User reviews

Mortimer Granville, a doctor who pleasures women manually in the belief that this is the cure for the malady hysteria, invents the vibrator

Victorian England has always been a great standby for comedy, highlighting often hilarious stuffed shirt behaviours and beliefs. This is a delightful look at a less well known story - well I didn't know who invented this famous sex toy.

This is purposefully light in tone with it's occasional serious moments not always jelling tidily with the comedy. Worth seeing though for the fabulous ensemble cast, albeit whilst always watchable, Gyllenhall sort of seems to be making a different film. Everett as always is great fun.

Hysteria is (or should I say, WAS) a curious medical condition diagnosed back in the 18th and 19th century particularly in women for any of various un-explainable and un-manageable emotional distress. This was thought to have been caused by some unclear problem connected to the uterus. Surgical removal of the uterus was thus prescribed as a treatment to this catch-all diagnosis, hence this procedure was properly called a Hysterectomy.

I did not expect this movie to tackle this archaic medical meaning of Hysteria, but it did. It also showed us the therapeutic procedure doctors did in those days to manage women with hysteria. I could not believe that these women actually paid to have doctors do THAT! You have to watch the movie to see what I mean. And when one such doctor, Dr. Mortimer Granville (Hugh Dancy), developed a crampy hand because of what he was doing, he actually invented something that could do the deed for him. This was the amusing part of the film.

However, this disease only provided the backdrop for a story of women's liberation of another sense. Maggie Gyllenhaal plays the thoroughly modern Ms. Charlotte Dalrymple, who was so ahead of her day when it comes to what women can do. Even her father, the prominent doctor of female hysteria of the day, Dr. Robert Dalrymple (Jonathan Price) could understand what was wrong with her! Her sister Emily (Felicity Jones) on the other hand, was the stereotypical Victorian female. This societal aspect gives the movie a broader meaning and more serious context. Rupert Everett is also there as Dr. Granville's inventor-friend who also had a hand in the birth of a "therapeutic" contraption that exists up to today in a vastly different context.

Because of the rather uncomfortable sexual nature of the hysteria therapy shown here, this movie is certainly not for everyone's sensibilities. If you can see beyond that however, the depiction of Victorian mores is highly interesting and provocative, especially in this particular subject matter that is generally unknown. The acting and execution of the screenplay is appropriately genteel and civilized despite the potentially raunchy topic. That said though, I still could not believe that this movie was actually based on true events.

The movie "Hysteria" is a British romantic comedy, set during the Victorian period. The film follows the journey of Dr. Mortimer Granville, a young doctor who begins working with Dr. Dalrymple, a specialist in treating "hysteria." The movie depicts how the medical approach to managing hysteria resulted in the creation of the vibrator.

The movie is loosely inspired by real events, with the addition of fictional characters and relationships. It falls into the category of British "feel-good" dramas that romanticize history, with limited adherence to factual accuracy. Maggie Gyllenhaal and Hugh Dancy deliver solid performances in their roles, but the true standout is the clever, witty and frequently humorous script.

While this film may appear smutty, I was also curious and glad a film had the guts to make a film about such a device and how it began. A decent story, good performances and interesting from start to finish. It was cheapened with a romance. They couldn't help themselves by throwing that meaningless detail into it and take the film down a notch. But overall not a bad film.

in late 1800s London is the center of this movie. It basically is a film about the invention of the vibrator. I don't know how much of it is true, but it was comical when all these old ladies go in for treatment for their hysteria. The story is about Dr. Granville whom joins the practice of Dr. Dalrymple in the treatment of hysteria. It seems half the female population is affected with it. So Granville sits in a session where we see the Dalrymple put a curtain over a woman's lower regions, oil up his hands, and stimulate. And to amazement, the women are very pleased with this. So Granville makes money, gets to help people and is intrigued by both Dalrmple's daughters, especially the independent one, Charolette. Granville has so many patients, his hand starts to hurt and he teams up with a doctor friend and they come up with a machine to stimulate. It starts out as a feather duster, then becomes more refined.

FINAL VERDICT: This was in interesting film and was funny sometimes. Worth checking out.

In 1880's London an ambitious doctor called Mortimer Granville gets a job with Dr Dalrymple, who has the unique skill of relieving his female patients' frustrations with pelvic massaging. Building on this concept, Granville turns a feather duster into an instrument of pleasure, essentially creating the world's first vibrator.

It's pretty unusual that a film is based entirely around the creation of the vibrator, but we are talking about quite possibly THE most popular sex-toy in the world. The story is actually quite an interesting one, albeit an amusing one. How director Tanya Wexler chose to tell the story would determine the success of the movie.

Maybe it's because she's a woman, but Wexler has ended up telling the story exactly as it needed to be told – with tongue firmly in cheek. Using Stephen and Jonah Lisa Dyer's solid script, Wexler has crafted a light-hearted and amusing piece of cinema that understands the joke and doesn't try to shy away from it.

It's because the film has such a tongue-in-cheek nature that the inclusion of a love triangle irks me a little bit. Perhaps the tale of the two sisters vying for Granville's (Hugh Dancy) heart is a part of the true story, but it feels very forced, as if put in there to make it more cinematic. It takes away from the main story as a result, lessening it's appeal.

The silver lining of the love triangle, though, is that it allows us to get some very good performances from Felicity Jones and Maggie Gyllenhaal. Jones and Dancy are good in their roles, there's no argument there, but Gyllenhaal is the MVP of the film. Doing an incredibly realistic London accent, she steals the show as the rebellious and impulsive Charlotte Dalrymple, more interested in womens' rights than the honour and respect of her family. This is in contrast to sister Emily (Jones), who is the perfect English rose, but a tad boring. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out who Granville chooses in the end, but at least we get some good acting out of it.

