Since you have seen the film, would you recommend that a FReeper see this film? Why or why not?
Well on strictly aesthetic terms, it's a straightforward docudrama with little narrative tension. The sexual talk is completely non-titilating by design. The movie ends before he dies so the Sexual Revolution issue isn't dealt with but the point of view is that he helped homosexuals feel less like outsiders. However if you're framing the issue as 'the better Kinsey comes off/ the worse the movie is' then I guess he and his work are shown as being important and valuable.
And I would say its hard to argue with the idea that sex is an object worthy of scientific study. But the man's interview with the pedophile is shown with all the disgust it merits and his own sexual problems (the aforementioned mutilation) are also shown (very discretely). It's not the whitewash some here fear but not the complete debunking job many would have liked. At its core its not all that diffrent from those old Hollywood biopics about crusaders triumphing over the masses not understanding them they used to make about people like Florenz Ziegfield and Louis Pasteur. Hope that helped!