Short Review: Can't get a biopic of MLK done but this pervert gets lionized. Someone stick a fork in our culture...



Look at the original DVD box above. Liam Neeson peeking through a keyhole with the words "Let's Talk About Sex" underneath. The marketing team thinks showing the main character obviously peeking through a keyhole at others copulating is a selling point. Can we, as a society with hopfully an ounce of self-respect left, please give a collective "ewwww!"

I hope you're not shocked when I tell you that this was unpleasant movie.

I’m not against frank discussions about sexuality. such conversations are needed in a mature, intelligent culture. I believe people should be given information about sexuality and safe sexual practices. I am hardly a prude. What I do have a serious problem with is public discussions of sexuality and sexual practices outside of a moral context. It is one thing to offer biological dissertations on how intercourse occurs, its another to start rambling on about what should be considered normative behaviors with the same cold tone.

The film proposes America was a ignorant place where no one understood human sexuality. In comes Alfred Kinsey with his brave pronouncements of just how depraved we all are and now everyone is better. We all can talk about sex and think about it freely and with an informed attitude. But where is the morality?

People used to have horribly misguided ideas about the biological functions of sexuality (oral sex leads to pregnancy as an example.) But now, in our new enlightened state everyone is informed. Oral sex does not lead to pregnancy – heck even children know this. The problem is that sexuality without morality leads to a new kind of ignorance. We now have a couple of generations who believes oral and anal sex aren’t really sex. Which society is worse off? Which kind of sexual ignorance is more damaging?


Kinsey was a troubled man who did a great deal of damage to the world. To offer him a film honoring his efforts is ignorant and deceptive. To offer grand proclamations about the need for sexual freedom is easy from the high towers of the universities and Hollywood. But there is a deep and serious human cost involved. Look at your society and tell me if this “freedom” is free.

By the way, the film itself was passably done. It was neither a strong production nor a weak one technically speaking. The positives of the film are outweighed by the obtuse message and glaring anti-morality messages in the story. The point of the film is to obviously denigrate anyone who holds a connection between morality and sexuality and praise the free-love types.

This is a blatant reworking of history which means it is propaganda. As far as propaganda is concerned, you can do better than this. Obviously, I do not recommend this film.


Related Reviews:
Liam Neeson movies
Taken (2008)
Excalibur (1981)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Cinema Blend
London Times




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: biography, Chris O'Connell, Dylan Baker, film, John Lithgow, Laura Linney, Liam Neeson, movie review, Oliver Platt, Peter Sarsgaard, Tim Curry, timothy hutton, William Sadler