Andrew Ellington 2008-09-22

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

It's funny to me that in the year that has been labeled `the year of the biopic' it was the better of them all that was shunned by Oscar. Sure, `Kinsey' is a very blunt and somewhat offensive biopic, but it is one of the better crafted and superbly constructed of the many that were dropped on us in 2004. It is superior to `Finding Neverland' in the acting department; it is superior to `The Aviator' is its ability to grasp the sense of character and it is superior to `Ray' in its technical construction, allowing the audience to delve into Alfred Kinsey without hesitation. The three aforementioned films all received a Best Picture nomination at the 2004 Oscars, and while I can't say that I would have nominated any of these films in that category (such a strong year fro film) I can honestly say that `Kinsey' is the better film overall*.

The film tells the story of Alfred Kinsey, a professor who indulged his own sensual cravings by creating a study of human sensuality (it's really hard to write a review about this film when the most harmless of descriptive words can get your review banned). His strict religious parents are much apposed to his lifestyle but this doesn't stop him from exploring a subject that so many see as taboo. Enlisting the help of some eager young students (not to mention his understanding yet suppressed wife Clara) Kinsey interviews thousands of men and women for his study, asking very frank yet very pertinent questions.

The film is much more than a film about sensuality, it is a film about humanity and the blinders that some of us put up in order to justify our passions. As Kinsey pushes forward with his study he begins to push those around him away as the emotionally destructive course they set for themselves begins to crush in around them. Kinsey finds himself unaffected by the emotional weight, but he cannot help but be affected by the distance between himself and lovers.

Liam Neeson is outstanding as Kinsey, devouring whole this mans every inhibition. He delivers one of the strongest performances of the year, so strong that it baffles me Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio and especially Johnny Depp received Oscar nominations over Neeson. His sincerity and honesty is seen all over his face as the weight of his project begins to sink in. Laura Linney (the sole Oscar nominee in the bunch) is very good here, if not a bit overrated. I hate saying this, because she is lovely, but she is not the films standout. She delivers a relatable and likable performance, but she tends to float out of focus when sharing the screen with the films other stars. Chris O'Donnell actually turns out a very good performance, as does John Lithgow (who just shines with all sorts of blessed light) who portrays Alfred's father with tremendous power. Oliver Platt and Tim Curry and Timothy Hutton all take their limited roles and make them bigger than they really are...

...but I want to take a few minutes to bask in the greatness that is Peter Sarsgaard. I mean, seriously, this young man may be the actor of our generation. Every performance he has delivered has been strong and admirable, and yet the Academy still insists on snubbing him (from `Boys Don't Cry' to `Shattered Glass' to `Kinsey' and `Jarhead' this young man should be a four time nominee at this point). His portrayal of Kinsey's lapdog Clyde is phenomenal. His lusting for Kinsey is desirable and believable; his tenderness as a friend and lover is endearing and his frustrated feeling of betrayal is heartbreaking. He delivers such a well rounded and grounded performance that I am ashamed he was snubbed come Oscar time.

And then there is his "would you like to?" line to Kinsey in the hotel room; the single greatest line reading of the entire year. That scene took my breath away, and that is not too easy to do.

`Kinsey' is a very blunt film. There are a lot of conversations and graphic depictions that may turn some heads and leave you feeling a little offended (there is one particular interview, one for which Wardell actually gets up and leaves, that left me feeling quite uneasy). If you can look past the films in-your-face qualities though, you can see the beauty that lies within each frame. This is one of those biopic's that gets it all right and delivers a truly satisfying and memorable movie experience.

*Looking back over my reviews I noticed that I gave some pretty high ratings to the three Oscar nominated biopic's, none of which really deserved the love I showered on them. I gave `Finding Neverland' an A, which is quite extreme. I am not really hating myself for it (it is a children's biopic, and a very sweet family film) but it doesn't deserve five stars, maybe four would be better. I gave both `Ray' and `The Aviator' four stars, and both probably deserve three, especially `Ray' which only gets worse every time I see it. I'd give `The Aviator' a low B, so it keeps its four stars, and `Ray' a C, so I'd like to drop the rating to three stars. I can't, but I'd like to.

