screw-up older brother, Eddy, whom Sieger idolizes, and the girls all think he's handsome. Then one random afternoon during after hours practice, Sieger is flagged down and potentially flirted on by the tall, handsome, masclinely alpha Marc, out of the blue. Huh, that was weird?...

Siegler tries his best to ignore his emotions but his curiosity gets the better of him. Acting upon what I figure is no doubt puberty-driven hormonal overdrive, Siegler pursues a hidden flirtation with Marc, while physically rebuking him in public when being gay doesn't suit his personal image, or interferes with attempting to prove his manhood on girls.

It sounds like a cliched textbook movie-of-the-week scenario, and in fact... it is. But that doesn't discount the fact that young males like Siegler and Marc (like any of us) actually do go through these predicaments, and the overall handling of this film's presentation of this material, is actually pretty sharp.

This is a very 'internalized' movie, but a very 'precocious' one. With a nervous edge to it that is bound to produce butterflies to the stomach with it's viewers.