In guten Händen - Oder die Geschichte der Erfindung des Vibrators

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.

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.

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

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.

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 !