IMDb रेटिंग
6.7/10
34 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
मोर्टिमर ग्रानविले की सच्चाई को दर्शाया गया है जिसने चिकित्सा विज्ञान के नाम पर पहले वाइब्रेटर का आविष्कार किया था.मोर्टिमर ग्रानविले की सच्चाई को दर्शाया गया है जिसने चिकित्सा विज्ञान के नाम पर पहले वाइब्रेटर का आविष्कार किया था.मोर्टिमर ग्रानविले की सच्चाई को दर्शाया गया है जिसने चिकित्सा विज्ञान के नाम पर पहले वाइब्रेटर का आविष्कार किया था.
- पुरस्कार
- 2 कुल नामांकन
Ann Overstall Comfort
- Mrs. Huddleston
- (as Ann Comfort)
Leila Lallali
- Tess
- (as Leila Schaus)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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)
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)
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.
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.
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,
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
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
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाDr. Granville's electromechanical vibrator was portable but had a wet cell battery that weighed about 40 pounds.
- गूफ़The film suggests that the Granville Electric was the first mechanical vibrator. While it pioneered the use of electricity in the vibrator, hand-cranked models existed before the Granville.
- भाव
Edmund St. John-Smythe: [brainstorming] The Rubby-Nubby.
Mortimer Granville: The Vibratorium.
Edmund St. John-Smythe: The Jiggly-Wiggly?
Mortimer Granville: Paroxysmator.
Edmund St. John-Smythe: Oh, the Sorcerer's Apprentice.
Mortimer Granville: The Excitetator?
Edmund St. John-Smythe: Mr. Wobbly.
Mortimer Granville: Oh, please.
Edmund St. John-Smythe: What about, The Squealer?
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटDuring the end credits images of several different vibrators throughout history are shown.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Maltin on Movies: Battleship (2012)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Hysteria?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Histeria, la historia de un deseo
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $18,04,139
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $35,656
- 20 मई 2012
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $95,84,256
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 40 मि(100 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.35 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें