In guten Händen - Oder die Geschichte der Erfindung des Vibrators

an admirable work. and this is not a surprise. first - for the cast. second - the script, subtle, seductive, mixture of accuracy and precise lines of joy. an old fashion style romantic comedy. same rules, same science of detail. and history of a classic pleasure instrument. the Victorian atmosphere is perfect spice in this case. and good plate for rehabilitation of masterclass humor. I admit , I am subjective. Hugh Dancy and Rupert Everett are two of my favorite actors. and Maggie Gyllenhaal seems be, in this film, a version of Katherine Hepburn. but, more that, it is just an adorable, lovely, seductive comedy. and it is enough !

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,

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

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)

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.