User reviews

They took the easy way out on this one. Liam Neeson -- who, for the first time, I must judge to be in over his head -- gives us a Kinsey who is a prophet without honor in his own country, a scientist first and always, practically a saint.

Beginning as an entomologist he finds himself wondering what EXACTLY goes on in the human boudoir. We have to take into account that this is the mid-40s and nobody knows from sex. What I mean is that many believed that if you did something bad to yourself you'd grow hair on your palms. Things like that. A little outre.

And here comes Kinsey. What Darwin was to biology, and Freud to psychology, Kinsey was to the physical and social aspects of human sexuality. He used what are called "snowball samples," which are what you have when, say, you interview one gay guy and ask if he knows any other gay guys that might agree to an interview, and so on. This is not a very good way to get a sample, but Kinsey was operating in difficult times. Not a good sample? Nobody else HAD any samples! The chief source of data on sexuality was "clinical experience," the province of MDs who brought their own ideas to the discussion. Before Kinsey there was only Van deVelde's marriage guide, the most shocking message of which was that sex was for more than just reproduction, and when you went on your honeymoon don't expect to spend all your time coupling in a locked hotel room. Leave some space for skiing. The more literary among us in elementary school would sneak the guide off the library shelves and furtively skim through it looking for the dirty parts.

But overall the movie is rather dull. It's a simple-minded picture of Dr. Kinsey, the ex wasp man. He was not only a knight in unshining armor, although he was that too. He was a pretty weird guy.

The movie shows him going about gaily collecting "data", disinterested and coolly eager, but he had a lot more in the way of personal involvement than the movie suggests.

There is a scene in which he is alone with a young man in a hotel room and they both agree that on a scale of one to ten -- ten being completely homosexual -- they're about a three. Then they do something about finding out if that's true. That's all we see of Kinsey the man exploring his own sexuality. However he knew something about his bisexuality before undertaking the study, and he explored it in his adulthood. He got his wife into the picture more than once too. And there were group gropes that grew a little, well, what might later have been called kinky.

Kinsey enjoyed himself by tying ropes around his penis with plenty of knots (in the ropes) and then tugging on it to the point of pain as well as pleasure. There were times when he went a bit too far and suffered unpleasant infections. I hope I'm remembering this accurately. It's mostly from a profile in the New Yorker from some years ago.

Now, the REAL Kinsey sounds like an interesting fellow, whereas this paragon of objectivity is rather a bore. He can't seem to talk about much except how badly we need more information on sexual habits. (He was entirely right about that.) But he talks like that at parties too, and it gets repetitious after a while.

The movie ends sadly, after a cinematic biography whose trajectory is familiar to most of us. Genius has great idea and devotes his life and his talent to its exploration. He goes too far and alienates others. Runs out of money. Loving wife sticks with him. But we all know that though he may have died thinking he was a failure, his work will long outlive him.

The direction is flat, the dialog lacks sparkle, and Liam Neeson has a haircut that only Kim il Chong could envy.

What an interesting movie could have been made about this man and his career.

Kinsey suffered under his strictly moral religious father (John Lithgow). In Indiana University, student Clara 'Mac' McMillen (Laura Linney) is fascinated by professor Kinsey. Eventually they get married. Kinsey starts sex education but he finds the knowledge limited. He starts researching human sexuality with associate Clyde Martin (Peter Sarsgaard). First Kinsey has sex with Clyde and then Mac. Wardell Pomeroy (Chris O'Donnell) and Paul Gebhard (Timothy Hutton) join in the research team.

It's an interesting history. Kinsey is an oddball and he annoys me quite a bit. I like his relationship with Mac. The movie would be more appealing as a relationship movie. In the end, I don't really like Kinsey and I don't like what he does to Mac. I'm uncertain whether I like this movie or not.

Kinsey examines the work and methodology of human sexuality by Professor Alfred Kinsey (Liam Neeson) whose publication took 1940s America by storm and also aroused controversy.

The film tries to take a scientific approach to human sexuality and hence tries to take a detached, clinical approach to the story in order to make the subject of sex impersonal. However in doing this they rather made the characters in the film impersonal as well which was probably not the writer/director Bill Condon's intention.

The film has an interesting opening but when you see Kinsey as an adult its clear that Neeson is too old to play Kinsey in his 20s and it seems they have given him some helium to make his voice lighter for that part of the film.

As a biopic its breezy enough but I felt it was shallow. There is very little we know about the man or his wife after the film ends. One moment we see his kids as teenagers and then they disappear, we see some resolve with his horrible father who unloads a childhood trauma when interviewed by his son and that is it. Its almost film as a fast food serving. One moment Kinsey is the toast of the town, his book is a bestseller and then he is a pariah, losing funding and J Edgar Hoover after him.

The film is competently acted although Neeson does well as the older Kinsey rather than the younger version. John Lithgow impresses in the early scenes of the film.

This movie really irritated me, not so much because of the subject matter but because it presented the Nerd as Savior, a soothsayer who tells society the errors of its ways and leads them to truth. It was lighthearted in "Revenge of the Nerds," but "Kinsey" takes the analogy to absurd levels. He clearly has an itch for affecting public policy, not just describing the actual sexual habits of average Americans. The movie also waits till near the end to show the consequences of cheap sex in the name of science. Adultery in the real world doesn't result in such cool, reasoned responses. The entire movie made me want to punch Liam Neeson for his nerd preaching and clothe the oft-naked Peter Sarsgaard.

For a movie about sex research this one is quite disappointing. It is clinical, stiff, and downright boring in places. If Kinsay lacked the personality and interest for a good plot, why make the movie? Just because you could make a movie about construction of a cement plant, why would you? Overall a movie to sit through not enjoy. No criticisms of the acting. Neeson and Linney are in good form, as is Skaarsgaard. But there is something lacking here. Basic dramatic elements for one thing. If Kinsey really was a robotic-like bug collector who switched over to sex research, there are perhaps not enough elements for a good flick.