'Hysteria' pretty much stayed under the radar on it's release, and it's easy to see why. It doesn't break any major boundaries, and doesn't boast any fantastic performances or memorable moments. It's just a very sweet, albeit slightly cheeky, film that could be better and could be worse. A film you could watch on a quiet night in, if you get bored of the dildo.

What a shame. I was absolutely into this movie and was enjoying it very much but something went terrible wrong within its last half hour or so.

This is the movie that loves to present itself as the one about the invention of the vibrator. And while theoretically this might be true, there is no vibrator in this movie, until its final 5 minutes or so. The movie is more about hysteria, a diagnosis made by doctors for women in neurotic conditions, which got caused dysfunction of the uterus. At least that was what they thought of course at the time, which was around 1880. All what this women needed actually was a bit more love, caring and stimulation in their triangular love area. And that really is more what the movie is about; the sexual liberation of women. I see this as a very feminist movie, set in time that this really wasn't anything common or something that even got talked about. It was simply not accepted and known that women could also enjoy sex and have needs and desires. And as a strong and likable feminist movie, I absolutely respect this movie and could also enjoy it but other than that, it makes some bad choices with its story at times.

It's as if everything that this movie build up and attempted to do in is first half got torn down and completely ignored during its second. Plot lines suddenly get abandoned and the movie completely seems to loose its focus and instead suddenly starts to focus more on its personal drama. The movie starts to become about something else, which is something far more common and not half as enjoyable and interesting as its original subject.

And really, I liked how they handled its original subject. It of course would had been very easy to turn this into a silly comedy. After all, this is a sex comedy, set in an incredibly prudent time. The movie however handles its subject very maturely but not without making it fun to watch as well. You also really shouldn't be afraid that this movie could make you feel uncomfortable. The movie is not heavy on its sex and definitely not graphic either. Everything sex related in this movie is actually were most of the movie its fun and comedy comes from.

It also has a great cast in it. I was truly impressed with Hugh Dancy and Maggie Gyllenhaal. Also Jonathan Pryce plays a really solid supporting role.

It's also definitely a well made movie, that is good looking with all of its sets and costumes and got capably directed by Tanya Wexler. There are just however too many distractions in the story, which drives it away from most of its good things.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Hysteria is a fun film, creatively retelling the invention of personal vibrators for women (with plenty of historical liberties). The movie is filled with somewhat cleverly played word games and endless innuendos. Tanya Wexler's film does aim to present anything in a true-to-life manner. The director does take aim at some of the issues facing the development of medicine and women's rights, but plays much off it for laughs or rather simple dramatic tension. Wexler's story telling is light and fun, though it also seems rushed, spending little time on developing characters, motives, or even the plot. One disappointment was Rupert Everett who feels as if he slept walked through his performance. The best trait of the film is that it is selfaware, never attempting to sell itself as anything more than what it is, playing gleefully along with its audience.

In the end, Hysteria was an enjoyable movie for an evening looking for a lighthearted affair.

I liked it, it was interesting. However, I have read pretty much all this is to read on Victorian health and dentistry. I have constant "hysteria". Ten lines of text? Really? I can't even imagine writing a review that involves ten lines of text. What else is their to say? I liked it. You really don't need anything more detailed than that. Surely? Only four more lines to go and then I can post my simple review, which was that I liked the movie, it was fun in many places and interesting. I think some people are just way too intense when they review movies they write a book which is often longer than the actual script from the movie. Yah! Line 10

"Hysteria" is a movie based on the true story of the invention of the first vibrator and shows us how that happened and the beliefs about hysteria in 1880's. It's a really delightful movie which combines very well the history (of the invention of the first vibrator) and comedy with romance.

I liked very much the interpretation of Hugh Dancy who plays as Mortimer Granville and his friend in the movie Rupert Everett who plays as Edmund St. John-Smythe. I also liked the interpretation of Maggie Gyllenhaal who plays as Charlotte Dalrymple and I believe that this interpretation of her is one of her best.

I strongly recommend this movie and I believe that everyone who watch it he will laugh very much with it.

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.

Hysteria is a great idea for a movie. I mean, a movie about the invention of the vibrator? Thank you! I wanted to know how that came about (not sarcasm) but the execution was a bit wanting. The actors selected were great, each with capable acting abilities and each with commendable works in the past, but here together they had no chemistry, at least romantic chemistry. The whole time I felt that they were playing brother and sister.

Maggie Gyllenhal's character was a wild and untamed woman with a brain (for the time) and Hugh Dancy's character was the somewhat uptight doctor who believed in modern medicine. The script wasn't all there, it felt unexplained at some points and overly used in other areas. (as in an over use of speech between characters who seem as if they cannot convey thought with eyes or facial expressions alone.) But strangely you want to know these characters, you root for what they want for the world and you believe that in what they say and in their beliefs.

The movie is not exciting but it is new and smart in some ways. You really see the funny and silly sides of medicine. The movie isn't as good as it could have been, but it doesn't quite fall flat either. It's worth a watch so don't write it off.

Hysteria – CATCH IT ( B ) Hysteria is based upon true life of Dr. Mortimer Granville, who invented Vibrator. The most surprising part about this movie was that Hysteria actually existed in 18th century. Hysteria was named to women conditions, who were not sexually satisfied. Hysteria is funny in respect of its story and it's the relationship between Dr. Granville and Charlotte Dalrymple which makes the movie fast-forward and exciting. Hugh Dancy is as always charismatic as Dr. Granville. Maggie Gyllenhaal is simply brilliant and steels every scene she is in it. Felicity Jones was charming. Rupert Everett is good as always.

Overall, Hysteria is hilarious in respect of watching women getting satisfied by doctors by using their fingers.