Wednesday, July 13, 2005


Saw Kinsey last night. I enjoyed it and found it thought provoking - but not for the reasons you might think.

Liam Neeson is one of those underated actors. I marvel at his ability in a variety of roles. In this role as Dr. Kinsey you don't especially notice Neeson's skill, because you simply believe the character he is portraying.

Something else that impressed me was the effort put into costumes, hair styles and the choices of extras (there were many small cameos of individuals giving sex interviews).

But the story was typical: interesting individual's upbringing (as it affected his later life); meets wife; major interest (in sex study) evolves and he becomes famous; problems emerge, health declines; wraps up with how his work made many lives better. I think that portraying the life in such a short medium is always prone to errors and yet, since movies are so much easier to mass market than the book biographies, this will be how the average joe on the street will think Kinsey was really like.

But was it accurate? I didn't read any biography but it seems to me there could have been a bit too much license taken with the portrayal of the inter-mingled sex lives of the assistants.

One actor that did stand out (no not Chris O'Donnell, not Timothy Hutton, not even Tim Curry), was William Sadler who played the creepy sex predator that recorded all his many bizzarre and really "out-there" encounters - many illegal couplings with young children. But it was eerily realistic.

Now I just looked at IMDB.COM and realize that the movie got a 7.6 rating; not bad.

No comments: