Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

I found this film to be an interesting and engrossing account of the Life of Alfred Kinsey,played by liam Neeson.whether you like him or not,if the movie is any indication,he was a pioneer in the area of sexual research.at the very least he changed the way peopled look at and perceive sex.he's no doubt a polarizing figure.some people ,I'm sure,reviled him while others applauded him.the movie is very in its language and its depiction of sex,i all its forms.there is some quite graphic language as well as some explicit nudity,but it's shown in a tasteful way and not just gratuitous.it definitely earns its 18A rating though.this is not a film for everybody.some may find it offensive.i didn't but that just me.for me,Kinsey is an 8/10

This was good- interesting. I thought Liam Neeson was excellent, as was the entire cast (Peter Sarsgaard, Chris O'Donnell, John Lithgow, Oliver Platt, Timothy Hutton) which also includes an Oscar nomination for Laura Linney as Kinsey's freethinking wife.The movie is provocative and intelligent, scientific not sexy and will make you laugh but also squirm at times and wonder how Alfred Kinsey ever managed to get his book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" published at a time (1948) when sex was generally misunderstood and very taboo. Everyone seemed to be asking "am I normal?".Using the technique of his own famous sex interviews, the movie uncovers the secrets of a nation while recounting the scientist's extraordinary journey from oppressed obscurity to pioneer in the area of human research, to global fame. Kinsey was responsible for the start of the sexual revolution, changed American culture and created a media sensation with his book -before they turned on him. 11/23/14

"The 'couple' is like the final stage of the great social debacle. It is the oasis in the middle of the human desert. Under the auspices of 'intimacy', we come to it looking for everything that has so obviously deserted contemporary social relations: warmth, simplicity, truth, a life without theatre or spectator. But once the romantic high has passed, 'intimacy' strips itself bare: it is itself a social invention, it speaks the language of glamour magazines." - The Invisible CommitteeBill Condon's "Kinsey" delves into the life of Alfred Kinsey, a pioneering sex researcher who spent years gathering data on the sexual preferences, practises, attitudes, fantasies and customs of thousands of men and women. Published in the wake of WW2, the "Kinsey Reports" would hit the world like a ton of bricks, and are credited with laying the foundations for Second Wave feminism.Though conventional in most respects, "Kinsey's" subject matter is interesting and wholly original, Condon doing his best to portray Kinsey's flaws as well as his virtues. The film fails to fully show how Kinsey's sexual preferences (he was reportedly a bisexual) may have skewered his data and driven his scientific obsessions, but Condon's alignment of Kinsey's sexual dysfunctions to those of his father, a stern, Christian fundamentalist, is nevertheless interesting in the way it mirrors broad, liberal views of sexuality (promiscuity, polygamy, "free love" etc) with more puritanical, conservative views (monogamy, sexual fears, religious guilt, celibacy etc). Either extreme is equally dysfunctional or harmful, the film then goes on to argue, before recommending a form of "open, honest, monogamy", where the best of both worlds are somehow reconciled.So the tension at the heart of the film is rather unique. Was Kinsey a degenerate who led America into a spiral of moral decay or a trailblazer who liberated millions from the tyranny of ignorance, superstition, and religious intolerance? On one hand, many argue that monogamous relationships and the institution of marriage perpetuate patriarchy, ownership and are rooted in capitalism (monogamy/marriage was partially constructed as a measure of power by patriarchal societies, so that men could ensure that their children were the rightful heirs to their property). In this regard polyamory is seen as being liberating because it crushes certain ideas we have about ownership and the language we use around marriage and monogamy. Being in a non-monogamous situation, some argue, leads to sharing, greater honesty and allows people to be more autonomous.Another argument is that there is a relationship between war, aggression, and the control of sexuality, as many observers since the time of Freud have noted. Scholars such as Kinsey and Foucault suspected that the more repressed a culture, the more violent and reactive it is. In contrast, when sexuality is unchallenged as part of the arc of life, there is less violence and more acceptance.Such "thought experiments" are common in science fiction literature. Ursula Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness", for example, revolves around a race of aliens who are completely sexless. Because of their neutered state, they are not only entirely passive, but do not understand concepts such as "war" or even "progress". Indeed, their whole society has no drive to advance, innovate, renovate, conquer, or engage in games of dominance, class, acquisition, status, submission etc. Even their concept of time suggests stasis; on their planet, the current year is always called "year 0", and past years are retroactively re-named or re-numbered as time goes by to take into account a perpetual "present".Ironically, those who oppose polyamory do so for the same reasons as those who support it. For some, polyamory is an extension of capitalist hedonism; one's sense of loyalty and control is overridden by the ego, which ceaselessly commands one to "enjoy", to cave to desires and accumulate or possess multiple partners. As desire represents a lack that can not be satisfied, the lover finds itself trapped in a neurotic cycle of acquisition; a slave to desire. These critics see polyamory as a form of greed, hedonism and perpetual dissatisfaction. But this is a misrepresentation of polygyny. Polyamory and promiscuity are not, at least in theory, the same thing.Then there are other arguments. Both capitalism and polygyny increase the variance in the distribution of desired outcomes (more partners/objects/commodities per person) while lowering the mean (less people with partners/objects/commodities). The mean number of children per man is exactly the same under polygyny and monogamy, but the proportion of men who have children is much greater under monogamy than under polygyny. In other words, more men are reproductively successful under monogamy than under polygyny. Ie - capitalism and polygyny are systems designed to reward the winners and punish the losers.On yet another hand, some stress that polyamory is "natural", and that it is only economic and external factors which led to humans becoming monogamous (a couple can better provide for a child than a single parent etc). So why not embrace nature and breed like bunnies? Why not have multiple parents working in tandem? (incidentally, Le Guin's neutered aliens all immediately give their babies to the group. The child never has parents. Instead, the whole community is a parent) To counter this, some say what's natural is always contingent, so why not strive for a better, monogamous ideal, rather than indulging in rampant desires? At which point those who advocate polyamory go to lengths to stress that it has nothing to do with sex. It's not about bedding many different people. If love is narcissism, and "true love" is excessive empathy, then why limit your 'excessive empathy' to just one person? Why not love everyone? Then, of course, the monogamous camp plays their trump card. If it's not about sexual intimacy, why not remove sex from polygyny altogether? At which point you're back with religion, and a kind of unconditional, Christ-like love; Polyamory as the ultimate sexual Jesus.8/10 – See Mazursky's "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice".

