Hysteria

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

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.

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 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.