Kinsey (2004) User Reviews (217)

Before Dr. Ruth and the others, there was Dr. Kinsey...

[jotix100 · 8/10 · 28 November 2004]

Bill Condon, working with his own material has come out with a movie that serves to illustrate how the work of Dr. Kinsey awoke the American public to a better understanding of their sexuality in ways no one, up to that point, had ever dared to show. As he proved with his other film, "Gods and Monsters", Mr. Condon shows he doesn't mind tackling adult themes, so scarce in the present cinema.

The film is documentary in style, as we are shown the life of Kinsey at different times of his life. He had an unhappy childhood. His father was a tyrant who never really showed love toward him. There are moments when the young Kinsey is shown as boy scout and there is an element of homosexuality that maybe, for fear, never came to the surface, but it's there, nonetheless.

Dr. Kinsey's life takes a turn when he meets, Clara McMillen, who he calls "Mac". It's with her that he begins a life of discovery in the field of human sexuality that was taboo in American colleges and universities at the time. Albert Kinsey was the first one that spoke about the things that were never said in polite company, or in the classroom, up to that moment. His life was dedicated to understand what made human beings act the way they did, never being judgmental, but with a tremendous insight to interpret the data and present it in a comprehensible way.

A puritanical American society reacted strongly against the findings of Dr. Kinsey. He was a man ahead of his times when he decided to gather information about the sex lives of Americans and to publish the results in a best selling book.

As Dr. Kinsey, Liam Neeson, showing an uncanny resemblance to the man, himself, does a wonderful job. He shows a complicated character who was not easily understood by his associates and students. As "Mac", his wife, Laura Linney with a dark wig, gives an articulate performance of Mrs. Kinsey. Both actors are wonderful together, as they have already shown in the New York stage.

Peter Sargaard, as Clyde, Dr. Kinsey's first assistant, shows he is an actor that will amaze from picture to picture. This actor has the ability to get under each of his character's skins to make them real, as is the case with his Clyde. Also, almost unrecognizable, Chris O'Donnell, who plays Wardell, one of the interviewers working with the doctor. Timothy Hutton is Gebhard, the other associate who was instrumental in gathering the information to help complete Dr. Kinsey's report. John Lithgow, as Kinsey Sr. has a fantastic moment with Mr. Neeson, as he agrees to be interviewed, revealing a horrible secret. It's a wonderful moment done with panache by both actors working under exceptional direction.

There is a moment toward the end of the film where we see Lynn Redgrave speaking directly to the camera. It is one of the most effective moments in the film when this woman tells Dr. Kinsey about her life as a lesbian.

Mr. Condon's film clarifies a lot about the genius of Kinsey and his contribution to society.

Enjoy the performances of Liam Neeson and Laura Linney

[NoArrow · 7/10 · 26 December 2004]

Liam Neeson is a terrific actor, and Dr. Alfred Kinsey is his character. After seeing "Kinsey" I can't imagine anyone else better for the role. People usually say that, I know, but you couldn't possibly imagine anyone else playing the part, ever. I think Neeson has a strong chance at winning an Oscar this year; as does Laura Linney, playing Kinsey's wife, a terrifically kind, warm woman trying to keep up with Kinsey's life, which moves along pretty fast. Too fast for her at times. These two performances are awesome, two of the actors' best, the Academy, and every other awards show, would have to be insane not to mention them.

Unfortunately, I don't think the rest of the movie is really up to par with the performances. Not to say it's bad, just that it fails to really interest us when Neeson or Linney aren't on screen (which, fortunately, doesn't happen much). The movie is about Alfred Kinsey, who pioneered the research on human sexuality. Neeson shows him as a strong man, but one with as many flaws as the gall wasps he collected, all buried deep beneath his drive and focus.

Kinsey's studies proved some things, and let a lot of homosexuality and other deviances from the norm at the time out into the open. I'd just like to say that I agree with some of his studies, I like that he unlocked the way uptight supposed "morality" of the masses think that any sexual behavior other than the missionary position is both unhealthy and immoral. How they thought that I don't know, but I admire Kinsey for proving them wrong. Other things I do not agree with, like Kinsey's studies on the time it takes really young children to reach orgasm…and Kinsey's way of thinking that sex on its basic level should have no emotional attachment; I think I can say that these things are ethically wrong without feeling ignorant.

But I won't be biased against the quality of the film because of this. I will speak of the technique of how it was made: the writing, the directing, etc. I liked how the movie began: with a black and white practice interview between Kinsey, his wife Clara, and their students. It is inter-cut with scenes from Kinsey's youth: Kinsey facing temptation with masturbation, and having trouble with his insanely strict father (John Lithgow).

Lithgow's first scene, where he speaks of the temptation and evil caused by zippers, electricity and ice cream parlors is the film's first problem. It doesn't show both sides of Kinsey's argument, it merely dismisses Lithgow – and those like him – as a laughing stock, instead of considering any validity in points that they're making.

This problem is carried throughout the movie, and Lithgow is seen as such a monster that we feel no sympathy for his character in a later scene showing his inner weakness and tragic past, the scene feels thrown in and very foreign to the rest of the movie.

I think the opening scenes, with Kinsey and Clara first falling for each other, and his proposal and collection of gall wasps, are the movie's best, I believe. Once Kinsey starts his research on sex I think the movie becomes a bit conventional. We get the usual scenes such as Kinsey alienated from his family, Kinsey receiving trouble from his financial backers, Clara feeling alienated from Kinsey, and so on. Of course, most of the time we watch eagerly, because Neeson and Linney are awesome, but we still have that itching feeling that the film isn't as special as Ebert says.

What I mean is, after decades of biopics, especially this year; a biopic has to be more than conventional. Unless the lead character is amazing and extremely watchable, like in "Ray", the film needs to show us something new. I mean, when you see a biopic, you pretty much know the lead is going be alienated from his family, obsessed with his work and full of inner demons. So give us something else, please.

Problems also arise with the introduction of Kinsey's staff, including bisexual Clyde Martin (Peter Sarsgaard), Wardell Pomeroy (Chris O'Donnell) and Paul Gebhart (Timothy Hutton). The problem is, we hardly know any of these characters, so we are bored when they get into arguments because we don't feel that we know anything about them. When we find out that Martin is bisexual it comes as a surprise, but we react with a shrug. Sarsgaard's performance is surprisingly flat; that he's getting any buzz for awards surprises me.

I'm giving the movie a seven simply because of the professionalism Neeson and Linney display on screen. They are the acting pros; they wash the floor with the rest of the cast. The Academy voters will all be struck by lightning if either isn't mentioned. So see it for them, and about the rest, well, shrug.