Cosmoetica 2008-09-13

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Kinsey, the 2004 biopic from director Bill Condon, was not nearly as bad a film as I thought it might be. That said, it's not a particularly good film, either. This is the follow up film to Condon's Gods And Monsters, and where that film, about Frankenstein director James Whale, made the good choice to focus only on a small portion of its subject's life, this film, again, makes the predictable error of trying to be far too encompassing. It also is awash in Freudian psychobabble, trying to pin sex researcher Alfred Kinsey's sex obsession on, variously, his stern father (John Lithgow, who was woefully miscast)- who is later revealed as having suffered sexual humiliation for a boyhood masturbation fetish, his sexually inexperienced wife Clara McMillen- aka Mac (Laura Linney), and his own latent bisexuality, among many causes. Kinsey's sex research from the middle of last century has made both it and its compiler the subject of controversy. The fallacious claims he made about ten percent of the population being homosexual have long been debunked, and serious errors he made in compiling information, as well as poorly selected study subjects is well known. However, discrediting the man's scientific prowess has not been enough for many on the reactionary Right. Latter day myths about Kinsey's involvement in pedophilia and child abuse in researching childhood sexuality have no basis in fact, and the person, Dr. Judith Reisman, who first made the claims in 1981, then followed up with a whole 1990 book, called Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, co-written with Edward Eichel, was proved to be the liar. The Kinsey Institute denied the charges, Reisman filed a defamation lawsuit in 1991 against them, but, in1994, the suit was dismissed with prejudice, means Reisman cannot refile- de facto meaning her suit was nonsense. Still, many in the public will see the film either as a `whitewashing of the truth' or a hagiography of a deeply flawed man and scientist.... Simply forget what you've heard and deal with the film. Or, assume he was a degenerate, and just deal with the `lies'. Either way, unfortunately, it won't leave much in your mind.

C. Conzett 2008-08-02

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Fantastic movie about fighting ignorance about sex in the 1950s. Shows what one person is capable of!

A Positive Guy 2008-04-22

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

but it can't be denied that Dr. Alfred Kinsey made some important contributions in our understanding of Sexuality. This movie probably glosses over and rounds off some of the hard edges of the man and his work.

Liam Neeson and Laura Linney play their parts superbly. What struck me the most about this film was the way Kinsey doggedly and dogmatically went about his research-perfecting it in every way as the years went by. His first volume "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" was probably accepted better than his follow-up "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" because America was a little more apt to admit that the men were, well just being men. But when histories came out about women, it was shocking and scandalous. I mean, didn't people think that females were so very different than men? While I do believe there are subtle nuances between the two sexes, I think we are probably more alike than we like to admit, whether in 1948 or 2008.

If Kinsey pushed the door open half-way with his work, the sexual revolution of the 1960's and the discovery of the birth control pill smashed it to pieces. And where are we today? I think it is a mixed bag. Certainly to be more comfortable with our bodies, feelings etc., is a good thing. Also the obnoxious moralizing from the Victorian era is largely a thing of the past. By and large we seem more comfortable with ourselves. We now know of the agendas of the closed-minded people who claimed to speak under the seal and shield of God and did so with authoritarian bigotry and for the most part, impunity.

Yet we still exploit sex and do it more than we ever have. We act as if it is not that big a deal and thereby trivialize it. If there is anything to learn from the film and from Kinsey himself, it's that the controls must come from inside. No attempt to legislate, engender guilt or shame, or any other force without is ultimately successful. Sex can greatly and supremely enhance a person's life or destroy it.

With Kinsey, science met humanity and it seemed a perfect marriage. Yet, it still left some residual discomfort that is being felt to this day. I think this movie says to us, "Don't shoot the messenger." Kinsey simply shed light on a 'taboo' subject. Was his research skewed? That is argued to this day. Was it mostly accurate? I would say probably yes. But ultimately, can we ever know with any certainty what goes on in our neighbor's head/bedrooms?

Kinsey's work probably appealed to the voyeur inherent in a lot of people. I am sure it liberated some people who desparately needed it. In other cases I think it probably gave a certain 'license' to those who live on the fringe of society such as sex abusers, the emotionally unstable, and the libertine. But with an atmosphere that was present in the late 1800's and early 1900's, who can blame everyday people for wanting to throw off the shackles of igornance and Puritanism? Doctors-men of science dispensed some of the most idiotic and dangerous advice under the guise of keeping people 'pure.' Today, all but the most ignorant and rabid fundamentalists accept the role of sex in a well-rounded person.

