Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Eyecannon
Mar 13, 2003

you are what you excrete
Directed by: Bill Condon
Starring: Liam Neeson, Laura Linney, Chris O'Donnell, John Lithgow, Peter Sarsgaard

This film chronicles Alfred Kinsey, a biologist turned sexologist who is well known for his first major sex book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. This man seems almost completely devoid of emotions, and views everything in an extremely dry scientific manner.

He started out his career focused on collecting hundreds of thousands of wasps, but after some sexual issues with his wife, he decides to solve the riddle of human sexuality. His method of doing this involves interviewing thousands of people to extrapolate statistics about various sexual acts and proclivities. His hypothesis is that what is generally considered normal sexual activity is only one minor piece of what truly goes on on the bedroom.

As Kinsey learns more and more that sexuality is the result of arbitrary societal constraints, he becomes freer in his own sexuality, which at first threatens to dissolve his marriage, but his wife is incredibly accepting, and she gets the obligatory revenge-adultery so everything is A-OK.

In this film, we not only get to hear dozens of humorous sexual accounts from diverse people, but we also get to see Kinsey's life from his childhood as the son of a strict preacher to his getting married and rearing children. Although he is sexually open with his children, he mirrors his father in his disapproval of his son's choice of career.

Although it's pretty good, I only gave it a 3.5/5 because it could have used a little tighter editing, however, Liam Neeson is really great in this role, and Laura Linney does her usual excellent job as well. It's also a great view of the early 20th century, in a way that I've never seen before.

Kinsey Institute Homepage

RATING: 3.5

PROS: very funny at times, historically interesting, great acting by the leads
CONS: dragged a little in certain parts

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0362269/

Eyecannon fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Nov 13, 2004

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ynotony
Apr 14, 2003

Yea...this is pretty much the smartest thing I have ever done.
I really enjoyed watching this movie. Fortunately I was able to follow up the movie with a lecture and discussion with the writer/director Bill Condon. Being an 18 year old just starting college and having sex all around helped me pay extra attention to the various perceptions of sex in the movie. The acting was awesome; Liam neeson was very good. One beef I have with it is that the story jumped around a lot through time and it is hard to keep track of ages/relationships which are constantly changing. At one point in the movie Liam Neeson is supposed to be playing Kinsey in his Mid-20's but it really didnt sell so I thought it was kinsey in his late 30's - this screwed up the context of the scenes quite a bit for me.

Overall I reccomend seeing it, it definitely induces great conversation afterwards.

Rating 4.5

Unbathed
Sep 11, 2001

Source of Funds
I hope the costumes, hair and makeup people get noticed by the Academy. The big "sexual history montage" puts at least fifty character actors on screen one at a time, and the "cross section of America in the late 40s" look impressed me.

consumerista
Aug 30, 2004
chillin' like a villain
I expected a lot more from this movie. Peter Sarsgaard, Liam Neeson and Laura Linney were all great but the story was dragging and skipped a lot of potentially interesting parts. Also- if you like your movies to have endings, this is not the film for you.

I wanted more about the "sexual histories" and juicy sexual details, but most of it was the story of Dr. Kinsey's life.

ajrosales
Dec 19, 2003

This is not a movie that skirts around a difficult issue with the intent of homogenizing the experience of dr. kinsey. It is very explicit and frank and might actually offend those that are not ready to be challenged by this story. In fact, four people walked out of the theatre that I went to (which was only 1/4 full - if that), and I have a feeling that some of the issues were just too hotbutton for them to handle...

The acting is really great in this story but what really takes the cake is the way this movie forces you to understand kinsey's inner scientific motivations. I found that they did a terrific job of presenting sensitive material in a way which explains exactly why we needed kinsey when he came along. There is a bit of a nonchalant attitude about certain issues, such as kinsey and his wife's extramarital affairs, kinsey's method of documenting sexual behavior on film, and also his encounter with a person that many would consider to be a sexual predator. But, I felt to was necessary for them to do this in order to soften the blow a little for more sensitive people. How many people would think it's ok to show a woman having sex with her husband's gay lover?? Things like that help catapault this movie into an elite status in my mind. The only thing about this movie is that the ending is a little unresolved. I almost didn't want the story to end where it did. But I do realize that it ends on a lower note because to a certain degree, many of the subjects that kinsey studied are still considered taboo by the general public. I felt that it showed a need to keep these studies in the consious minds of the public as we slip increasingly into a more and more conservative mindset in the US.

all in all, this is a very well done movie and I didn't think it dragged like the people above me seemed to think. It patiently adressed the issues in mature and thoughtful ways, because it wasn't trying to be sensational like loveline with adam corolla and dr. drew.. (does corolla have a cameo in this movie.. the bald gay dude??) It clearly presented kinsey's inner motivations, and his logical and rational thought processes.

4.5

ajrosales fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Nov 21, 2004

4th Chamber
Oct 23, 2004

TIGER WTF
Kinsey is an interesting look at sexual history of America, and more importantly, the man who helped bring about the discussion of sex to the American forefront. Being a biologist with strong religious background, Kinsey's struggle and excitement to find out about sex amongst the common American is an interesting and sometimes hilarious spectacle to witness. The plot unfolds through an interesting device, its Kinsey answering his own questions that he asked the thousands of people he interviewed. And the interviews are the best part of the movie. We laugh as people young and old provide an insight into the naive nature of sexual knowlege.

The cast is solid, Liam Neeson is strong as the title character, although Kinsey within himself is a little boring and methodical (blame that on the strong science background). The supporting cast is good, especially Linney who plays his wife. We notice her personal struggles with being married to the man who was struggling with social acceptance. It't nice to see the micro and macro problems faced by Kinsey and his family. Kinseys assitants were also interesting, and added a nice touch to the story. In fact, I felt they were almost more interesting than Kinsey himself.

I didn't find the movie ultimately satisfying, though. Little plot resolution is presented, and leaves more questions that they could have easily answered with a single scene added on. I recommend seeing this movie if you want to experience what sexual life was like in the early/mid 20th century or want to see a drama that isn't extremely over bearing or depressing.

RATING: 3.0


Side note: me and my date, even if you combined our ages (being 19 each) were the youngest in the full theatre.

Sarcasmo
Dec 1, 2003

Il me restait à souhaiter qu'ils m'accueillent avec des cris de haine.
I loved it.

The only problem I had was that the kissing scene between Liam Neeson and his assistant caught me off-guard. poo poo, here I thought I knew all the gay historical figures, and yet I ignore the one man who I should credit most. Oh well.

The scene that really got me, though, was one at the end, and the other in the gay bar. If you've seen the movie, you'll have probably already shed a tear or two over those scenes.

Awesome, very well done. A little slow at times, but very nice. I like how unflinching it was, and I appreciated it even more because they didn't shy away from depicting the human body. Far too many movies get rated NC-17 for a lot of the content in this movie. I really hope that this is indicative of a trend towards realizing that showing bush or prick in a movie does not automatically make it unsuitable for minors.

4.5

Sarcasmo fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Dec 2, 2004

Indigentia
Jun 27, 2004

PREHISTORIC DIATRIBE COMMENCE
Saw this last night.

An incredible film - great acting all around and an interesting, historical story. I know/knew little to nothing about the characters and events this film revolves around prior to seeing the film, this turned out to be entertaining and highly interesting.

Ironic that the Christian right-wing media of today is smearing this film as much as it smeared the subjects of the film back in the 1940s-50s.

Rated a 5.

Indigentia fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Dec 6, 2004

CombatMedic
Feb 26, 2004

ANUDDAH SUCCESSFOOL PRECEEDJUH!
This movie could have been great if it had been put in the hands of a competent editor. There were way too many time-jumps that could have easily been made less awkward with a simple line of text at the bottom of a scene indicating "June 1952" or what-have-you.

Several of the scenes juse seemed to end in the wrong place at the wrong time, specifically, the scene where he interviews his father. That should have either been extended, or cut out entirely. It added nothing to the film as it was.

Beyond that, I think hiring a gay director (Condon) was a poor choice for this movie as the movie seemed to be overly focused on the homo/bisexual aspects of Kinsey and his subjects, when that wasn't nearly the most interesting plotline.

Overall I would give this movie a 3.0.

FIRE CURES BIGOTS
Aug 26, 2002

by Y Kant Ozma Post
I LOVED this movie. Kinsey was a hero who broke taboos that needed to be broken and struck blows to repressive idiotic cristian sexual norms. I can't conceive of how Republicans and other facsits could do the things they did in that time and to think there are people now who want to go back to that. The scene with the man at the gay bar who was literally branded as a communist and disowned by his family members and the final interview subject were touching and paint a true illustration of what those people suffered, far better and more accuratly than Mel Gibson's crappy movie where jesus just gets beat up with no meaning and no real message behind it.



5/5

StrikerObi
Aug 1, 2003
SECharger73 hates sad reminders :[
I liked this movie overall. The only thing I didn't really like about it is the lack of a concrete ending. This is a biography piece, and it just ends in the woods. I expected some sort of text explination such as "Kinsey continued his work and died on such and such a date of such and such a diseaes."

Peter Sarsgard was great in this movie, as he is in pretty much every movie I've seen him in.

Liam Neeson is fantastic.

Just a warning to some, there's lots of cock in this movie.

The "How did you know! I had sex with a pony!" scene is one of the funniest moments in any movie of 2004.

Overall: 3.5/5, 4 if it had a better ending.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

insideoutsider
Aug 31, 2003

You want a van? I get you a van.
I saw this film last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. The film had a lot to say about tolerance of people's choices and the idiocy of of society binding to Christian morals. The only problem I had with the plot was that it was a daunting task to explore everything in Alfred Kinsey's life. Many of his relationships with his father, his children and some of his assistants wasn't clear and I found myself filling in a few blanks.

Peter Sarsgard was teriffic and he's slowly becomming one of my favorite actors. I thought his character was able to keep up with Neeson and Linney in many of the scenes. Jon Lithgow was a surprised and turned out to be a great character. I wish he would have been more involved though.

Condon did a good job with this bio-pic, there weren't any shots that left me wanting more but he did a good job of telling the story in under two hours. Some people here say the film dragged which I didn't notice a whole lot and I felt the film was a good length. Although I left the theater curious about aspects of the film that were left unexamined.

3.5/5

  • Post
  • Reply