7/10

Lets talk about sex

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 8 February 2009]

This is an intelligent and often moving piece of cinema, that is one of the highlights of 2004. Kinsey is about a scientist's struggle in convincing the world about the scientific approach to sexual behaviour. The performances from everyone around are fantastic. Liam Neeson gives his career-best performance, after his role in Schindler's List (which is truly disturbing). Laura Linney matches him wonderfully as his wife Clara, and Peter Sarasgaard also gives a fantastic performance. And there are also famous faces like Chris O'Donnell, Oliver Platt, John Lithgow and Tim Curry, though they had little screen time to develop properly. The soundtrack is fabulous, very moving and I genuinely mean that, and the film looks stunning. The only other problem with the movie, is it's length, it is a little long for a biographical drama. But the ending of the movie, was the most moving ending since the Elephant Man (The saddest film ever made) and bravo to Lynn Redgrave. This excellently observed film is well worth worthing. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Sex, sex, sex, sex, sex and, oh yeah, sex....

[majikstl · 3 December 2004]

"We've got a couple of hours before dinner; time for a couple of sex surveys. Who wants to go first?"

This line from KINSEY is a great representation of the movie. It illustrates the film's offhanded sense of humor and shows that the otherwise taboo topic of sex is tossed about in a way that can be seen as being either casually shocking or mundanely trivial. And, logically enough, numerous scenes do happen at the dining table: sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, as played by Liam Neeson, chatters about sexual statistics over family backyard cookouts with his teenaged children, regales guests with graphic details of sexual minutiae at elegant affairs and ultimately ends up becoming a crashing bore at dinner parties as his compulsion to ramble on about all things sexual dominates his every conversation and waking thought.

What begins as a healthy interest and a professional curiosity becomes a tiresome obsession. In a way, Kinsey becomes a sex addict, but in a scholarly, detached sort of way. He's like a sports nut who's neither a player nor a spectator, but loves to collect the memorabilia and obsessively keep track of trivial statistics. He measures his sexual conquests less by the number of his bed partners than by how many people he seduces into answering his probing sex surveys. Research itself becomes a sexual fetish.

A disturbing, or at least revealing, aspect of the film is the implication that Kinsey seemed to blur the line separating the personal and professional in his pursuit of carnal knowledge. There is a scene where Kinsey and his assistant Clyde Martin (Peter Sarsgaard) go to a gay bar to round up people to interview and various men treat his request to answer questions as a joke, assuming that the survey is really a cheesy come on. And they might not be entirely wrong. Watching the film, one gets the feeling that Kinsey had a substantial sexual appetite, both physically and intellectually. The film suggests more than it reveals, but it hints that the lingering concerns over Kinsey's moral and ethical behavior might reflect more than just a germ of suspicion.

Though the film tries to memorialize Kinsey as a social pioneer, it doesn't shy away from (nor does it condemn) his dubious breaches of ethical standards, such as encouraging intramural sexual activities among his staff and their wives. At one point, Kinsey interviews a creepy subject played by William Sadler who has maintained a detailed record of all of the thousands of people he has had sex with (including children) and the implication is clear that he and Kinsey are two sides of the same coin -- both justifying their amoral pursuits in the name of intellectual enrichment.

Throughout the movie all things sexual are treated comically and seriously, trivially and ponderously, casually and obsessively. But only fleetingly is sex treated erotically. The film is graphic about sex, but in a textbook sort of way, not a pornographic way. Even the few sexual scenes involving Kinsey and his wife (Laura Linney) seem designed to illustrate an academic point, coming off as being more like classroom visual aids rather than moments of passion. The film delves into the good doctor's bisexuality, but gingerly treats it with equal reticence. Indeed, though a bit of full frontal nudity is supplied by Sarsgaard, he ends up putting his pajamas on before sharing an intimate kiss with Neeson. Perhaps the film's only moment of real sexual tension comes from two Boy Scouts discussing the sins of self gratification. (And they end up praying!)

The film is mostly all X-rated talk, with only a bit of PG-13 action. And the talk isn't even all that graphic, it just seems that way compared to the traditional -- skittish -- way films always approach the subject. If the film has any point it is that even though we have come a long way in dealing with sexuality, we still haven't gone all that far: political correctness having joined religious piety as a form of censorship. Kinsey worked to bring the most private of all human endeavors into public discourse, not realizing, or caring, that most people would still rather have it continue being -- literally -- private intercourse. As such, KINSEY still carries a certain shock value and the ability to milk much of its humor from its often embarrassingly blunt approach.

And humor may be the film's saving grace. Though, towards the end, the story takes on the usual air of self-importance that plagues most film biographies, writer-director Bill Condon refuses to let the film become too heavy-handed. Some of the humor is a bit obvious, such as picking John Lithgow to play Kinsey's pompous father, a fundamentalist preacher, in a performance that echoes the actor's similar role in FOOTLOOSE. But, for the most part the humor humanize the characters and doesn't present them as crusading icons or symbols of enlightenment. Like most film biographies, the honesty of KINSEY as history is debatable, as are the doctor's contribution to the health and welfare of the society. But as a film, KINSEY is like good sex, a briefly satisfying mix of passion and amusement.

Pssst! Let's Talk-Talk-Talk About Sex-Sex-Sex!

[strong-122-478885 · 6/10 · 6 January 2014]

*Spoiler Alert!*

So, is he normal?.... Kinsey's star "sex survey" discovery could (get this!) go (with a quick flick of the wrist) from being flaccid to erect to ejaculation in just 10 seconds flat!

Zowie! In the realm of "The Fastest Shot Around", I'd say that this guy must've been some sort of a world record holder.... Wouldn't you?

Alfred Kinsey (b. 1894/d. 1956), who is considered by many to be The Father of the Sexual Revolution, was not only a very active bisexual, but also something of a serious masochist, which seemed to stem from his stern upbringing by his tyrannical father.

Kinsey, who was initially a devoted biologist, seemed to study sex amongst humans in the same way that he studied insects (his first passion). In other words, he viewed his work from a very detached and clinical point of view.

And, so, with that in mind, it should come as no surprise to the viewer that the sex scenes shown in this fairly intriguing bio-pic contain no eroticism, whatsoever. It's all just straight out of the textbook stuff.

This film certainly seemed to suggest more than it revealed about just how much Kinsey, himself, actually participated in his own sex studies. But, it is a known fact that he regularly filmed the volunteered sex acts of his co-workers in the attic of his own home.