Like also bold was the research done by the man who worked out these reports on the sexual behavior of men and women which made a revolution in the till then established knowledge and the common social and individual convictions on such matters. To withdraw sex out of the pure scope of morals and religion and turning it as an object of scientific research was a task which offended lots of prejudices and cleared up preconceived notions and ideas, contributing in a certain way to the liberation mainly of the women as victims of such prejudices. Of course you can raise here the question -- and this is not missing in the movie -- of knowing if sexual activity is purely physical or it must also involve sentiments and obey to moral rules. But this is a movie review and not a moral essay. That question is legitimate but its discussion is absent of this review because it goes beyond what a movie review is supposed to be. This movie, in its biographical aspect, tells us in astonishingly good way the work of Alfred Kinsey and his struggle to reach the aimed goal of a purely scientific nature, of revealing what actually happens in the human sexual activity and behavior disregarding of moral patterns and also of the common wrong knowledge about it. Its true knowledge would then enable sexologists to establish rules that would allow voluntary and free sex to become a source of pleasure and happiness. Liam Neeson performs very well the role of the main character and the movie shows a live and energetic succession of every aspect of his activity in the pursuit of his aim, including aspects and scenes of his own personal and married life. About the end one of his assistants refers to him that he never dealt with the question of love in his works. He gave a prompt and clear reply to this: love cannot be measured and science only deals with measurable objects and actions. But love is not totally absent from this movie. In fact the love that unites the Kinsey spouses is very deep and firm. Even jealousy appears once in the scene where one of his assistants has a fight with another one that was having an affair with the former's wife. This proves that it is not that easy to consider sexual behavior only under its physical aspects and that psychological ones are also to attend. A beautiful movie on a very difficult theme but in which the mastery and skill of Bill Condon brings it to a good end.