User reviews

I was quite surprised at how much I sincerely enjoyed this film. Thinking I was wandering into quite a serious film about the female condition in Victorian Times I quickly realised it was a sharp witted rom-com about the characters inventing new ideas in Victorian Times.

I really enjoyed the interplay of the characters, who were all played very well by the actors who seemed to be having a lot of fun. The period setting was very realistic and beautifully realised. The story, although slight, had enough meaning behind it to make the experience a satisfying one and thoroughly enjoyable.

There were a few quibbles with the realistic attitudes of the Victorian Era, but the sense of innocence about the matter made it all very charming. The fact that the doctors administering their treatments to the women insisted that it was all very medical and there were no gratification from the act was endearing. Even with the smiles of sheer delight the women displayed upon the completion, no, it was all very professional.

I believe that's the attitude that encapsulates the film. Near the end the story veers into women's rights and tries very hard to ensure that people are left feeling the indignation those women who fought for our rights felt. But at the end of the day that wasn't what this film will be remembered for. It's all about the sheer pleasure of watching actors enjoying themselves, a fun storyline built for laughs in a well realised environment rarely used for such. It was fun, light and left you smiling. I highly recommend it.

Happy, happy happy;

After a good dose of Hysteria, i am as happy and exhausted as the women depicted in this gem of a film.

Hysteria is the not-exceedingly-accurate story of the man who invented (of all things) the vibrator, in the midst of Victorian England and the laughable ideals of the time. As a light hearted comedy, it succeeds above and beyond the call of duty. As historical document, it lets itself slip into more comfortable Hollywood territory, but not in any reproachable way - it's a delightful character romp, getting heaps of help from the astounding weirdness of the Victorians themselves, if only in stereotype.

Jonathan Pryce (The Master, anyone?) is brilliant, overshadowing lead Hugh Dancy who is slightly uncomfortable in his too-simplistic role. The sets are splendid, and so is all of the production - good direction, excellent photography and pretty decent score round out the package to let the film rise to a pretty decent standard.

All considered, i would recommend this film to anyone looking for a laugh and an easy evening. There are the occasional "drags on" moments (after all, it's hard to find enough masturbation-related jokes to fill 90 minutes), and the serious sections aren't all that great; after the first hilarious 20 minutes, it's kind of difficult to swallow the romance bits, and you can almost find yourself yearning for a descent into total silliness (where unfortunately Hysteria does not deliver). I feel that a stronger hand (pardon the pun) in the script might have made more of this film. But, as it stands, there is still very little to complain about.

A film recommended to all the family - at least, that is Hysteria's thinly-veiled message: sex is good, and thank god for that.

My final vote - 7/10, funny (if slightly inconclusive), and better than A LOT of stuff out there. (add 1 point if you have never seen Woody Allen's "all you wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask")

While I guess some might be offended by the way some things are depicted here, the movie itself plays it safe when it comes to the story. It is pretty predictable and you will know where this is heading not long after the movie has started. But the movie itself has so much heart (especially Maggie G.), that you are more than willing (no pun intended) to look over those flaws.

The jokes work, the characters are finely drawn and the movie itself is really nice. Again do not expect anything deep and you won't be disappointed. I haven't checked my history books either to look if the characters were based on anyone particular (it does leave you with that impression)

I watched "Hysteria as a sneak preview and, having no idea what to expect, I was pleasantly surprised. Both Dancy and Gyllenhaal refrain from playing their, somewhat stereotypical, roles over the top and the script is intelligent enough to build a strong relationship plot around the already interesting subject of the invention of the dildo. The subject is also interpreted in an entertaining way and not simply used as a gimmick, which happens quite a bit in these period pieces that feature a certain historical event. The comedic pacing is refreshing, tasteful and does not feel cheap which is impressive if you consider that some of the biggest laughs stem from scenes that depict the masturbation of middle aged women. All in all "Hysteria" is a fun movie, with good actors, a good story and, if that's important for you, a great happy end.

This is a very interesting portrayal of a little known but highly interesting medical history. It keeps a serious tone, but it still makes you laugh by the strange medical concepts that prevailed at that time.

A simple engaging movie which employed me throughout, courtesy some vivacious performances, some light-hearted moments and most importantly the story of a popular invention, oh! and i don't give a darn about the historical accuracy, just bought the preface that the movie was based on true events. Really. :-D Is this movie a class apart? Definitely not, coz the loosely stringed screenplay loses its sheen many a time.