Throughout the mid-1940s - Out of the thousands of people (of all ages, all across the USA) who were interviewed by Kinsey and his colleagues it was surprisingly revealed (through these extensive studies) just how commonplace oral sex, homosexuality, adultery, and masturbation (which, back then, was believed to cause serious mental illness) were amongst the American population, in general.

One of this film's major downfalls was that it tried, far too earnestly, to cover too much ground in its 2-hour running time. And, with that, it seriously lost its way by the time that its last half-hour rolled around.

All-in-all - This film, which talk-talk-talks about sex like no other film around, was, for the most part, well-worth a view regardless of its flukes, its flaws and its somewhat uneven editing.

P.S.

Actor Liam Neeson was 52 (and he looked it) when he played the title character in this film. And that, in turn, rendered him as being completely unconvincing when he tried to pass himself off as the Kinsey character in his 20s and 30s.

The beginning of sex education

[rojaslaura-18747 · 6/10 · 13 March 2020]

Movie was long, but definitely does a good job of showing the importance of sex education.

Good performances, but the film's still "a little churchy"

[anhedonia · 7/10 · 22 January 2005]

We may be one of the most advanced nations in the world, but when it comes to sex, we're still awfully puritanical, prudish. It still remains incredibly taboo because, for some inexplicable reason, many Americans still view sex as something that shouldn't be discussed frankly and openly among consenting adults. And that it's still dirty.

Janet Jackson flashes a breast on TV for less than a split-second and pundits go berserk, decrying it as the end of civilization as we know it. A president lies about an extra-marital affair and we spend millions of dollars and countless hours of news trying to gather every sordid detail. But when a president wages an unjust war under false pretenses, a decision that, so far, has cost the lives of more than one thousand brave Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, there's barely a rattle. The media blindly buy the administration's view with little or no critical review and much of the public, aided by some jingoistic networks, considers dissent unpatriotic.

Clearly, violence is fine. Sex is bad.

This is evident even with our movies. The two "Charlie's Angels" movies with their over-blown violence get PG-13 ratings from the MPAA. But a coming-of-age film such as "I Capture the Castle" (2003) gets an R rating because Tara Fitzgerald briefly bares her breasts in one scene. If more nudity is shown, as in "Henry and June" (1990), the MPAA prigs slap an NC-17.

Parents have no qualms about their teen-age children seeing violent movies or playing video games, but if a film happens to show slight nudity, all hell breaks loose. Now, we have TV networks blurring nude buttocks on cartoon figures for fear of facing the wrath of the FCC!

Let's not even discuss homosexuality. After all, it wasn't until a couple of years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a not-unanimous decision, struck down an asinine Texas law that governed what consenting gay men did sexually in the confines of their homes. Why is it that rabid conservatives clamor for less government and regulations, except when it comes to privacy issues? Then they want the government to find out and regulate what consenting adults do in their bedrooms and what books we take out of our public libraries.

What does all this have to do with Bill Condon's film, "Kinsey?" Well, we may be in the 21st century, but this nation's attitudes about sexual issues apparently haven't changed much since Dr. Alfred Kinsey began his work. In fact, these days, under this administration, it seems we're taking giant steps backward. It's just that we know more about sex now and one of the biggest reasons for that is because of Kinsey's work.

Condon's film, which he also wrote, captures the essence of the man exceedingly well, thanks to a commanding performance by Irishman Liam Neeson. He makes Kinsey likable, even lovable, a man who tries to understand the biological nature of man with little understanding of human nature. His unemotional tactics certainly created problems.

Kinsey zealously storms his way in the name of science without paying attention to human foibles such as jealousy, compassion or hurt feelings. Neeson does a superb job at keeping Kinsey detached from the humanity around him. It's a fascinating portrait, really, and Neeson is aided immeasurably by two brilliant supporting performances - Laura Linney as Kinsey's wife, Clara, and Peter Sarsgard as Kinsey's right hand and occasional lover, Clyde Martin.

Linney gives the film much needed dignity, strength and, above all, humor. Clara understands and forgives Kinsey's approach to life and sex. She's also smart enough to try Kinsey at his own game. In one scene, she delivers the film's funniest line, one that cuts right through Kinsey's analytical mind, tests his convictions and makes him confront basic human nature.

Sarsgard, again, delivers a gem of a performance. I've yet to see him deliver a bad, or even sub par, performance in a film.

Condon's flaw is he tries to cut too wide a swath with this biopic. As well-written and acted as "Kinsey" is, Condon tries to shoehorn too much of the man's life into the film. There are superfluous scenes - a boy scout moment on a riverbank, for instance - and characters who seem like caricatures, too easy targets to be poked fun of, such as Kinsey's rigid father, played by John Lithgow.

Frankly, I would have liked to see more of the information gathering, a crucial element that's reduced to an interesting montage by Condon. Surely, the questions would have come as a shock to many Americans being interviewed and their reactions and understanding of the process would have made for fascinating storytelling.

Instead, Condon takes a rather prosaic, almost timid approach, to that aspect of the story. He could certainly have been more daring. We occasionally get snippets of the interviews, but they're played more for humor than anything else. He gets it right in one scene, when Kinsey and a colleague interview a smarmy sex offender played frighteningly well by William Sadler.

"Kinsey" is well researched, well crafted and good-looking. The performances are uniformly excellent - even the usually bland Chris O'Donnell seems good. But for a film about a man who revolutionized sex in this country, "Kinsey" isn't nearly brave enough. It's almost a bit too staid, a bit too clinical in its approach. As Clara might say, "a little churchy."

Then again, maybe mainstream U.S. audiences even today aren't ready for a movie in which someone openly discusses sexual behavior. When Kinsey shows his class slides of the male and female genitalia, not only were their gasps from his students on screen, but also in the movie theater, from the audience. Almost six decades after the publication of Kinsey's controversial bestseller about men's sexual habits, it seems we still have a long way to go.

Finally, someone did TALK about it!

[SomeBlueDevil · 10/10 · 1 December 2004]

I read some of the reviews on IMDb before I went to see the movie. And I was struck by some of the negative comments it received. Even in this day and age, there is a double-standard on "moral values".

Hypocrisy vs. common sense. The movie cleverly reveals that Kinsey helped us along the way, to become open about such a basic but non-the-less extremely vital part of our existence. True, some of his subjects were pedophiles or engaged in sex practices that most people would find offensive. However, the knowledge that he as a scientist derived from his studies, is immeasurable - it enables intimate insight into the human psyche, and with that, possible treatments for those that are sexually victimizing others.

