I believe Roland Emmerich’s error lies in connecting the narrative so directly with Stonewall. If it had simply been a structured drama like Armistead Maupin's "Tales of the City," it might have felt more believable. The story focuses on “Danny” (Jeremy Irvine), who is rejected by his family and community after being discovered engaging intimately with his friend “Joe” (Karl Glusman) by two acquaintances who quickly spread the news among their peers. Forced to leave, he travels to New York City with only a few belongings and finds himself at the Stonewall Inn. There, he meets various individuals who welcome him, though with differing levels of excitement, and "Ray" (Jonny Beauchamp) attempts to assist him in escaping his difficult living situation and potentially beginning a process of acceptance and self-discovery. What follows is rather chaotic, attempting to appeal to everyone while also portraying a turbulent period in American history; however, it ultimately resorts to numerous stereotypes. Stereotypes often have roots in truth, so the intolerance and prejudice displayed here feel as authentic as accounts of indiscriminate police brutality and the corrupt practices of organized crime. I’ve never been comfortable with the idea of the LGBTQ community, as it frequently seems like an anti-straight coalition attempting to manufacture a sense of belonging from individuals whose only shared characteristic is not adhering to heterosexual standards. This film did somewhat serve to remind us that being white and appearing respectable doesn't necessarily guarantee an easier life than someone who appears different or comes from a disadvantaged background. “Danny’s” character, a seemingly innocent young man with considerable bravery, deserves to have his story told on its own merits. Homophobia isn’t unique to America—consider the writings of Quentin Crisp or Oscar Wilde—and it doesn't discriminate based on skin color. As the film progresses towards what seemed like a reasonably accurate depiction of events, I felt it brought a topic that was still considered sensitive just a decade ago into mainstream view, allowing those without personal experience with these issues to observe and assess for themselves. It’s not a good movie, far from it, but even though he had limited direction, Irvine did well in presenting this story in a fresh way, and the most vocal LGBTQ advocates likely wouldn't have appreciated it regardless.

Source on TMDB