Hysteria

Whenever Rupert Everett appears as a rich fellow who distinctly does not fancy ladies, it's a hysterical history lesson of the hilarious variety.

If director Tanya Wexler occasionally wanders into excess cutesiness...she makes up for it with a surplus of eye-opening historical details and a refreshing warmth for all her characters, even the ones whose views are clearly on the way out.

The comic elements of this semi-factual tale are heavy-handed, and a key romance falls flat. Despite its titillating subject matter, Hysteria is only mildly stimulating. The final third of the story meanders during a tedious trial and clumsy speechifying.

Hysteria, a disappointingly limp ode to the invention of the vibrator, plays like a Merchant Ivory Production of "Portnoy's Complaint."

As a sex-education comedy, Hysteria is flaccid, forced and unfunny.

Dancy manages a few sly moments, and Everett is as ever a scene-stealer, if barely recognizable under a beard and altered features, and with a raspy voice. But the estimable Pryce and Jones are wasted, along with many other fine thesps, while Gyllenhaal works too gratingly hard in an already strained role.

Unfortunately, Hysteria is much closer in its effects to a more significant and much larger 19th-century invention. Like the locomotive, this costume drama proceeds noisily and methodically toward a destination that is agreed upon from the outset. Good orgasms and good movies generally offer surprises; good trains do not.

A well made and pretty funny movie. This is a movie I thought could be really cheesy but thankfully it hits more than it misses. I recommend you at least check this film out once.

Just a fun, fun film. Rupert Everett is fantastic in a small role - his chemistry with High Dancy is excellent. It's an interesting film about women and the development of the vibrator, but it makes larger statements about the eventual women's movement. My primary issue with the film is that Maggie Gyllenhaal's character says things that a woman of her era obviously would not have. They took thoughts and statements of someone living 50 years later and stuck them in her head - which is fine, we can have a little artistic license now and then. It just felt forced and awkward here.

A true story about the invention of the vibrator. It's a period piece. Had to get the pun in. This film was much more entertaining than I intended, and I enjoyed watching it. The film is very much light hearted, which I believe leads to it's downfall, as it can never achieve greatness as it is too fluffy round the edges... I wanted some more depth... It needed to be longer. OK... Enough innuendo. Gyllenhaal is strong in the film, with a great British accent, and everyone is good, with Jonathon Pryce being present also which just makes it better. It is no classic, but it is fun and entertaining because you feel the actors are having a good time also.

This fact-based film explores the birth of the vibrator. In the 1880s, women where often diagnosed with hysteria, which was treated by a doctor who **** them into contentment. After one popular young physician (Hugh Dancy) becomes immobilized by his overused hand, he stumbles upon the beneficial invention. It's obvious how every aspect of this story will play out after the first 10 minutes. So it's all about the execution. The direction is genteel with typical British aplomb and the performances are enjoyable. The standout is Maggie Gyllenhaal as the socially-conscious troublemaker. Overall, it's a mildly amusing, but undistinguished history lesson.