The plot progresses erratically, which however is saved by some comic elements - unintentional though - and some defined acting from the lead pair Hugh Dancy & Maggie Gyllenhaal. Hugh Dancy resembled Hugh Jackman on many occasions; he never came close even in "King Arthur". Maggie Gyllenhaal steals the show as the erratic, volatile, generous & compassionate woman of the 19th century. Nothing worth a debate stands out in this period piece - the depiction, the sets, the attire, the diction all very neat except for the proposal scene towards the end which resembled a modern day Romcom ending! :-P

To sum it up, I enjoyed the movie, albeit i wish had it been stringent and stuffed with some substance, a plot which tries to tell the once-common medical diagnosis of female hysteria definitely deserved better treatment and appreciation, that said, it's an appeasing watch in the end. 6.5/10

It's 1880 London. Stress out women of all kinds are diagnosed with hysteria. The remedy is pelvic massage and the release of orgasm. Medicine still uses leeches and germs are a new concept. Dr. Mortimer Granville (Hugh Dancy) is fired from the hospital for changing with clean bandages. After many rejections, he gets a job with Dr. Robert Dalrymple (Jonathan Pryce) who treats only women. Charlotte (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is his rebellious suffragette daughter and Emily (Felicity Jones) is the obedient one who studies phrenology. The constant 'treatments' are wearing out Mortimer's hand. His gentleman inventor flatmate Edmund St. John-Smythe (Rupert Everett) helps develop a vibrator for the work.

The subject matter is titillating amusement. Everybody plays it straight with a smile. It's light fun with a bit of serious issue. It's not big laughs but it's an enjoyable little rom-com. They all play the roles great especially Gyllenhaal's firecracker act.

At the beginning of the film it is written that it is based on true facts and at the end it is written that any likeness is purely accidental... A joke? Anyway, the film is pleasant to watch, especially because of the quality of the actors' play, they all shine, Maggie Gyllenhaal (very special), Jonathan Pryce (very natural in everything he does), Hugh Dancy (a nice new one), Felicity Jones (cute and efficient), Rupert Everett (natural funny), Sheridan Smith (also natural funny). But I still don't know if it is the true history of the vibrator...

In case you're wondering why you should be excited about 'Hysteria', how about this- the British comedy/ drama explores the origins of the electromagnetic vibrator. Got your attention yet? Well here's the fact- the vibrator was invented by a certain Dr. Mortimer Granville in the 1880s as a cure for women diagnosed with hysteria, a catch-all term then used to describe females who suffered from bouts of anxiety, depression and frustration due to sexual discontent.

Of course you're probably wondering - now that I already know how the vibrator came to be, what more can I learn from sitting through an hour and a half of 'Hysteria'? For a start, Tanya Wexler hasn't approached the material with the clinical seriousness you would expect- as compared to say David Cronenberg's talky 'A Dangerous Method'. Instead, her no doubt heavily fictionalised retelling is told with zest, verve and wit- and while it does remain true to the broad facts of the story, it is also not afraid to take liberties to offer crowd-pleasing feel-good entertainment.

Blessed with an amusing script from husband-and-wife team Stephen and Jonah Lisa Dyer, Wexler thankfully never lets the subject descend into farce even while maintaining a winking tone throughout. Certainly, she's not afraid to portray the obstinacy of the medical community, which in the film's opening scene, is shown defending antiquated practices of blood-letting and dismissing Lister's germ theory or even the basic need for antiseptic conditions to prevent infection. Unlike most of his fraternity, Granville (Hugh Dancy) is forward-looking and not afraid to speak his mind- leading to his expulsion from a local hospital.

He finds employment under the roof of Dr Robert Dalrymple (Johnathan Pryce), a specialist in the area of 'hysteria' through his method of pelvic massages. Basically, that consists of physically hand-massaging his patients' private parts while they lie flat with their legs propped open under a puppet-theatre curtain (and no, to our male readers who were piqued and female readers who were disturbed by that description, there is no nudity on display). Though never explicitly mentioned, as you may have come to expect, Dalrymple's practice is so successful because it leaves the women in ecstasy- or in orgasm if you like.

Who wouldn't want a job like Granville's? Not exactly- as his list of patients grow, and he struggles to cope with their sheer numbers, he begins to develop hand cramps, so much so that he has to ice his hand after every massage. Eventually it takes its toll on his career, which is where, together with his wealthy pal Edmund (Rupert Everett), he gets the idea of modifying the electric feather duster to administer the same pleasure to his patients without the physical exertion.

Beyond the invention alone, Wexler also touches on the social context in Victorian England, addressing the root cause of their 'hysteria'. It isn't as simple as good sex, but rather equal rights- and so aside from his practice, Granville is also confronted by the feisty feminist Charlotte (Maggie Gyllenhaal) who also happens to be Robert's older daughter. While Granville may have been taken by Charlotte's younger and quiet sister Emily (Felicity Jones), he soon finds himself unable to resist the independent-minded Charlotte. The two aren't that different- both are bold enough to confront the mores of their times, whether is it in the medical profession for the former or society for the latter.