And this is the key point: the law should protect life, the innocent (under-aged and animals) and of course, the non-consenting. Other than that, sex is something between consenting adults and no-one should have the right to outlaw what you do in the bedroom. If you listen closely, the movie will give you the same message.

My only complaint is perhaps that on the subject of "perversion" they barely scratched the surface on Kinsey's personal response. It was clear that as a scientist, he would continue on the path of knowledge, however dark it may have been. I would probably agree that the movie version of his life and work was toned down to a "pill small enough to swallow" - still, I feel it shows the audience enough to get a picture of who this man was.

Don't expect "adult entertainment" when going to this movie. There is little that will cause an open-minded, sexually in touch with him-/herself adult embarrassment or even excitement. It's more like a documentary.

The acting was superb on everybody's part, and Academy Award Nominations will be forth-coming - no doubt. Hopefully they will take some wins home.

Disappointing effort and far removed from the truth of Kinsey

[wisewebwoman · 6/10 · 26 June 2005]

I found Liam Neeson's performance ill-at-ease and I am not surprised, this is not an accurate portrayal of Alfred Kinsey. Perhaps it is a movie that just should not have been made. The man did do ground breaking work on the sexuality of our species, but not without cost and some say not without undue influence on the results. He tolerated paedophilia and even employed sex offenders in his research. His own sexuality was ambivalent and he himself had some unsavoury episodes as a scoutmaster using his position of authority to engage in sexual activity with the young in his charge. That said, the overall feeling I had for the film was one big yawn. The monotonous performance of Laura Linney by itself is way better than a sleeping pill. The dangling threads you could trip over (what happened when his funding was cut off? why did they never finish the interview with him? what was the point of the creepy pervert he interviewed, etc. etc.). Even the ending fades away into nothingness. And I did not care. I did not engage with any of the characters and like watching a bad traffic accident in awful fascination, I just wanted to see how much blood there was at the end so I could turn away. 6 out of 10. What happened Liam? You can do much better than this.

My brief review of the film

[sol- · 9/10 · 4 January 2005]

A rather well researched, interesting and involving biography of an important man to science, the film not only provides an insight into Kinsey's life and the attitudes of the time, but it also digs deep into the characters. Superb acting assists too, with Neeson and Sarsgaard both in good form, however it is Linney who shines the most as Kinsey's wife. But what gives the film such an extra boost is how confronting it manages to be. It is a daringly different film, packing the punches and managing to even have a few good laughs. The style feels unique, yet the technical aspects of the film are rather ordinary. It is a bit too uncomfortable to watch at times also, but it generally succeeds. Condon has quite evidently put a lot of effort into writing and directing the film, and without much question, his efforts have paid off with success.

Sex, hypocrisy and double standards -- The Movie!

[Pedro_H · 6/10 · 11 January 2007]

Bio-pic of a famous academic and sex researcher who "threw back the covers" on America's private life.

Hollywood wants to make strange films. Who was crying out to make a film about Jimmy Hoffa, President Nixon or today's title subject? Nobody that I know and besides - isn't documentary there to do this kind of thing? Why drama? And since I brought up the subject of drama, was his life even that dramatic? A dull academic (although a good one) who had a sexy (no pun intended) subject to play with. And besides, what does it mean to me - a kid who was taken to the topless beaches of Spain at six? America is still (yes still!) shocked by the bare female nipple - yet pays more per household to see them than any country on earth. Confused? You should be.

Liam Nieson is a fine actor doing a fine job in title role - but the script has a dull central character and I couldn't care about America's obsession with its own navel (or below) or even its own hypocrisies or false images of itself. Historical or present day. So, in me, they have a hostile witness to start with.

Kinsey had an easy life and a good (and forgiving) wife so it was other people that had the "problem." His job seemed to be mostly keeping a straight face and appearing neutral (not easy when faced with child molesters). Drama is, indeed, in short supply and any film that needs to show people wandering in woods observing mother nature doesn't have enough of a plot to fit between the start and end credits.

Reading the other reviews I ask the mute question. What have you learnt? Sex and hypocrisy go together like eggs and bacon. I don't even understand my needs and desires - although having no sex is better than having bad sex. And Kinsey's stat based research gives me no modern insight - other than to acknowledge that homosexuality hasn't changed as a percentage of the population over the years. America likes its sex with a healthy dollop of shame and hypocrisy. It doesn't want sexual honesty. As Woody Allen once replied (on film) to the question of whether he found sex dirty: "Only if you are doing it right..."

The next best thing to talking about sex with body language

[BrandtSponseller · 9/10 · 13 June 2005]

Back from a much-too-long hiatus after 1998's masterful character study of James Whale, Gods and Monsters, writer/director Bill Condon gives us a slightly more conventional biopic of important and (sadly) controversial scientist Alfred Kinsey. I say "sadly" controversial because I despise puritanical attitudes about sex in modern cultures much more than Kinsey is shown to in this film. Compared to my views on ethics in general and sex in particular, Kinsey could have been a poster boy for the Moral Majority.

Kinsey is portrayed by Liam Neeson, who turns in one of the best performances of his career. Condon starts the film with a clever, exquisitely realized montage that alternates Kinsey training his team of assistants at the beginning of his sex research days in the late 1940s with flashbacks of Kinsey's childhood up until the time when he was a young adult. The scenes of Kinsey training his research assistants are in black and white and have a slight look of 1950s science documentaries (without the scratchiness and bad splices that some of us can remember from watching old "filmstrips" at school). The flashback scenes are presented in lush color with mostly subtle and gorgeous cinematography. A shot of a young Kinsey looking through a spyglass, framed against a cloudy sky, is just one of many examples of cinematographer Frederick Elmes' strikingly poetic work. This is all set on a bed of typically stunning, pensive music from Carter Burwell.

The sequence is designed to emphasize some of the background and motivations (at least from the "nurture" side) that eventually fueled Kinsey's infamous work. His father, portrayed by John Lithgow, who unfortunately can't be in the film more (it must be a relatively minor part of the film, as Condon has made it), is shown as a religiously staunch moralist espousing antiquated, often superstitious views on sexuality, and preaching of the evils of sexual expression in society. We see from the start that Kinsey has a voracious scientific curiosity and a love of nature. The combination of interests and influences leads him to drop out of the tech school at which his father is a respected teacher and study biology at a university instead.

We enter the beginning of Kinsey's professional career, which he dedicates to studying the gall wasp. He goes to unusual lengths to collect a huge number of specimens in an attempt to attain a kind of "ultimate, objective empiricism". At the same time he meets and falls in love with Clara McMillen (Laura Linney), who becomes his wife. Both Kinsey and McMillen are woefully uneducated and inexperienced when it comes to getting physical, as they disturbingly learn on their honeymoon; it even causes enough problems to lead them to a physician not long afterward. We also see a couple other events emphasizing a general paucity of accurate sex education/information in the culture.

