Metascore
53 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 33
  2. Negative: 2 out of 33
  1. Reviewed by: Melissa Anderson
    May 15, 2012
    30
    Proceeds as a tedious, clumsy diddle, constantly reminding viewers how much progress has been made since the Victorian era.
  2. Reviewed by: Kate Taylor
    May 17, 2012
    25
    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.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 12 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 4
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 4
  3. Negative: 0 out of 4
  1. 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. Full Review »
  2. 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 masturbated 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. Full Review »
  3. Only the British could make a film about the invention of the vibrator and indicate women having orgasms without showing couples having sex or anyone being rude, or crude, using the â Full Review »