When viewing this movie, remember the context and the frame of time in which it was set. In some ways it is charmingly naive, and in others very frank and 'in your face.' As Kinsey said, "Love is the ultimate answer, but in the meantime, sex raises some very interesting questions." Yes, indeed.

Ed Uyeshima 2008-04-06

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

Since its publication sixty years ago, the first Kinsey Report (real title: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male) has taken on mythic proportions for its groundbreaking look at never-before-examined human sexual habits. Dr. Alfred Kinsey is certainly worthy of a film biopic, and writer-director Bill Condon embraces the idea with a healthy respect for his subject, a strong sense of period atmosphere, and the same wry sense of humor he displayed in his fanciful James Whale tale, Gods and Monsters. Condon effectively uses as a black-and-white framing device, the preparation for the interview process by which Kinsey and his staff surveyed people about their sexual habits. The director shows how Kinsey painstakingly teaches his research team how to get their hundreds of interview subjects to open up and speak freely about their sexual histories and as a result, revolutionized the way we think about sex. The 2004 film doesn't shy away from the double standards that exist to this day regarding the candor and explicitness of Kinsey's findings.

What resonates most is how Kinsey strove to break down barriers and taboos and social conventions, while continuing to be a flashpoint for the religious right as the instigator of the sexual revolution and the downfall of morality. The acting by the two leads is superb and unexpected. Liam Neeson gives a fierce and fearless performance in the title role, an obsessive-compulsive biologist who doesn't bat an eyelash when he translates the methodology he used in studying gall wasps into his forbidding survey of human sexuality. Neeson pitches his characterization between eccentric and megalomaniac and lets the doctor's maddening genius pour out of him without caution. As his plainspoken wife, Clara McMillen, Laura Linney imbues what could have been a passive role with a searching intelligence as she willingly stands by her brilliant husband but not without injecting her own sensibilities into their marriage. She and Neeson manage a terrific rapport based on a mutual respect and intellectual fascination. They play out their first sexual experience with honesty and conviction, though truthfully, both are way too long in the tooth to be credible as college students early in the story.

Peter Sarsgaard gives a subtle, often incisive portrayal of Clyde Martin, the bisexual researcher who successfully seduces both Kinsey and his wife but ultimately falters when he marries and finds his wife cheating on him. As Clyde's fellow research colleagues, Chris O'Donnell is the swaggering Wardell Pomeroy and Timothy Hutton is the slick, mustachioed Paul Gebhard, but neither leaves that much of an impression since their characters are designed as male archetypes rather than full-blooded characters. Oliver Platt plays his usually facile, comic self as Kinsey's one consistent supporter, Indiana University president Herman Wells, especially when Kinsey's work became too notorious for public figures to become sponsors or even to associate with him. Tim Curry seems to be making fun of his own Rocky Horror past by playing an uptight professor jealous of Kinsey's success. In little more than cameo roles that turn into memorable turns, the film includes William Sadler as a sexual satyr, John McMartin as philanthropist Huntington Hartford and Lynn Redgrave as a lesbian thankful to Kinsey for his research.

The one presumptive flaw of the film is the expectation that the viewer is already aware of the full historical context of Kinsey's work. More exposition would have been helpful. The weakest scenes, however, are the predictably drawn flashbacks to Kinsey's childhood, when he experienced an unfulfilled crush on an Eagle Scout, masturbated in shame, and eventually left home in rebellion against a brutally puritanical father. The father is played with fire-and-brimstone fury by John Lithgow, who seems to be channeling the same role he played in Footloose twenty years ago. The scene where he reveals his own sexual secrets years later with his son seems particularly contrived. The film also falters somewhat during the darker denouement after Kinsey falls ill. Regardless, the primary story is successful in stirring passion and sparking debate just exactly Kinsey would have wanted.

The two-disc 2005 DVD set offers solid extras. Disc One provides the film along with an optional commentary from Condon. He is informative without being pedantic about not only the topic, especially the inhibitions that exist to this day about sex, but also the complexities of the production. The centerpiece of Disc Two is the ninety-minute documentary, "The Kinsey Report: Sex on Film". It is admittedly comprehensive delving into specifics about Kinsey, his research institute, the production, and of course, sex. There are 21 deleted scenes, some quite fascinating, that amount to the length of a second film. Also included are a brief gag reel, theatrical and teaser trailers for the movie, a tour of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction, and a 45-question interactive sex questionnaire. Highly recommended despite its flaws for anyone interested in how the so-called sexual revolution started.