It takes awhile to get through all of the above, and some viewers might feel a twinge of impatience ("when are we going to get to the sex stuff?"--a cry also frequently heard whenever there is mixed company), but Condon, through selective biography, has tied all of Kinsey's background together, with no superfluous details, in what functionally becomes a clever argument suggesting that the only thing that Kinsey could have done in his later years was to study sex in the way that he did.

Condon and Neeson easily paint a complex picture of Kinsey as a sex researcher. Kinsey seems to have an innocent naivety, a scientific thoroughness and "objectiveness" and a worldly, libertine disposition on ethics all at the same time. These all catalyze what eventually became controversial work--and it was often controversial in the eyes of others in each of those modes due to the existence of the other modes in Kinsey. In my view, this is maybe most interesting from the scientific mode--Condon's film goes far in showing that personality and individualistic quirks inevitably have an effect on science, despite the popular mythology about that field, which has it as more of a dispassionate, even robotic endeavor. Of course, reactionary fervor from various morally conservative groups and those who wanted to keep various morally conservative groups in their good graces was the eventual undoing of Kinsey, and Condon shows this in the film while amazingly managing to not seem overly polemical.

Of course, Kinsey is a character-driven film that largely stands or falls due to its performances. Besides Neeson and Lithgow, the other principals--primarily Linney and Peter Sarsgaard, as Kinsey employee and intimate Clyde Martin--are excellent in demanding roles.

But Kinsey also has a surprising amount of unusual and exemplary technical aspects. The interesting cinematography continues throughout. A long sequence of Kinney traveling across the country and interviewing all different kinds of people is refreshingly different and effective, especially as floating heads recede in the frame like passing highway dividing lines before quickly morphing into each other.

The make-up, which has to age the principals 30 years or so, is masterfully done--at beginning of the film, you'll find yourself saying, "Geez, Liam Neeson, John Lithgow et al look young for their age", and at the end, "Geez, they look old for their age". In both parts of the film, the cast looks like they "really" must look just as they do at that moment.

If I had to pick on something as less than satisfactory, it would be a backhanded criticism--Carter Burwell's music seems a bit underused throughout the middle section of the film. When that's the extent of the negative criticism, it means you need to see the film. Moreover, it's important socially for everyone to see this film now. For whatever reason, Puritanism keeps rearing its evil little head in modern cultures. Kinsey can help remind us of more rational (not to mention healthy, satisfying, fun, etc.) perspectives.

One of the best ensembles of the year- a compelling subject that gets you thinking

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 17 December 2004]

Kinsey is a movie that most mature people should see (and I say people since I consider kids to be mature as adults). Even if you're not aware of most of Kinsey's accomplishments (like I, before seeing it I only heard of the Kinsey report in a sociology class), or don't think you have an interest in knowing about sex, the film is a must-see on the level of theatricality and acting. Bill Condon (of Gods and Monsters) has before him a cast of tremendous worth, elevating his leveled, smart script. The themes he brings to the screen, via Kinsey and his team, are all the more relevant today where sex is becoming more of a 'trouble' issue with parts of the media and government. That the subject matter is taken seriously, mostly within the context of scientific analysis, is all the more fascinating to one who's fresh to the man and his work. Or, if you do know a good deal about Kinsey, the film is still enlightening, and at the least entertaining, in the pile of bio-pics that have amassed over the past several years.

Liam Neeson is Oscar-nominatable to a T as Kinsey, who starts out as a kid with an interest in biology. He breaks off from his father (John Lithgow, in my favorite of the smaller performances of the bunch), and becomes a teacher. He meets and marries Laura Linney's character, and come across a particular problem sexually, which leads to Kinsey to start researching into the truthful, un-biased facts about people and sex. What this leads to is the kind of story that, even if it were not based in truth, would still make for a great film. Other cast such as Stellan Skarsgard, Chris O'Donnell, and especially Linney all contribute heavily to the believability of the work.

Aside from the very last scene which is only partially disappointing (though never-the-less un-conventional), Kinsey has many great scenes in it, some humorous, some tragic, and some indeed more disturbing than I dare mention. To put it another way, it's the kind of provocative peak in films about scientists that doesn't get reached much in Hollywood anymore. A+

THE ACTUAL FACTS ABOUT KINSEY

[LoveFilmYesterday · 1/10 · 3 October 2022]

Kinsey did NOT do reputable research because he only focused on pedophiles in prisons for his research. Then, he performed "experiments" (sexual abuse) on babies and small children. There is NOTHING beneficial or scientific about sexually abusing small children by checking the number of orgasms a baby has in his infamously vile book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" under "Table 34". How did he get this information? Who would do such a harmful thing to babies and then call it research? What kind of people lied about these facts to make a movie? I have noticed that Hollywood mainstream has begun to justify sexual abuse...but I refuse to accept that outright LYING about a pervert was a good film to make under any circumstances.

Kinsey enlightens a controversial subject

[seaview1 · 28 November 2004]

Writer/Director Bill Condon does a thoroughly detailed, fascinating study of the life of famed sex researcher Alfred Kinsey in the drama, Kinsey. What would on surface seem unfilmable is done with great sensitivity and honesty.

Condon knows how to tell stories about real people (Gods and Monsters), and here is a life filled with curiosity and far reaching accomplishment.

Raised in a repressed family dominated by a stern father, Kinsey is portrayed as an isolated teen who rebels against not only his father, but against sexual convention. As a science instructor in college, he meets a student who becomes his wife. As other students look more and more to him for sexual advice, his original interest in insect studies changes to sex adviser and ultimately sex researcher. His team of assistants and even their wives become involved in the research. As Kinsey's study requires sample interviews across the country, a diverse, amazing discovery of sexual habits and statistics are revealed. The study ultimately becomes published in a groundbreaking best seller amid a swell of damnation from the public.

Condon interweaves the science with the human element in a very intelligent screenplay. It is remarkable that such a coherent storyline emerges from a multitude of scientific and news sources. The movie also says a lot about the state of the country at a time in mid twentieth century America when the Red Scare was in full swing and the populace was guided by the morals and sensibilities of its time. Kinsey's relationship with his wife is the thread that ties the film together thematically. She essentially becomes the barometer for his work and his shortcomings. Here is a man who was brilliant and at the same time fallible.

