User reviews

*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.

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.

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

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..."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well made, although I did feel it came over as a bit of a 'by the numbers' biopic. Although there's no denying the impact the work that Kinsey did had on modern society, I felt the film was a bit of a let- down. It did have its moments of sentimentality, but there was much more that I couldn't connect with. I guess because I never really connected with any of the main characters. The start is quite slow and ponderous but it does pick up through the middle third; by the third act I felt it had lost focus again. During the process of compiling his data Kinsey explores his own sexuality and in showing this (I believe) the filmmakers made a big mistake. After that I found it hard to take the him seriously I'm afraid and, although they do try to separate sex and love; and fail miserably; the film never really did enough to redeem itself. Worth a look, up to a point, but be warned; some of you may find some of it hard to swallow (in more ways than one).

My score: 5.9/10

IMDb Score: 7.1/10 (based on 28,156 votes at the time of going to press).

MetaScore: 90/100: (Based on 189 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes 'Tomatometer' Score: 79/100 (based on 40 reviews counted at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes 'Audience' Score: 73/100 'Liked It' (based on 32,388 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).

You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

I feel sorry to tell you that this was a downright stodgy watch, i didn't like neeson personality as well as the stilted talks through out the film, i think he doesn't match with the original character because i believe the real one is way more captivating (cooler)than this chosen actor (neeson). Overall the movie bereft of Basic efffects needed not to mention the poor insufficient drama scenes since it's basically a drama biographical film, however, i still respect and appreciated the eeforts that been put into the making of this film to revive the biography of man who helped victim of sexual ignorance and revealed priggishism of society like how they they used to disguise their morality as facts, the movie also shows the beggining of his renowned invention the Kinsey scale which was courageous initiative from kinsey i will give this movie six for kinsey's sake while hardly one star for the movie performance .

"Kinsey," the biopic about controversial and groundbreaking sex doctor Alfred Kinsey, suffers from hero worship of its subject. The film makes some attempt to dissect the demons plaguing Kinsey the man, but overall the film is too reverent and glossy to adequately dive into the controversy Kinsey created. It doesn't so much encourage debate as tell you which side you should agree with.

Liam Neeson is good enough as Kinsey, and Laura Linney received an Oscar nomination for playing his put-upon wife. Lynn Redgrave, in an itsy-bitsy cameo at the film's finale, makes an impression as a woman who benefited from the lessons Kinsey taught the world about human sexuality, even if the ending overall veers into the maudlin.

Grade: B

It's a good movie. Not a terrific movie but a good movie. Of course, if you have read "The Inner Circle" you will be somehow disappointed. I don't think this movie is based on the marvelous book from T.C. Boyle but it sure could be. It really follows the book closely as a movie can follow a book, though Boyle portrays a much more uninhibited, freaky and sex frantic Kinsey. Who is closer to the truth I leave up to you to find out.

Liam Neeson is once again true to his acting brilliancy. A delight to see that man work! But not even Neeson manages with 52 to portray a much younger Kinsey at the beginning of his career, a clear minus point in my opinion. Another annoying circumstance was the repetitive coming back to Kinsey's b&w interview.

But all in all a good and important story, told well with the necessary hollywoodian restraints to avoid "sensitive" people to get frightened and shocked and disturbed. I wonder what that movie might have become in the hands of a bolder director. I don't even want to think what it would have become in the hands of David Lynch.

It has my approval. You can go and watch it and even take your children.

PS: To all those attacking this movie and pleading for the values of the so called "jewish-christian morality", let me just say that many of the historical-practical examples of that (a)morality until our very own days make Kinsey simply look like a virgin.

Which tells me Kinsey (2004) is a film that basically accomplishes everything it sets out to do. It is a film that takes a gentle yet unflinching look at human sexuality Professor Alfred Kinsey and his unorthodox practices in late 1940s America. It is a film that is so unbelievably detached in its narration that it strips the story of emotion in every scene—a clinical, impersonal and scientific view of sex, but also of its main character. Yet, it is a film that will keep your interest throughout by providing quirky information about everyone's favourite subject – sex.

If Kinsey was meant as a film about human sexuality and the way it was studied in the 1940s-1950s, then it is a very good portrayal since it has such a detached tone and treats its subject matter much like Dr. Kinsey did – scientifically. It is refreshingly clear-eyed. However, as far as biopics go, this is not a grand accomplishment or even a stimulating one. In exploring its titular character Kinsey, it is a shallow and listless portrayal that manages merely competent. Liam Neeson does the best he can but there is no flair, little depth and no heartfelt feeling.

The only thing that saves this film from being completely bland is its racy content and even that is hushed down to a scientific approach. This is fine since any 'sexy' approach would have been exploitative and pointless, but it does make 'Kinsey' a very forgettable fare. I guess the filmmakers were kind of setting themselves up for disappointment with the cinematic realization of Kinsey's life – there are not many ways in which you can steer the story to make it great. Nice effort, though.

6/10

but take out the nudity, and it seemed like a biography special on A&E. Not a whole lot of excitement. Neeson plays Dr. Kinsey, one of the first "sex experts" in America who wrote books and conducted studies on the subject. He and his wife have an "open" relationship as they allow each other to explore their sexuality as well as Kinsey's assistants. Kinsey and his wife even share an assistant. I thought that was a little too weird for me.

Kinsey and his assistants interview sex weirdos and even video tape acts in order to study them. They don't seem to have problems finding volunteers. When Kinsey starts his first sexuality class at his college, it was very popular. His first book was praised but his second one was criticized. That was one of the reasons he continued to work so hard with future work even though he was having health problems. He wanted to come out with a 3rd book that would be popular.

FINAL VERDICT: Nothing great. One could easily get bored with this. So, I don't recommend it unless you are a psychology major.

The subject matter is bold; the pleas for openness instead of censorship are commendable. However, it is disappointing that much of "Kinsey" argues its points via the very predictable route of pandering to the audience's sense of superiority--in this case by inviting it to laugh at and condescend to the past. The film opens with a preacher in the early years of the twentieth century ranting about corrupting modern influences such as the radio and the telephone (how quaint!); later, Kinsey's opponents gasp and shake their wobbling jowls at Kinsey's preposterous notions about masturbation, premarital sex and homosexuality (and as in most movies of this sort the conservative opposition consists almost entirely of older white men; the older women, like cast members of "The Golden Girls," are more likely to twinkle about how frequently they make love).

Still, on the whole this is an engaging portrait of Alfred Kinsey, the first scientist to study human sexuality in a systematic, data based manner, mainly due to the very likable performance of Liam Neesom as the earnest, nebbishy Kinsey (although Laura Linney, drabbed down almost to unrecognizability, contributes a lot as Mac, his incredibly patient wife). Even though the film uses the sassy tagline "let's talk about sex" and contains plenty of explicit scenes, it is not particularly erotic. This is probably because despite clearly having a very satisfying marital relationship with Mac (and at least one liaison with his attractive male assistant) Kinsey is presented first and foremost a scientist who sees his human subjects as a sort of giant species of gall wasp--he seems so dedicated to his studies that I think it's safe to take his word for it when he claims to have pierced his foreskin merely because as a researcher he was interested in whether it would create any pleasurable sensations.

Definitely worth a look.