grantss Surprisingly good. Was expecting a rather dry, documentary-style movie and it turned out to be quite funny, and thought-provoking. Despite it's potentially- raunchy subject, it manages to avoid all the easy dirty jokes and innuendo, and tells the story with sensitivity and a straight face. Also makes a case for women's lib.Superb performances all round. Maggie Gyllenhaal is delightful and Hugh Dancy is charming. Good support from Jonathan Pryce and Felicity Jones. The hidden gem is Rupert Everett's performance as the eccentric scientist.

valadas This movie is about the true (so they say) story of the invention in 1880 of an instrument to satisfy women's sexual needs that they couldn't satisfy otherwise. But in fact at those Victorian times this wasn't the declared purpose of it. It was supposed to treat clinically a psychic trouble called hysteria without mentioning any kind of pleasure that could result from such treatment. That instrument nowadays is called a vibrator. It portrays the task of an old gynecologist and his assistant, a young doctor trying to get himself a career through some scenes and sequences that make it a light comedy. Curiously and despite the fact that this theme is somewhat delicate, the movie keeps a great decency (almost puritanism) in the dialogues and scenes everything going on in a medical atmosphere except for a few minor scenes with minor characters. It doesn't show the least part of a woman's body even during the therapies. Notwithstanding that, the movie keeps a reasonable amount of humour (not particularly related to sex) that maintains the viewer rather amused almost all the time. The performers do a good job. This movie is not a masterpiece (the theme doesn't allow that) but it's amusing and somewhat related to reality though in a relatively superficial form.

niklas43 I barely knew or expected anything when I sat down to see this movie. I must say I was very surprised. The main role is played perfectly, and the characters optimism and curiosity is so enjoyable that you will want to see more of the movie, just for this single reason. All the characters are very authentic and believable and you really feel like you're watching a real story unfold before you. The movie itself has plenty of surprises of it own and you never fully know what is going to happen next. The best thing about the movie however, is all the funny scenes. From the main character to the laughs, the challenging of a taboo and the break between old English traditions and the new generation is as refreshing as watching a lucky-go-happy movie.

sddavis63 Any movie that manages to offer you some knowledge of a little known piece of medical history, to give you a lot of laughs from beginning to end and that manages to mix in some social commentary along the way has to be a winner. The fact that "Hysteria" manages to do all that is first of all a great credit to Stephen and Jonah Lisa Dyer and Howard Gensler, who were all involved in the crafting of the story. It's wonderfully told. It' also wonderfully performed by pretty much the entire cast, mainly Hugh Dancy, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Jonathon Pryce, with some strong supporting performances thrown in, and director Tanya Wexler moves the story along smartly and crisply. There's really no "filler" but this also doesn't feel rushed. It's perfectly paced. So, technically, this is a marvellous movie.It captures attention from its rather unusual subject matter - the invention of the vibrator. It causes, I suppose, a bit of a blush at times - particularly as you watch a variety of women, feet in stirrups, reacting to the "treatment" they're receiving, first manually from their doctors, and then using this magical new device. Let's be honest. Who knew that the vibrator was actually used very legitimately to offer a new form of treatment to women diagnosed with a condition that was recognized until the 1950's - hysteria. As one watches the "treatments" (all shown with a maximum amount of discretion and modesty, of course) one is tempted to think of these doctors as just dirty old men getting their kicks, but the movie makes clear that they really weren't. They believed in this condition and in this treatment, which relieved the symptoms of hysteria by bringing on a "paroxysm" - medical jargon for an orgasm, which had to be called a paroxysm because - well - women just didn't have orgasms, did they? It's actually quite fascinating to see the portrayal of medicine at the time (the movie is set in London in the 1880's) and we see not only hysteria and its treatment but debates about germs and the causes of infections. And it is quite funny, in a sexually suggestive (but not really sexual) way.What I really liked about this, though, was that in the midst of the fun about the invention of the vibrator, there was an interesting social commentary going on, revolving largely around the role of women, the debate over female suffrage, the treatment of the poor at the time. That was all woven quite seamlessly into the story.Now, having said all that, let's note that the history of the development of the vibrator isn't correctly portrayed. Dr. Granville (Dancy) didn't actually invent the machine for the purpose of treating hysteria in women, but rather for treating muscular disorders in men, and it was other doctors who discovered it a useful aid in the treatment of hysteria. I also haven't found any reference to the romance portrayed between Granville and Charlotte (Gyllenhaal) - whose character serves primarily to bring a feminist perspective to the story. (Granville's wife's name was Mary Ellen Ormerod.)Historical inaccuracies aside, though, the movie is still a lot of fun to watch, and does offer a fair representation of some of the attitudes toward women and the poor that existed at the time. (8/10)