There is no epilogue at film's end as might be expected for a biography, but it is a nice touch for a film that tries to approach its subject with freshness and reverence. The set design and costumes are all authentic in period flavor, but the film seems to be focused not on marking the precise year but depicting an era or time. Do stay for the amusing end credits which show a veritable Noah's Ark of animals in their glory.

Liam Neeson is very good as the obsessed scientist who tries to conduct meaningful, quantifiable research while reconciling the emotional toll on his marriage and his friendships. Laura Linney is in fine form as the supportive wife who observes and then participates in her husband's venture.

As his research assistants, Timothy Hutton, Chris O'Donnell, and Peter Sarsgaard round out a very strong ensemble cast. In fact, these fine actors are almost wasted in supporting roles. John Lithgow is pitch perfect as Kinsey's cruel, insensitive father. There is a nice, near cameo appearance by Lynn Redgrave (Gods and Monsters) as the last interview of Kinsey, and she resonates in her brief appearance.

In keeping with the subject matter, there is graphic dialogue and sexual depictions, but there is nothing exploitive or without narrative purpose here. It is interesting to note that this film is coming on the heels of a moralistic backlash of media content and permissiveness. By showing how well-intended human studies into formerly taboo subjects helped to enlighten and reexamine human behavior, Kinsey proves to be the right film for the right time.

"Everybody's sin is nobody's sin, and everybody's crime is no crime at all"

[ackstasis · 6/10 · 20 May 2011]

As a student of zoology, you could say I've become quite the expert on the behaviour variously euphemised as "horizontal jogging," "making the beast with two backs," or by dystopian droogs as "the old in-out in- out." Well, Alfred Kinsey was even more expert than me. In the famously prudish decades of the 1940s and 50s, the entomologist at Indiana University (played here by Liam Neeson) realised that the taboo subject of human sexuality was essentially unexplored by modern science, and set out to rectify this situation. The products of his labours, known as the Kinsey Reports ("Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" (1948) and "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" (1953)) were immediate popular sensations, arousing admiration and condemnation in equal volume.

An ensemble cast (including Neeson, Laura Linney, Peter Sarsgaard, Timothy Hutton, John Lithgow, and Tim Curry) do very well with what they're given, and it's a fascinating story being told, but the screenplay itself is all over the place. A few scenes are dedicated to Kinsey's family life, but then the children are never heard from again. There's a rather awful graphic montage that is supposed to represent Kinsey's team interviewing subjects all over America. This is all made up for, perhaps, by a very touching sequence near the end, in which an interviewee (played by Lynn Redgrave) thanks Kinsey for saving her life through his research. Worth watching, because anything with Liam Neeson is worth watching.

Lab Rats, few emotions

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 6 February 2005]

Greetings again from the darkness. This is one of those films that I walked out of thinking about what wonderful performances I had just seen, but wondering why the story left me feeling so empty. Director Bill Condon (the far superior "Gods and Monsters") fails to capture the emotion and divisiveness of the times. Liam Neeson as Dr. Kinsey and especially (a dressed-down) Laura Linney do a terrific job of capturing the passion and strains of a newly married couple and of people being attacked by "proper" society. Peter Saarsgard is very good in his role as Kinsey's assistant and more. John Lithgow turns in his "Footloose" puritanism again, only this time with more bitterness. The great Oliver Platt is given nothing to work with and can anyone explain why Veronica Cartright was cast as Neeson's mom? She is only two years older than him. Don't miss the almost unrecognizable Lynn Redgrave as the last of Kinsey's interviews. It is always a pleasure to watch fine acting, but this story should have been so much more powerful than what was delivered. Great acting, weak screenplay.

Insightful but detached

[majic-5 · 7/10 · 11 November 2007]

Alfred Kinsey was a paradox. He was a fearless, groundbreaking researcher who shone a floodlight on the sexual practices of ordinary Americans for the first time in the nation's history, liberating many, horrifying some, and disgusting others. At the same time, he was completely blind to the context of his work: the emotions of sex and the societal value of sexual constraints. This biopic captures Kinsey's contradictions and touches on the maelstrom he and his work created.

It's clear that Kinsey's had three motivations to investigate American's sexual mechanics: a desire to serve mankind by educating it, an obsession with classifying things (he'd already classified a *million* gall wasp specimens before pursing his sex surveys), and a rebellion against a mean and priggish father. The movie communicates Kinsey's desire to lift up people by enlightening them. His disgust with the tripe written about sex within marriage, his non-judgmental interview methods that he used and drilled into his research assistants, and the sheer number of personal sex histories he recorded attest to his good intent as well as his scientific rigor.

But by focusing on the clinical aspects of sexuality, he totally ignored the impact of sexuality. He saw nothing amiss about having his male research assistants have sex with some of the female subjects in order to make accurate observations regarding female arousal. He encouraged polyamory among the families of his research staff while expecting that they stay emotionally detached. He couldn't understand why his wife cried when he disclosed to her his sexual experiments with naïve candor. And he was completely mystified by the size and intensity of the public criticism that accompanied his work. Only after some of the emotional damage he fostered in his own circle hit home did he begin to understand that limits on sexuality might not be such a bad thing.

Liam Neeson does a masterful job portraying Kinsey as a good, complicated, conflicted, and flawed man on a mission. Laura Linney, though limited in her screen time as Kinsey's wife, creates a three-dimensional character. (The scene where she turns the tables on her husband polyamorous philosophy is a subtle delight.)

Where the movie stumbled was in just barely touching on the lives of the people Kinsey influenced, for better or worse. I would have liked to have seen more about the lives of his researchers' families, and seen more scenes of Kinsey himself dealing with the public and their reactions to the book, rather than just a few exchanges with the press corps while running to funding meeting. This produced a clinical feel about the entire film that mirrored Kinsey's own character. As a result, I admired Kinsey's intellect and grit, and I appreciated the service he did for America with his work in a detached sort of way. I never felt any of the menace that the real Kinsey must have as conservatives attacked his work and its results as morally repugnant. More importantly, I never felt more than twinges of sympathy for Kinsey when the darker side of his work and attitudes came home to roost.

Nevertheless, the movie packs a solid intellectual and political punch, arriving in 2004. As late as twenty years ago, the majority attitude towards sexuality was at least tolerant, and in some cases, expansive. Now, America is swinging back to its historically prudish standards of sexuality, as protests around the time of the film's release attest. (Do a Google search on "Kinsey film protest").

Excellent Job --- thoughtful, engrossing, special

[felixoscar · 10/10 · 12 November 2004]

Having recently read, and thoroughly enjoyed, T.C. Boyle's fictionalized take on Kinsey, "The Inner Circle" (2004), I was eager to see how this version materialized. Well Bravo! Bill Condon has created another winning script, and found another lead actor to mesmerize the audience (as in Gods & Monsters). Liam Neeson brings to life this crusader, a man who surely revolutionized America ... and had his own special personal battles as well.