Dancy and Gyllenhaal make for a delightful couple, their back-and-forth banter characteristic of the most enjoyable rom-coms. Just as captivating is Everett- though in far less scenes than any of the other characters, his offbeat character steals the limelight from Dancy whenever the two appear together. But Dancy holds his own in several others as well, portraying Granville as both earnest and perceptive. And truly as it is with Dancy so can it too be said of the rest of the cast, that their performances match the pitch of the material perfectly.

So there is much more to enjoy in 'Hysteria', even if you do already know how that object of sexual pleasure came to be. This is fine British comedy, wrapped in nice period detail and filled with plenty of light charming moments. It is engaging and humorous throughout, and even if it doesn't leave you in rapture, its infectious vibes will still offer good pleasure.

• www.moviexclusive.com

My absolute favourite film from this year's Tiff. I was laughing like a crazy person but I was completely drowned out by the howling and squealing of all the women in the audience. Special attention was given to historical details and they all were masterfully done. The quality of the cast is something I haven't seen in quite a while, the roles were so much fun that many of the actors would have wanted to do this for nothing or at least for scale. It was true genius that such material was discussed and portrayed in such a manner as to be purely enjoyable without risking even the slightest offence. Be sure to stay for the very end and watch the antique devices as they appear on the left side and then the right side of the credits. The entire audience was still fixated on the screen as if in a champion tennis match until the lights came up and we applauded some more.

Absolutely delightful film.

Keep it up.

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 a very British and Victorian story that is very funny and relevant today. It's also a light sex romp that never shows anything or anybody with anyone. How much better than that?

The production values are quite lovely. It isn't a cast of thousands but it doesn't need to be. The principal players do their roles quite well, and even if you're just some American who has never heard of any of them before you can well enjoy it.

Whether the story is really entirely true or not as it claims or is just a tale of manners, sex and modern sensibilities I don't know. But it is attractive, light and jolly good fun. Ah yes, may there always be an England. With movies and sex toys like this the sun will never set on the British Empire.

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.

As is unfortunately the case with far too many films, Hysteria is not of one mind – that is to say that it tells two very different stories that are only tenuously linked thru the main characters rather than thru any particular plot points. It purports to be based on real events and indeed some portions of the film are historically accurate. It also represents one of the few romantic comedies to present itself as a partial biopic. However, much of the film is conjecture, albeit at times somewhat fascinating and entertaining conjecture. Indeed, the doctors' visits discussed below are quite amusing if not in the best taste for certain discerning viewers.

Hysteria tells the story of Dr. Mortimer Granville who found himself working for another physician who treated women for "female hysteria." This hysteria was once considered a real medical condition throughout Great Britain and on the European continent reaching its height of diagnosis and treatment in the late Victorian Era. Such hysteria was treated in a multitude of ways, but Hysteria focuses on Granville's adoption of the method used by the physician for whom he worked – the fictional Dr. Robert Dalrymple. Their method of treating hysteria was to ensure that their female patients achieved a "hysterical paroxysm." Simply put, what all of these hysterical women really needed was to experience an orgasm. The visitations by woman after woman to the doctors' office provide some fascinating and sometimes hilarious results. Just imagine a Judd Apatow film set in Victorian England and you will have some idea of what transpires in these visits. Ultimately, Granville – with monetary and technical assistance from a wealthy friend (wittily played by Rupert Everett) – creates the first electric device for a woman to satisfy herself without a man's assistance.

One might think this was an interesting enough topic for a Victorian period-piece comedy, but husband-and-wife screenwriters Stephen and Jonah Lisa Dyer add other intersecting plot. Dr. Dalrymple (Jonathan Pryce) has two daughters. One is an extremely strong-willed, steel-spined fighter for women's issues named Charlotte (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and the other a demure, science-minded ladylike supporter of her father's more conservative views named Emily (Felicity Jones). When first meeting the daughters, Mortimer (Hugh Dancy) is startled by Charlotte's behavior and attitudes and finds Emily much more to his liking. Mortimer and Emily begin a courtship of which her father approves as Dalrymple hopes to leave his practice to Mortimer with Emily by his side. However, Mortimer becomes increasingly interested in the spirited and winning Charlotte. When she stands up for her beliefs and publicly confronts her father and the police, Mortimer comes to her aid in court and we can see that they are destined to be together.

So how, you may ask, are the events described in the second and third paragraphs of this review connected? Well, they aren't really, and that is a major problem with the screenplay and the film itself. As suggested above, the film contains two distinct stories that are intertwined in an unusual and ultimately disappointing fashion. The cast is rather unremarkable, but then again they are not given much to do except play the characters so often seen in period comedies of this sort. Dancy seems to play the same character in nearly every film (with few exceptions). Jones has little to do but be pretty and polite. Pryce once again plays an English gentleman seemingly befuddled by those around him. Gyllenhaal (whose English accent is never quite right) once again plays a woman of conviction and spirit as she's done many times before. They adequately do their duty in representing these stock characters, but alas the script is not strong enough to make their efforts worth our while.

