IMDb user comments for
Kinsey (2004)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 18:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

176 comments in total

---

139 out of 183 people found the following comment useful :-
Sex, sex, sex, sex, sex and, oh yeah, sex...., 3 December 2004
Author: Merwyn Grote (majikstl@aol.com) from St. Louis, Missouri

"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.

---

101 out of 124 people found the following comment useful :-
Finally, someone did TALK about it!, 1 December 2004

Author: SomeBlueDevil from Florida, USA

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.

A wake-up call for a prudish nation and a must see in my (European :)) book.

---

85 out of 107 people found the following comment useful :-
Before Dr. Ruth and the others, there was Dr. Kinsey..., 28 November 2004

Author: jotix100 from New York

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.

---

84 out of 107 people found the following comment useful :-
Kinsey enlightens a controversial subject, 28 November 2004
Author: seaview1

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.

---

51 out of 77 people found the following comment useful :-
A Politically Pointed Re-Creation of a Past that Could Be Prologue, 3 December 2004
Author: noralee from Queens, NY

Just as the focus of "Kinsey" thought he was being objective about a topic that had only been treated subjectively, the film is not an objective bio-pic.

For the first half of the movie, the exquisite production design, costumes and make-up effectively recreate middle America before World War II, as Kinsey's rigid upbringing and equally rigid scientific life as a zoologist are established.

Laura Linney as first his student then his wife adds an earthy and warm element and her excellent acting adds womanliness beyond the script to the movie that is missing otherwise. Their gradual move into teaching and studying sexuality is shown convincingly in contrast to the prigs around them, with, ironically surely, Tim Curry playing his puritanical academic rival.

Accurate details include showing and reading from a popular marriage manual, Theodoor H. van de Velde's "Ideal Marriage: Its Physiology and Technique;" when I ran a used book sale at my local synagogue we would get many unread copies donated from now elderly couples who had received it as part of pre-marital rabbinical counseling and it was hilarious how sexist and inaccurate it was.

But writer/director Bill Condon takes considerable interpretive leaps as he moves on to "the inner circle," as T. Coraghessan Boyle terms it in his fictionalized interpretation, when Kinsey hires, trains, works and lives closely with male assistants for his first research project on men.

Peter Sarsgaard is the stand out in the trio, as outstanding as his role in "Shattered Glass" and as all holds barred as in "The Center of the World." But his characterization leans toward a cavalier attitude towards women that is emblematic of this film until literally the last minute. I don't see why his character would be jealous to the point of fisticuffs of the attentions Timothy Hutton's flirtatious assistant would be paying to his wife when he seemed to condescend to marriage only for appearance's sake anyway.

The film dwells on gay men and skips through the research done to produce the second tome on women, pointing out mostly Kinsey's corrective biological information, therefore gliding over how it was the revelations about women that shocked the nation and led to difficult political and other consequences, though Margaret Sanger and Emma Goldman had promulgated similar information about women decades earlier (and had been hounded out of the country for their efforts). The Kinsey Institute's FAQ on their Web site point out the active partnership of female research assistants for this work, who simply don't exist in the film. (And the Congressional investigations of foundations in the 1950's didn't just focus on the Rockefeller Foundation's funding of Kinsey, but they haven't yet posted their correctives on their Web site.)

Similarly, as Kinsey is shown taking the leap from taxonomy to adviser as an avatar of the coming sexual revolution, the psychological component of relationships, let alone sex, only comes up once such that Liam Neeson's characterization ultimately seems naive. But Condon is more interested in the political component, as he clearly sees a similar tide of conservative criticism rising across the land again.

One also gets the feeling that someone either read the script or saw a working print of the film and had to gently point out to Condon that women simply get short shrift, so suddenly an extremely poignant coda is added, with Lynn Redgrave as a very moving interviewee on how Kinsey's work affected her life directly.

The aging make-up and cinematography are beautiful in indicating the passage of time, matching seasonal passings and making early discussions seem to have been documented in black and white.

The casting of the many research subjects is wonderfully varied and the New York metropolitan area locations, recognizable only to the cognoscenti, stand in very well for varied cities, academic and sylvan locales.

The closing credits are surrounded by fun period songs and zoological interactions.

---

38 out of 61 people found the following comment useful :-
My brief review of the film, 4 January 2005
Author: sol- from Perth, Australia

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.

---

34 out of 54 people found the following comment useful :-
The next best thing to talking about sex with body language, 13 June 2005

Author: Brandt Sponseller from New York City

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.

---

35 out of 57 people found the following comment useful :-
Excellent Job --- thoughtful, engrossing, special, 12 November 2004

Author: felixoscar from New York, USA

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!

---

18 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
All About Sex... Or Is It?, 11 January 2006

Author: nycritic

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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."

---

11 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Condon's Mastery Depicting Kinsey's Sexology & Sexualities, 19 October 2007

Author: semioticz from United States

One of the mid-20th century sexologists, Alfred C. Kinsey, is brought to life through a stellar performance by Liam Neeson. Screenplay writer & director, Bill Condon, who should have won an Oscar for "Gods and Monsters," uses an enticing technique of switching between B&W scenes & color ones. In the former, Kinsey is depicted as a subject, in a clinical setting, responding to his own sex survey questions. In the latter, Condon takes us through flashbacks of choice intimate events during Kinsey's younger life. This combination of screenplay & direction movement between the past in color & the present in B&W seems contradictory. However, it is quite effective to draw out the importance of how significant, if not 'colorful', Kinsey's upbringing was while living in his father-preacher's (John Lithgow) anti-sexual & puritanical home.

Kinsey's sexology includes so many open-ended questions that they leave room for respondents to elaborate upon their true sexual experiences. Their thousands of responses included in Kinsey's research {published as "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) & "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953)} are anything but black & white! It is to Kinsey's credit, his passion, the effectiveness of his research techniques, that sexology discovered US respondents were eager to speak about sex. Since Kinsey's findings are not what the US public expected to learn, his research became controversial. For instance, the first book found males had many more same-gender sexual experiences than anyone imagined. The second book really rocked the world when Kinsey's research showed that females shared the same sexual desires as males! From the start of the film to the end it is loaded with sexological words: in other words, the clinical names for genital body parts & sexual activities. Sexual activities are spoken of scientifically & sometimes depicted. This is not by any means a pornographic motion picture. It is about the science of sexology. But, most especially, it is a fine film that aptly portrays both the research & intimate passions of the world famous US sexologist, Kinsey.

It's not necessarily an adults-only film; depending upon how well prepared & educated teens are in studies of human sexual behavior. I feel Condon masters the topics of sexology & sexualities.

---

---

Page 1 of 18:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history