Evocative, enjoyable, credible. Laura Linney is excellent, as well, plus rising star Peter Sargaard is super. Hats off the the splendid cast. One criticism --- did not get to know most of the secondary characters well enough, this is a film where another half hour would have been welcome. But, hey, two memorable hours worth!

Kinsey Relies on Appeal of Sex

[katydid4819 · 7/10 · 5 December 2004]

From an early age, we are interested in sex. Therefore, Bill Condon's Kinsey has a built in audience. The only problem is that some do not wish to see sex spoken of in one of their key forms of entertainment. But still, somehow, the curiosity is overwhelming.

Alfred Kinsey, played by Liam Nesson, is the star of this particular biop. In a season where every other movie is based on the life of someone, it's no longer a sure-fire thing that yours wont get lost in the shuffle. But thanks to Nesson and the rest of the cast, Kinsey stands right there with the others at the front of the line. The movie starts by giving a quick background of Kinsey, including setting up a poor relationship with his father. We are quickly introduced to Kinsey's obsession with gall wasps; we are also introduced to Laura Linney's character, Clara, Kinsey's soon to be wife. The first third of the movie is without mention of sex save the questionnaire being asked of Kinsey, which serves as the guidelines for his life story telling.

The first attempt Kinsey and Clara make at consummating their marriage is a disastrous one. However, once they have spoken about it with a sex specialist, the act no longer draws the negative light. After this, the gall wasp begins to fade as Kinsey's interest in studying humans and their sexual nature begins to take priority. He is selected to teach a sex course at his university and he approaches that with no intent to be subtle about his subject.

Although many are shocked by the abruptness of this course, Peter Sarsgaard's character, Clyde is not. Eventually, he and Kinsey will engage in a homosexual act, which Kinsey will tell his wife about. Bill Condon directs his entire movie with this same honesty. Some say that Kinsey has kept its hands clean in this procedure, but there was never a need to for it to get them dirty. Kinsey is more than just a surface level biop. It digs deep enough to show the audience that there is not tidy answer for the life of Alfred Kinsey that can be wrapped up and presented to you in a two-hour film. Part of the brilliance here is that a story about a man who took the mystery out of sex, has a life of mystery to us.

Kinsey has a very juicy subject. If it weren't about sex, would it still be interesting? The actual storytelling relies heavily on its subject matter. Had this been a movie about gall wasps, the methods employed by Bill Condon would not have held up. As entertaining as Kinsey is, the mechanics are not what makes it that. Nonetheless, superior acting elevates Kinsey and it is, after all, about sex. It would be unfair to judge the movie without including this. ***1/2/*****

All About Sex... Or Is It?

[nycritic · 10/10 · 11 January 2006]

In this world, most of us come into it to fill space, breathe oxygen, obey the rules imposed on us, and try to make something out of nothing without ever questioning what's on the other side of the walls that surround us.

Every so often an eccentric comes along and starts out just as blind and deaf and dumb as the rest of us. However he has a certain spark, a certain sense of purpose, an unformed restlessness which makes him not just stumble across the surface of these walls, but climb over it, see the other side, and realize that there is a world of information and experience out there just waiting to happen. Of course, this has the nasty habit of occurring at a time when such questionings come with the syndrome of skepticism not unlike the kind Noah faced when building his Ark.

Alfred Kinsey is one of these people. Coming into a society which believed that masturbation was not only a sin but could cause blindness or hairy palms, or that homosexuality was a perversity and an act against nature, he discovered through a massive, exhaustive investigation where he interviewed people from all walks of life, that men and woman were much more complicated than initially thought (although such a concept was around for years. Nevertheless it took an investigation with scientific characteristics to validate it.). Masturbation was (and still is) a very popular practice. Approximately 37 per cent of men have had at least one homosexual experience and of those, a third would choose exclusive homosexuality, a third would remain in the middle, and another third would move onto heterosexuality -- he rated all this on a scale from 0 to 6. Premarital sex is common. Women come into marriage knowing nothing about sex. The missionary position was not the only position of choice.

What made Kinsey's investigations so cutting edge was the fact that he dared to bring all these findings into light where anyone else would have simply "not thought about such things" for fear of losing their reputation. On top of that, it's no secret that controversy in itself is a concept we created to pin onto a subject deemed too risky: Kinsey's findings were no different than Galileo's deduction that the Earth was round. But thanks to his studies, homosexuality has taken giant steps to being considered less offensive and just another orientation even though many countries and some American states still have a lot of intolerance on the matter.

A movie like KINSEY does good in showing both the good and the bad sides of the man because only a person who had this intensity of vision could produce such results at the risk of almost losing not only his immediate family (he comes close to on at least one occasion), but friends and associates. No intent is made to glorify or romanticize its main character and the film itself at times seems like an extended course on sex education courtesy of PBS (especially in a sequence involving a frigid woman played by Kathleen Chalfant), but there are moments of comic relief and dramatic moments interspersed that break the extreme intellectual nature of the movie. One of them involves a scene in which Kinsey and one of his male associates, played by Peter Sarsgaard, discover their attraction to each other, which leads to Peter Sarsgaard also disclosing his attraction to Kinsey's wife and colleague Clara, wonderfully played by Laura Linney. Clara's move from being the supporting wife who is disturbed in finding her husband is having a sexual tryst with a male colleague, to being quite open to having her own tryst with this same man, is revelatory as well as the funniest point of the entire film. More enigmatic, though, is Kinsey's reaction to having his wife also experiment sexually but then the film is more interested in focusing on the story from an impartial view than reverting to the predictable recriminations. After all, coming from Kinsey, they would have been out of character anyway and Liam Neeson is effective in not conveying too much, but just enough. Telling, though, is his compassionate expression when confronting his father (John Lithgow, proving he's one of America's finest actors) in an interview that reveals so much about his extreme conservatism and denounces the tradition of parental abuse.

And as an ending note, it has to say something that after everyone has left, funding has stopped, Clara and Alfred remain married to the end of their lives, looking back at their own body of work and hoping that they've done the best. Time, the constant healer and ultimate holder of the Truth, has had its say: sex education has become a part of our own development, and as Kinsey's last interviewee (Lynn Redgrave) -- a closet lesbian who finally came out to a female she pined for -- "After I read your book I realized how many other women were in the same situation. (...) I mustered the courage to talk to my friend and she told me, to my surprise, that the feelings were mutual. You saved my life."