Todd FilmPulse.Net

this film is absolutely a gem of comedy, so enjoyable and right on the money. i never knew the origin of the portable massager, now i know, and that's a plus after fully enjoyed this wonderful British film. great screenplay, great directing and of course, with nice casting job, making this comedy an undisputable winner. this is a model comedy that Hollywood should learn how to make comedies being able to be titled in the genre of real comedies instead of turning out just farces. to me, about 98% of the so-called 'comedies' are actually nothing but. comedy does not mean casting some jerk-like clowns with exaggerated facial expressions or pretentious unnatural way of talking, some moronic gestures with lot of abnormally crazy dialog, ridiculous scenario, impossible twists of plots....so and so, then you call it a 'comedy'. absolutely not.

this film is the real deal that we can officially title it as a comedy and, a great one,

Entertaining movie about the British inventing the vibrator. Good acting. Good storyline. At times funny. Proper way of discussing the vibrator. Interesting stats at the end of the movie about the vibrator being the most popular toy. Storyline keeps you interested. Good setting and camera work. The movie is in England in 1800s. Well to do doctor pleasing women.

Two daughters, one staying at home and the other fighting for women's caught.

The love story part of the movie is somewhat predictable.

The shot of the royal guard picking up a package is cute. Just goes to show you that women are women rergardless of social status.

In short, a wonderful, entertaining romp of a period romcom, set at a crucial time in the evolution of modern medicine, the genesis of the telephone and the increase in electrical appliances in general. Interesting, well scripted and portrayed with a great ensemble cast including the fabulous Rupert Everett and Jonanthan Pryce and the luminous and hugely talented Maggie Gyllenhaal. Some familiar faces from British stage and screen; Ashley Jensen, the underused Sheridan Smith and the wonderful Gemma Jones (love her in Much Ado About Nothing) all come together to make something really special. Hugh Dancy is great as the determined and ethical lead, Dr Mortime Granville, shocked at the behind the times medical practices going on in all the big Hospitals who haven't yet heard of handwashing, germs or sterile-dressings and he tries to find a place where his medicine will be worthwhile. At this time 'hysteria' was the main diagnosis for women attending a physician and it is these misdiagnosed women he gains employment treating with a - RSI inducing - 'hands on approach.' There is more to this film than orgasms (*ahem* paroxysms) for rich ladies, and the invention of the vibrator, there is also a social commentary of the time, examples of historical shortsightedness of male-dominated medicine in the late 1800s and the treatment of women in general. Not just a funny film (and it is genuinely funny) but also with something to say, not vacuous or pointless, it really is intelligent humour and the kind of film I'm sure you would gain more from on a second (or third) viewing and it wouldn't be less entertaining on repetition. One of the most feel-good genuinely enjoyable comedies I've seen in a while.

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.

Tanya Wexler's "Hysteria" is about Dr. Mortimer Granville's invention of the electric vibrator to give women orgasms and how it set the stage for the elimination of feminine hysteria as a medical diagnosis. Although focusing on a true story, this is a very funny movie. A lot of the humor comes from the obvious absurdity of the Victorian mores. Hugh Dancy plays the lead role, but Maggie Gyllenhaal's suffragist is the truly important character. It's one of those movies that manages to be both mordant and entertaining at the same time, and I'm sure that you'll enjoy it. Also starring are Jonathan Pryce, Felicity Jones, Rupert Everett and Ashley Jensen (Christina on "Ugly Betty").

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/

I saw this film this night at the Leiden Film Festival where it was the final film. I think what makes it funny is that it is a subject we can all relate to (* even the men) although it something one rarely discusses in public. The majority of the crowd were all women, but there were some men as well. The organizers also held a lottery, handing out numbers---the prizes where vibrators generally donated by a sexshop. Surprisingly, a lot of men won a vibrators, perhaps they need it even more;)....(you probably get it if you see the film).

I also really enjoyed the beautiful set and costumes, it made it very convincing and the acting was great. You can see all the actors had as much fun acting in this movie, as we had watching it.

I want to own this film on DVD:)

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 had heard great things of this movie, so I was delighted to see it at my local video store, having missed it on release, and grabbed it. I was disappointed. I found Dr Granville Mortimer to be ineffectual and unconvincing, while the sister he wasn't engaged to was over the top and too ardent about her passionate fight for social(with incidentally the cleanest, smartest place in the slums ever seen), and real issues. I felt that the whole film was a token effort - the queues of middle aged ladies, the tidy slums, and the enormous leap between social classes, so easily made. I was disappointed to see the esteemed Jonathon Pryce in his role, I felt he could do better somehow. For me the film fell between two stools, neither really funny (just the odd chuckle) nor a solid statement about the state of women's life as it was. And so predictable with the sisters.