Breaking The Sexual Taboo

[zkonedog · 6/10 · 23 October 2017]

Likely because this country (USA) was founded by religious Puritans, there has always remained a taboo about the topic of sexual relations...often to the point of complete ignorance. This is a movie about a man who tries to combat this often touchy subject the only way he knows how: through strict, hard science & biology.

"Kinsey", then, tells the story of Alfred Kinsey (Liam Neeson), a researcher who in the 1940s conducts the largest study of human sexuality up until that point. While initially amazed by the ignorance and misinformation about the topic of sex, Kinsey makes it his sort of quest to give people the information they want/need but "are too embarrassed to ask". But does Kinsey go too far in his pursuit of sexual knowledge and transparency? Battles with wife Clara (Laura Linney) and partners Wardell Pomeroy (Chris O'Donnell) & Clyde Martin (Peter Sarsgaard) certainly portray a man who's quest may have turned into a unhealthy obsession.

In terms of themes, "Kinsey" is a fascinating film about a very interesting subject. While perhaps some sexual taboos have been broken since the 1940s, there are still wide swaths of people who view all matters of sexuality as either "private" or "pornography". As such, Kinsey's foibles trying to get his study published in the 1940s probably aren't too off the mark from how a similar study would be received today. Kinsey certainly didn't seem to start out wanting to "pervert the nation", but instead just wanted people to have basic sexual facts/information.

Why the relatively paltry six-star rating for such an interesting topic? In all honesty, for a film that was produced in 2004, "Kinsey" has such an "old" look/feel to it. The acting is great, for the most part, but the production value and overall "feel" of the picture just doesn't lend any excitement or forward momentum. I often felt like I was watching a movie from perhaps the 1980s in terms of look/feel. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but I just expected more from a post-2000s film.

Thus, I think the bottom line for me was that while the themes of "Kinsey" intrigued me, the presentation came up lacking quite a bit (I also felt that the plots dragged at times and could have been a bit snappier). If you don't mind doing much of the mental work yourself, this will be an entertaining/informational experience for you. "Kinsey" is not, however, a movie where you can just relax and let it do all the work.

Good film shows Kinsey's strengths and weaknesses

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 3 October 2010]

Kinsey indeed did the nation a favor when he published his studies of the sex habits of the American male and female and the nation finally got a chance to see what was actually being done sexually versus the repressive conventions of the times that had many people believing that they were sexually abnormal. However, if the facts of the movie are largely true, it seems that Kinsey fell victim to the same basic fallacy as Ayn Rand. Kinsey seemed to believe that just because something - in this case sex - can be described and studied objectively, that it can and should be practiced objectively.

For example, Kinsey plunged into a homosexual affair with his assistant - with his wife's full knowledge - because he wanted to explore a side of himself he felt he had been repressing. His wife seems quite hurt by the revelation, but later she embarks on an affair with the same assistant when he tires of her husband, apparently with Kinsey's encouragement. Maybe this worked for the Kinseys, but for most people this type of behavior would break a relationship. It also seemed odd that Kinsey was as insistent and preachy about adults being sexually liberated as his father had been with the opposite viewpoint, ultimately alienating his own son just as his father had alienated him.

In the long run Kinsey's work was key to decriminalizing all kinds of sexual behavior that had been considered deviant up to that time.

This film was a very balanced and frank biopic of Dr. Kinsey, in my opinion.

Puritan America's sexual awakening through Kinsey...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 17 February 2008]

It never occurred to me that watching a film about Dr. Kinsey would be like watching a dry documentary about a fascinating subject. That's the impression one can get from the opening scenes--but fortunately, the film improves as it goes on.

The film is structured as a series of vignettes based on the sort of questions that were posed in the Kinsey Report which was widely read and published in the '50s--and to some degree it works. We see how Kinsey himself came to regard sex and the study of it.

JOHN LITHGOW is his puritan, uptight father ("The decline of the Roman Empire was due to too frequent use of bathing"), revealed through questions posed by CHRIS O'DONNELL and TIMOTHY HUTTON as Kinsey workers being trained to ask the probing questions. LIAM NEESON has the title role as the professor with the bold teaching methods unafraid to talk about sex. LAURA LINNEY is the forthright student who encounters Kinsey at college and forms a relationship with him. She's a brilliant scholar, a free thinker with a profound love of nature.

Unfortunately, watching some of the scenes unfold are like watching paint dry despite sincere performances by Neeson and Linney who hold the story together. The first awkward sexual experience between Neeson and Linney in marriage is almost painfully awkward and unsettling to watch. We realize while watching the early portions of the film that we were really in the dark about sexuality until Kinsey boldly brought forth talk about masturbation, homosexuality, oral sex, etc., which all were taboo subjects that kept everyone in the dark until his study was released.

Despite all the graphic sex talk, the film itself manages to be rather more dry than might be expected--and preachy, at that, when dealing with the regulations that governed sexual conduct in the 1950s and long before we treated sex as candidly as we do today in the media.

But it has to be commended for making a strong point about raising a significant question: What is normal? Until "The Kinsey Report" came out, nobody had the foggiest idea, so enormous was his contribution. Everybody read the report to find out if they were normal! We've come a long way since then. There's a lot to be said for the kind of enlightenment that came with "the report" that took most Americans out of the dark ages.

But oddly enough, with all the sex talk, the film is largely non-stimulating. Too bad there weren't more scenes like the one between JOHN LITHGOW and LIAM NEESON when Neeson convinces his father to be a subject for his report. OLIVIER PLATT gives a good performance as a fellow scientist and all of the supporting roles are well played by a fine cast. Nice work by LYNN REDGRAVE as a woman who, thanks to Kinsey, realizes she's not the only woman in the world to experience Lesbian tendencies and find fulfillment with a woman. And PETER SARSGAARD is wonderful as the bisexual who shares a torrid kissing scene with Neeson.

Summing up: Uneven film has many moments of truth leading up to publication of "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male"--and later, an equally well read study of the female--which became huge best-sellers and delivered a lot of folks from a life of ignorance about a topic dearest to their hearts.

Do not watch this movie thinking it is how things really were,, from all accounts given Kinsey was a far, FAR cry from how he is portrayed in this movie.

[reddiemurf81 · 1/10 · 30 March 2020]

I'm giving this a 1 bc I don't want to encourage anyone to watch this. I'm not certain the man was written as he actually was,, more of how he would be in a good movie about his life,,, from what has been written,, he was a terrible, perverted person. This movie was well made, but very uncomfortable to watch,,, give it a big pass,,,